The Trinity and all of its supporting doctrines are all circular in reasoning

[Peterlag]

the Word is never said to be a "thing" when it refers to the Son- the Word is a Who, not an it WHO created all things, is before all created things and in WHOM all things exist and those same things came into existence from- The Word who is God. God is not a thing but a Who.

John 1:3 “Everything came to be through it.” The logos is an “it” not a “him.”

Translators have deliberately chosen to use “him” because they wanted to emphasize that the Word was the male person we know as Jesus. This was a theological choice, not a linguistic one.

"Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you” (Proverbs 4:6).

Is the Wisdom in Proverbs 4:6 a distinct divine person?

The "Word" is not literally a person for the same reason that "Wisdom" is not literally a person. Both are to be taken metaphorically.

Jesus is the personification of the Word because He speaks the words of God. To listen to Jesus equals listening to the Word of God.

 

[synergy]

John 1:3 “Everything came to be through it.” The logos is an “it” not a “him.”

Translators have deliberately chosen to use “him” because they wanted to emphasize that the Word was the male person we know as Jesus. This was a theological choice, not a linguistic one.

"Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you” (Proverbs 4:6).

Is the Wisdom in Proverbs 4:6 a distinct divine person?

The "Word" is not literally a person for the same reason that "Wisdom" is not literally a person. Both are to be taken metaphorically.

Jesus is the personification of the Word because He speaks the words of God. To listen to Jesus equals listening to the Word of God.

Tyndale used “it” in John 1:3 because he chose the pronoun based on the English gender of the word worde rather than the masculine Greek gender of logos. In early 16th-century English, word was still treated as neuter (a holdover from Old English), so translators naturally used “it” for such nouns even when the original text used a masculine form. Thus, although logos is grammatically masculine in Greek, Tyndale’s English usage produced “it,” reflecting linguistic convention. Subsequent translations corrected this by emphasizing the masculine Greek gender.

The fact remains that the Word, who was God, tabernacled as Jesus on Earth. And because God cannot cease to be God, Jesus is God.

 

[Doug Brents]

Jesus got his way, truth, and life from God though. Sometimes through learning, observation, or gifts.

Jesus observed/learned the way from God:

John 5​

19So Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing by Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it. For whatever the Father does, the Son also does.​

Jesus learned the truth from God;

John 8​

40But now you are trying to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham never did such a thing.​

Jesus Got his life from God:

​

John 5​

26For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.​

So what we have learned here is that Jesus being "the way, the truth, and the life" is dependent on what he gained. Again, you have offered nothing relevant to assist you in making Jesus God.

Jesus did indeed learn, grow, and become better as a man, as stated in Luke 2:52. Yet that is referring to Him when He was a man. He already had all these things before He emptied Himself to become a man.

I see you have an unhealthy habit of saying things the Bible doesn't say. The Bible never says "All life came from and through Jesus."

It does. All things that were made were created by and through Him (John 1:3).

I want you to acknowledge these things. I would also like to remind you that you are conversing with people who have read the Bible exhaustively. You aren't going to sneak anything into Scripture.

If you had read and studied Scripture exhaustively, then you would not hold to such blasphemy as to say that Jesus is not God.

I see where you are going wrong everywhere. First of all, yes the Bible does state that Jesus received his (eternal) life:

John 5
26For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.

1 John 1
2And this is the life that was revealed; we have seen it and testified to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us.

John 5 says that the Father has life in Himself, and has allowed the Son to have life in Himself as well. Jesus may not have had eternal life during the 33 years of His life. But He did have it before He took on flesh, and He has it now.

1 John 1 says that the eternal life that was with the Father and is now revealed to us. That is Jesus.

The way eternal life was revealed was through the teachings Jesus provided to his apostles, not as Jesus himself.

That is not what 1 John 1 says. Care to try again?

Secondly, the Bible never says Jesus is eternal or "existed since before the beginning." John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the Word" with no reference to the Word existing before the beginning.

Wrong. The beginning was when Creation happened. And EVERYTHING that was created was created THROUGH/BY the Word. That means that the Word had to have been there before the very first thing was created (He could not have created Himself).

These make no mention of such. Context doesn't support it. Too much misinformation to really correct it. You probably won't read this far anyway.

Revelation 1:8 - "'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.'" - This is Jesus speaking, and He says He is the Beginning and the End of all things.
Revelation 21:6 - "Then He said to me, “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." - Again, Jesus.
Revelation 22:13 - "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." - And again, Jesus.
Hebrews 13:8 - "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, and forever."Jesus is eternal.

There is no misinformation, and the context absolutely does support the fact that Jesus is eternal, everlasting, was there before Creation, and will never cease to be.

Now that we have disproven all of your points, interested to see what you will come up with next.

Nothing that I have said has been disproved (other than possibly in your mind). And I need not "come up" with anything new at all. All of what I have said comes directly from Scripture.

 

[Runningman]

the Word is never said to be a "thing" when it refers to the Son- the Word is a Who, not an it WHO created all things, is before all created things and in WHOM all things exist and those same things came into existence from- The Word who is God. God is not a thing but a Who.

What is your answer regarding John referring to the Word as a that, which, this, that, and it instead of a he, who, him, his, etc?

 

[Peterlag]

Tyndale used “it” in John 1:3 because he chose the pronoun based on the English gender of the word worde rather than the masculine Greek gender of logos. In early 16th-century English, word was still treated as neuter (a holdover from Old English), so translators naturally used “it” for such nouns even when the original text used a masculine form. Thus, although logos is grammatically masculine in Greek, Tyndale’s English usage produced “it,” reflecting linguistic convention. Subsequent translations corrected this by emphasizing the masculine Greek gender.

The fact remains that the Word, who was God, tabernacled as Jesus on Earth. And because God cannot cease to be God, Jesus is God.

Almost every English version translates John 14:17 similarly to “even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him.” Translators capitalize “Spirit” and use “he” and “him” because of their theology. The Greek word “spirit” is neuter and the text could also be translated as “the spirit of truth” and paired with “which” and “it.” The New American Bible reads “which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it.” Capitalizing the “H” and “S” and using the English pronoun “He” is appropriate when God is being referred to as “the Holy Spirit.” However, when we see the “h” and “s” having the lowercase such as "the holy spirit" and all the pronouns referring to that spirit being impersonal such as “it” and “which” is when the subject under discussion is the gift of God’s nature.

 

[Runningman]

Jesus did indeed learn, grow, and become better as a man, as stated in Luke 2:52. Yet that is referring to Him when He was a man. He already had all these things before He emptied Himself to become a man.

Jesus was only ever a man and according to the Bible is still a man right now. Here's a couple questions to get you thinking. Is the Word flesh? Can you find any quotes by Jesus in the Old Testament?

It does. All things that were made were created by and through Him (John 1:3).

This makes no reference to Jesus here. No mention of his name. Ever wonder why John called the Word a thing in 1 John 1, why they decided to translate the Word as a "he" in John 1, and create a contradiction? We can work around this by knowing that John 1 personifies the Word. You know that God's spoken words aren't God right? I would also add, John didn't believe Jesus was God as evidenced by Acts 4:23-31.

If you had read and studied Scripture exhaustively, then you would not hold to such blasphemy as to say that Jesus is not God.

Saying "God is a man" is blasphemy, which is the sin you're guilt of. Saying "God is not a man" is not blasphemy and is Scriptural. Numbers 23:19 explicitly states "God is not a man."

John 5 says that the Father has life in Himself, and has allowed the Son to have life in Himself as well. Jesus may not have had eternal life during the 33 years of His life. But He did have it before He took on flesh, and He has it now.

The "Son" in your trinity is fully human according to the Bible. There is no other context the Son could have possibly had eternal life except as a human.

Luke 1
35And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.

1 John 1 says that the eternal life that was with the Father and is now revealed to us. That is Jesus.

That's not Jesus. Jesus is a he, eternal life is a thing that someone can have.

That is not what 1 John 1 says. Care to try again?

Wrong. The beginning was when Creation happened. And EVERYTHING that was created was created THROUGH/BY the Word. That means that the Word had to have been there before the very first thing was created (He could not have created Himself).

This part is simply a parallel to the Old Testament where God created alone, using spoken words, not as a party of persons.

Nehemiah 9
6You alone are the LORD.
You created the heavens,
the highest heavens with all their host,
the earth and all that is on it,
the seas and all that is in them.
You give life to all things,
and the host of heaven worships You.

Revelation 1:8 - "'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.'" - This is Jesus speaking, and He says He is the Beginning and the End of all things.

Revelation 1:8 isn't about Jesus. Begin with verse 4 and see how "who is and who was and who is to come" is not Jesus.

Revelation 21:6 - "Then He said to me, “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." - Again, Jesus.

There is no consensus that this is Jesus talking in modern bibles. Some Bible still use red-lettering for the words of Jesus and many do not red letter this verse. These are trinitarian Bible's, too, reflecting that the consensus among trinitarians is that this is not Jesus. Same thing in Revelation 1:8. As far as I know, only the KJV will red-letter Rev 1:8 anymore.

Revelation 22:13 - "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." - And again, Jesus.

This is probably Jesus, but this does not hold any significance to being God. God and Jesus share some titles, but there are about a dozen they don't share.

Hebrews 13:8 - "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, and forever."Jesus is eternal.

Didn't you say earlier "Jesus did indeed learn, grow, and become better as a man, as stated in Luke 2:52." So how do you suppose Jesus is always the same?

There is no misinformation, and the context absolutely does support the fact that Jesus is eternal, everlasting, was there before Creation, and will never cease to be.

Perhaps you have innocently misunderstood almost everything due to theological blinders.

Nothing that I have said has been disproved (other than possibly in your mind). And I need not "come up" with anything new at all. All of what I have said comes directly from Scripture.

Ditto.

 

[amazing grace]

Thank you for your opinion. It demonstrates lack of trust in what Scripture says, lack of study of Scripture, and a reliance on humanistic logic.

Your welcome.

Yes, it is a big deal. It took both God and flesh to be and do what was required to save mankind. Man is not capable of being pure enough to be a perfect sacrifice, yet it also required the sacrifice to be completely human in order to be a kinsman redeemer. It requires both God and man in one body to be the savior.

Apparently Jesus of Nazareth, a man, a human being, attested by God met the requirement.
Apparently, a man, the human being, who told the truth he heard from God, met the requirement.
Apparently, a man, the human being, who was the kinsman redeemer ---- Jesus was sent to his kinsmen the lost sheep of Israel, met the requirement.
Apparently, a man, the human being, who through obedience corrected the sin and death penalty brought about by Adam and brought life to those who believe in him met the requirement.
Apparently the Lamb of God, the antitype of the Passover Lamb in the OT - the man, the human being, introduced in the Gospel of John who takes away the sin of the world met the requirement.

No, it did not take a hybrid human being to be the savior. A God man is NOT completely human --- a God man is nothing like a human being nothing like Adam 'who was a type of the one who was to come'.

Again, thank you for your "logical" opinion. The angels probably were created before the Earth was created, but that is not who God is talking to in Gen 1. The angels are not part of the "us" that is God.

Your welcome again -- it's my pleasure.

Yet wisdom is never called "God" as the Word is, nor is wisdom ever said to have taken on the flesh of a man and lived among us. The Word is God, and the Word became flesh and lived among us in the man Jesus. THAT MAKES JESUS GOD!!

First off, John 1:1c 'the word was God'.......God is a noun used as an adjective here. So the word was God in a descriptive sense.

And, it could be said that wisdom became flesh, incarnate in the Proverbs woman described in Proverbs 31:10-31. She is the embodiment of wisdom, God's wisdom. She displays and fully expresses the wisdom of God in a wife.
In the same manner, Jesus is the embodiment of the word, i.e. the word became flesh. He displays and fully expresses the word and wisdom of God as the Son of God, the Messiah.

Jesus doesn't have to be God. Nothing requires Jesus to be God. The word which fully expressed God or the full expression of God became flesh and dwelt among us as the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Correct, the body does not. But the spirit and soul can both operate separately form the body and from each other. The flesh is reliant on the spirit and the soul (as James 2:26 states).
But the same is not true of God. Each of the three separate parts of God can and do operate separately from each other, and are no less God separately than they are together.

You at first compared the two - a human, body, soul, and spirit with the Triune God.
Now, the same is not true of God??? then you cannot compre the two.

Thank you for your opinion on this. But since it contradicts Scripture, I will ignore your opinion.

Nope can't find a scripture which contains 'Triune God' nor describes a 'Triune God'.

Jesus, while He was a man, was less than the Father (He had emptied Himself). But He was God before He emptied Himself, He is God after He ascended back into Heaven, and He was God while He was on Earth in the form of a man.

God is our Father and Jesus' Father. God is our God and Jesus' God even after Jesus' resurrection and ascension ---V

I am coming soon . . . . The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name. [Revelation 3:11,12]

Jesus is not seated on the throne of God; he is at the right hand of God his Father.

You are not God, so I would not expect you to have all the traits and characteristics of God.

Keep up with the conversation here: in the culture when Abraham lived, when a person makes a covenant and cuts animals in half (killing them) and then walks between the halves, he is saying, "If I break this covenant, let what has happened to these animals happen to me."

I did answer. That is not stated explicitly in that Scripture. It is demonstrated in the passing through the cut pieces which must be understood through the culture of the time. However, breaking a covenant with God is sin. Sin is any breaking of God's Law which is a part of the Covenant God made with mankind. And the penalty for sin is death. So then, the penalty for breaking the covenant with God is death: eternal spiritual separation from the source of all life, God.

You said it was within that context ---- it wasn't. Okay I looked it up and you are correct according to culture:

In ancient Near Eastern royal land grant treaties, this type of ritual was done to “seal” the promises made. Through this blood covenant, God was confirming primarily three promises He had made to Abraham: the promise of heirs, of land, and of blessings (Genesis 12:2-3). A blood covenant communicated a self-maledictory oath. The parties involved would walk the path between the slaughtered animals so to say, “May this be done to me if I do not keep my oath.” Jeremiah 34:18-19 also speaks about this type of oath-making.

However, there was an important difference in the blood oath that God made with Abraham in Genesis 15. When the evening came, God appeared in the form of a “smoking fire pot and flaming torch [that] passed between the pieces” (Genesis 15:17). But Abraham had fallen “into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him” (verse 12). Thus, God alone passed through the pieces of dead animals, and the covenant was sealed by God alone. Nothing depended on Abraham. Everything depended on God, who promised to be faithful to His covenant. “When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself” (Hebrews 6:13-18). Abraham and his descendants could trust, count on, and believe in everything God promised. [Got questions/blood covenant]

I am also correct that this covenant was different in that God alone sealed this covenant.

to be continued.........

 

[civic]

What is your answer regarding John referring to the Word as a that, which, this, that, and it instead of a he, who, him, his, etc?

What do you do with John calling the Word He and Him in Johns prologue, not it, what, this, that etc.......

 

[civic]

What is your answer regarding John referring to the Word as a that, which, this, that, and it instead of a he, who, him, his, etc?

Context is King- you cannot see the forrest through the trees.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

can you see a word ?
can you touch a word ?

next fallacy...................

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

What is your answer regarding John referring to the Word as a that, which, this, that, and it instead of a he, who, him, his, etc?

In the NT as also classical Greek, and especially in John’s writings, the neuter is frequently used of a person when he is being thought of in an abstract way. This happens at least 6 times29 in which a neuter relative is used to refer to an antecedent who is obviously a person. An example is found in John 17:24: Πάτερ, ὅ δέδωκάς μοι, θέλω ἵνα ὅπου ἐιμὶ ἐγὼ κἀκεῖνοι ὦσιν μετ ̓ ἐμοῦ, “Father, I desire that they also whom [the neuter, ὅ] Thou has given Me be with Me where I am.” The antecedent is obviously not impersonal. This abstract neuter is used elsewhere of God (John 4:22) and of men (John 6:37, 39, 17:2 ; 1 John 5:4).

1 John 1:1–3 has a list of five relative clauses serving as object of a verb in v 3. The relatives are all ὅ (neuter) and the antecedent is not stated. Two interpretations are conceivable: one is impersonal (“we proclaim to you the message which”), the other is personal (“we proclaim to you the One who”). The obvious parallel to the prologue of the gospel of John strongly indicates the personal view, and the use of the expression ὅ…αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν, “which our hands handled” (my translation) requires the personal view—one cannot feel a message with his hands. What should be noted particularly here is that the neuter does not require the impersonal interpretation. It may refer in an abstract way to “all He was and did, abstract Deity.”boyer

John 17:24; 1 John 1:1–3 (5 times). There are other places where the neuter relative has a grammatically neuter antecedent (πᾶν), so that the gender mismatch is obscured: John 6:37, 39, 17:2.


hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

continued :

Verse 2 identifies that the word of life's life "was manifested," which in the context of John's writings is no doubt a reference from his gospel where Jesus Christ is the word and life manifested (see John 1).

Note also that the first four uses of ὃ clearly refer to something "concerning the Word of life," meaning concerning Jesus Christ:

• That something was from the beginning
• That something was capable of being heard
• That something was capable of being seen
• That something was capable of being handled

It is also clear that John did not end v.1 with a statement "which is the Word of life", but rather, "concerning" (περί) that Word. The former might have helped clear any ambiguity by making it a direct identificaion. But περί is simply making a statement that this "something" is "in reference to" that Word of life in some way, whether by direct identification (i.e., the Word of life itself) or direct content (i.e, information about the Word of life).

Recall Boyer rejects the impersonal idea in part because "one cannot feel a message with his hands." But that is a bit of a myopic view, for a written message can be handled, and so Scripture fits the four points as well as Christ:

• The content of the Scripture concerning Christ was from the beginning (Gen 3:16 is one, but from other revelation, even the creation narrative itself)https://hermeneutics.stackexchange....elative-pronoun-declined-in-the-neuter-gender
• The content of Scripture is capable of being heard (and very often was prior to being written; "thus saith the Lord...")
• The written Scripture is clearly capable of being seen (since it is read)
• The written Scripture is also capable of being handled (for it is written upon something)

So there are two very viable options for "that which": Jesus Christ Himself or Scripture as a testimony of Jesus Christ.

But there are more reasons to see the impersonal than just the match to the four points above.

1. The latter fits the common use of the neuter gender relative pronoun as referring to conceptual things.
2. The statements in v.1 are made prior to referencing that the life was manifested, which implies it refers to things concerning the word prior to that manifestation; this is furthered by the fact that v.2 emphasizes the seeing and hearing because of the manifestation.
3. John's focus in the passage is the testimony and declaration of the word of life (v.2), which he is furthering by his writing of the present letter (v.4); this parallels to the testimony of prior Scripture "concerning" Christ.
4. The book of 1 John focuses extensively on the testimony/declaration of the verbalrevelation in various ways:
   • John emphasizes the things "heard" of God (besides 1:1, 3): 1:5; 2:7, 18, 24 (x2); 3:11; 4:3, 6.
   • John emphasizes "commandments" and "promises" in his letter (i.e., words of command or promise, not a person): 2:3, 4, 7 (x3), 8, 25 (x2); 3:22, 23 (x2), 24; 4:21; 5:2, 3 (x2).
   • John emphasizes the "confession" and "declaration" and "witness" of the "message" heard/known (besides 1:2-3): 1:5 (x2); 3:11; 4:2, 3, 15; 5:6 [and v.8 if the dubious Johannine comma is included], 9 (x3), 10 (x2), 11.
   • John emphasizes the "truth" (over lies) of the content and givers of it: 1:6 (x2), 8, 10; 2:4 (x2), 21 (x3), 22, 27; 3:18, 19; 4:6; 5:6, 10.
   • John emphasizes his own "writing" of the testimony (besides 1:4): "I write" 2:1, 7, 8, 12, 13 (x3), "I have written" 2:14 (x2), 21, 26; 5:13.
   • The result of the above is near 80 some times in the few short chapters of 1 John, the apostle refers in some way to the written/spoken (i.e., verbal) testimony.
5. This written declaration as testimony was the final point he emphasized at the end of his gospel, the testimony given in writing by him about Christ (John 21:24).

If the first four uses of ὃ in 1 John 1:1 are referring to the prior written testimony, then the fifth use of ὃ in v.3 is, in context, a reference to John's (and the apostles') personal revelation from the manifestation of life (v.2) being added to all that was previously available (v.1). That is v.1 is the record of previous revelation, v.2a is the manifestation that brought more revelation, and v.2b-3a is the now record resulting from that living revelation.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Doug Brents]

Jesus was only ever a man

Wrong

and according to the Bible is still a man right now. Here's a couple questions to get you thinking. Is the Word flesh?

John 1:14 - "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us" - Yes.

Can you find any quotes by Jesus in the Old Testament?

No, He was not flesh in the OT, He was God and with God (the Father). Everywhere in the OT where God speaks is Jesus, and the Father, and the Holy Spirit speaking.

This makes no reference to Jesus here.

One more time for the slowest in class: The Word is God (John 1:1). The Word became flesh/a man (John 1:14), and we know the man the Word became as Jesus. The Word created everything that was made: Jesus created everything that was made.

No mention of his name. Ever wonder why John called the Word a thing in 1 John 1,

John did not call the Word a "thing".

why they decided to translate the Word as a "he" in John 1, and create a contradiction?

There is no contradiction.

We can work around this

"Work around this"? So you are admitting that you are attempting to "work around" (manipulate) the Truth to fit your preconceptions? Thank you for admitting that.

by knowing that John 1 personifies the Word. You know that God's spoken words aren't God right? I would also add, John didn't believe Jesus was God as evidenced by Acts 4:23-31.

Not sure what you are talking about. John is not the speaker (at least not identified as the speaker) in Acts 4:23-31 (that is attributed to the companions to whom they reported (Acts 4:24)).

Saying "God is a man" is blasphemy, which is the sin you're guilt of. Saying "God is not a man" is not blasphemy and is Scriptural. Numbers 23:19 explicitly states "God is not a man."

Bless your little heart!!

The "Son" in your trinity is fully human according to the Bible.

Yes, He is. And He is ALSO fully God.

There is no other context the Son could have possibly had eternal life except as a human.

Wrong. Heb 8:13

Luke 1
35And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.

Isa 9:6-7
"For a Child will be born to us, a Son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
7 There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace
On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
From then on and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord of armies will accomplish this."
This is Jesus. Son of God equals Mighty God equals Eternal Father equals the Word equals Jesus.

That's not Jesus. Jesus is a he, eternal life is a thing that someone can have.

Wait a minute. Just above, you said that the Word (which is Jesus) was a thing. Now Jesus is a "He". Hmm. Get your story straight here. 1 John 1:1-3 - "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life 2 and the life was revealed, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was revealed to us 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ."
Notice that Jesus here is called the "Word of Life", and the Life was revealed, the Life was with the Father (denoting preexistence and deity).

This part is simply a parallel to the Old Testament where God created alone, using spoken words, not as a party of persons.

Nehemiah 9
6You alone are the LORD.
You created the heavens,
the highest heavens with all their host,
the earth and all that is on it,
the seas and all that is in them.
You give life to all things,
and the host of heaven worships You.

It is indeed a parallel, but in John 1:1-3 we are given additional details that we don't get from Nehemiah or Genesis: Jesus was with God and Jesus was God at Creation.

Revelation 1:8 isn't about Jesus. Begin with verse 4 and see how "who is and who was and who is to come" is not Jesus.

"John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from Him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before His throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood— 6 and He made us into a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen. 7 Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.
8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”"
Who is speaking in verse 8? It is Jesus who is speaking. For He is the one who released us from our sin by His blood. He is the One who made us into a Kingdom of priests. He is the One coming in the clouds whom very eye will see. He is the Lord God.

There is no consensus that this is Jesus talking in modern bibles. Some Bible still use red-lettering for the words of Jesus and many do not red letter this verse. These are trinitarian Bible's, too, reflecting that the consensus among trinitarians is that this is not Jesus. Same thing in Revelation 1:8. As far as I know, only the KJV will red-letter Rev 1:8 anymore.

The red letters are meaningless; they are man's convention to make it clearer who the translator thinks is speaking. But they are not part of the original writings. What matters it what the original Scripture says.

This is probably Jesus, but this does not hold any significance to being God. God and Jesus share some titles, but there are about a dozen they don't share.

It is irrelevant that they don't share some titles. What is relevant is that they share the titles "Mighty God", "Eternal Father", "Alpha and Omega", and several others. It is also significant that Jesus is the very image of the Eternal God (Col 1:15).

Didn't you say earlier "Jesus did indeed learn, grow, and become better as a man, as stated in Luke 2:52." So how do you suppose Jesus is always the same?

As a man, He grew. As God He already knew everything. Remember, He emptied Himself when He became a man, so He had room to be refilled.

Ditto.

What a shallow response.

 

[Doug Brents]

Apparently Jesus of Nazareth, a man, a human being, attested by God met the requirement.
Apparently, a man, the human being, who told the truth he heard from God, met the requirement.
Apparently, a man, the human being, who was the kinsman redeemer ---- Jesus was sent to his kinsmen the lost sheep of Israel, met the requirement.
Apparently, a man, the human being, who through obedience corrected the sin and death penalty brought about by Adam and brought life to those who believe in him met the requirement.
Apparently the Lamb of God, the antitype of the Passover Lamb in the OT - the man, the human being, introduced in the Gospel of John who takes away the sin of the world met the requirement.

He did, because He was also God.

No, it did not take a hybrid human being to be the savior. A God man is NOT completely human --- a God man is nothing like a human being nothing like Adam 'who was a type of the one who was to come'.

Blindness.

First off, John 1:1c 'the word was God'.......God is a noun used as an adjective here. So the word was God in a descriptive sense.

Again, your opinion. But it doesn't fit what Scripture says.

And, it could be said that wisdom became flesh, incarnate in the Proverbs

It could. But it is NOT.

You at first compared the two - a human, body, soul, and spirit with the Triune God.
Now, the same is not true of God??? then you cannot compre the two.

No, not every constraint on an analogy is equally constraining on the reality.

Nope can't find a scripture which contains 'Triune God'

That is because the phrase is not there.

nor describes a 'Triune God'.

That is because you are blind to the Truth.

God is our Father and Jesus' Father. God is our God and Jesus' God even after Jesus' resurrection and ascension

Jesus is "Mighty God" and "Eternal Father" according to Isa 9:6-7.

You said it was within that context ---- it wasn't. Okay I looked it up and you are correct according to culture:

In ancient Near Eastern royal land grant treaties, this type of ritual was done to “seal” the promises made. Through this blood covenant, God was confirming primarily three promises He had made to Abraham: the promise of heirs, of land, and of blessings (Genesis 12:2-3). A blood covenant communicated a self-maledictory oath. The parties involved would walk the path between the slaughtered animals so to say, “May this be done to me if I do not keep my oath.” Jeremiah 34:18-19 also speaks about this type of oath-making.

However, there was an important difference in the blood oath that God made with Abraham in Genesis 15. When the evening came, God appeared in the form of a “smoking fire pot and flaming torch [that] passed between the pieces” (Genesis 15:17). But Abraham had fallen “into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him” (verse 12). Thus, God alone passed through the pieces of dead animals, and the covenant was sealed by God alone. Nothing depended on Abraham. Everything depended on God, who promised to be faithful to His covenant. “When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself” (Hebrews 6:13-18). Abraham and his descendants could trust, count on, and believe in everything God promised. [Got questions/blood covenant]

I am also correct that this covenant was different in that God alone sealed this covenant.

Indeed it is different. God took all the responsibility for the consequences of the breaking of the oath on Himself.

 

[amazing grace]

Man is completely incapable of repairing that breach. We cannot do anything, say anything, pay anything that would make us right with God again. God, if He wanted a continued relationship with He creation, had to pay that price for us. But He had to do it through one of us; He had to become one of us and go through all the temptations, struggles, trials, etc. that we go through (yet without sinning) in order to pay the cost that we could not pay.

Scripture does say that Jesus was a man. But it also says that Jesus was God (Scriptures that you conveniently overlook, reinterpret, or ignore).

but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. [Romans 5:8-11] Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— .....Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come......But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. .....For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.......For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. [Romans 5:12,14,15,17,19] It's not the BIG PICTURE but there's the story of redemption, the real story wrapped up in a nutshell.

God showed his love for us not 'God died for us' or 'He died for us' ----- Christ died for us. We are justified by HIS blood, Christ's blood not God's blood. Adam 'was a type of the one who was to come' --- therefore Jesus had to be AN ACTUAL REAL human being NOT a God man ---- there can be no comparison between Adam and a God man.

Did Jesus sin? - No. He could not have sinned and still been the propitiation for our sins.
Is it a sin to claim to be God if you are not God? - Yes!
Did Jesus claim to be God? - Yes, several times.
Matt 12:8 - I am the Lord of the Sabbath - Only God is the Lord of the Sabbath

Yes, the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath.

John 8:58 - Before Abraham was, I AM. - Only God is the "I AM". And only God could be present before someone who lived hundreds of years before his own birth.

Yep, Jesus was before Abraham not literally but in prophecy ---- At Genesis 3:15, the very first prophecy: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” (as far as I know God is not 'her offspring') It was in that 'blood covenant' in Genesis 15:5...... 'And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” That offspring would include as one of his descendants - Jesus Christ (as far as I know God is not an offspring, a descendant of Abraham) ---- Jesus was claiming to be God -- through prophecy, through the foreknowledge and plan of God ---- Jesus was before Abraham.

John 10:30, 33 - Jesus claimed to be one with God

So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe." I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.” [John 10:24,25a...28-30] I and the Father are one in the care of the sheep - one in purpose and intent.
Jesus did not say he was God --- he told them who he was when they asked him in verse 24 --- they did not believe him so @ John 10:33 they made an accusation - 'you being a man, make yourself God' ---- They didn't believe he was who he said he was Jesus Christ --- the Messiah so they started making false accusations against him.

John 20:28 - Thomas called Him God, and He did not dispute or deny it. Accepting worship and accepting being called God (if you are not God) is a sin.

Thomas did call Jesus God. The thing is how did he mean it? I believe Thomas called Jesus My Lord and My God - when Thomas clearly saw the risen Lord -- He recognized Jesus as his Lord and acknowledged the God who raised him from the dead, and he stated that fact.

John 8:12 - Jesus is the light of the World - 1 John 1:5 - God is light

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. [John 5:14-16]......Are these people at the Sermon on the Mount also God because they are the light of the world?????

Yes, that sounds stupid but no less stupid of trying to make Jesus God because they both have something to do with being 'light'.

Heb 1:8 - the Father calls Jesus God

Well, what do we do about the human Israelite Davidic King to whom this is first addressed at Psalm 45?
Is he also God because he was addressed as 'God'?

If Jesus is not God, then the Father lied, Jesus Himself lied, and that means that Jesus cannot be our savior. But if we believe that He is our savior, then He MUST be God.

No one lied because no one said Jesus is God except the creeds developed some 350 - 400 years after Christ.

The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.”
Just then his disciples came back. They marveled that he was talking with a woman, but no one said, “What do you seek?” or, “Why are you talking with her?” So the woman left her water jar and went away into town and said to the people, “Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ?” They went out of the town and were coming to him. [John 4:25-30]..... So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them, and he stayed there two days. And many more believed because of his word. They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.” [John 4:40-42]

 

[Doug Brents]

but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. [Romans 5:8-11] Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— .....Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come......But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. .....For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.......For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. [Romans 5:12,14,15,17,19] It's not the BIG PICTURE but there's the story of redemption, the real story wrapped up in a nutshell.

God showed his love for us not 'God died for us' or 'He died for us' ----- Christ died for us. We are justified by HIS blood, Christ's blood not God's blood. Adam 'was a type of the one who was to come' --- therefore Jesus had to be AN ACTUAL REAL human being NOT a God man ---- there can be no comparison between Adam and a God man.

It is always good, when telling a lie, the use 95% truth with your 5% of untruth. Yes, Christ died for us. And Christ Jesus is God. So you failed. There is indeed a huge amount of comparison between Adam and Christ, but I don't expect you to be able to see it.

Yes, the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath.

And only God is Lord of the Sabbath. Which makes Jesus God.

Yep, Jesus was before Abraham not literally but in prophecy ----

Then you are saying Jesus lied? He said He existed before Abraham, not in prophecy but in truth, in reality. So either He lied, or He is God. Those are the only choices. Either He lied, which means He cannot be our savior; or He is God, which means you are on the wrong side of this debate.

So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe." I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.” [John 10:24,25a...28-30] I and the Father are one in the care of the sheep - one in purpose and intent.

Did He qualify His statement in any way? No. He did not say they are one in the care of the sheep. He said they are one! Period!

Jesus did not say he was God --- he told them who he was when they asked him in verse 24 --- they did not believe him so @ John 10:33 they made an accusation - 'you being a man, make yourself God' ---- They didn't believe he was who he said he was Jesus Christ --- the Messiah so they started making false accusations against him.

SMH, they understood exactly what He was saying to them. They understood He was claiming to be God, which is why they tried to stone Him. If He was ONLY a man, then He was indeed guilty of blasphemy. But because He was/is God, He was not guilty.

Thomas did call Jesus God. The thing is how did he mean it? I believe Thomas called Jesus My Lord and My God - when Thomas clearly saw the risen Lord -- He recognized Jesus as his Lord and acknowledged the God who raised him from the dead, and he stated that fact.

That is not what Thomas said. He called Jesus "God". And if Jesus was not God, then accepting the acclamation of Godhood from Thomas would have been a sin.

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. [John 5:14-16]......Are these people at the Sermon on the Mount also God because they are the light of the world?????

No, because we, the Church, just like the moon, do not make our own light. We reflect the light to the world. God is the source of Light, and Jesus is also the source of Light.

Well, what do we do about the human Israelite Davidic King to whom this is first addressed at Psalm 45?
Is he also God because he was addressed as 'God'?

David is not called "God" in Psalm 45.

 

[amazing grace]

He did, because He was also God.

Blindness.

God wasn't attest by God in Acts.....God who told the truth he heard from God???? God compared to Adam???? the Lamb OF God - the Lamb is God????? Okie dokie talk about blindness.

Again, your opinion. But it doesn't fit what Scripture says.

It fits exactly within the Greek grammar.

It could. But it is NOT.

Yep, the Proverbs wife embodied wisdom, God's wisdom.

No, not every constraint on an analogy is equally constraining on the reality.

IOW, there is not comparison.

That is because the phrase is not there.

That is because you are blind to the Truth.

I know the phrase is not there neither the description of a Triune God has nothing to do with blindness - it's because there is no Triune God.

Jesus is "Mighty God" and "Eternal Father" according to Isa 9:6-7.

Moses is called God, human judges are called God...... Isaiah 9:6,7 is initially addressed to a Davidic King in whom God thought was worthy enough to bear these names sometimes known as theophoric titles. Although, it is also a reference of the coming Messiah describing God's nature in the promised ruler but we never see this carried over and quoted or attributed to him in the NT. These theophoric titles were more descriptive in nature than personal names for the child.

Indeed it is different. God took all the responsibility for the consequences of the breaking of the oath on Himself.

Yea, as I said earlier and you disagreed - It was a unilateral covenant - God swore by himself.

 

[amazing grace]

It is always good, when telling a lie, the use 95% truth with your 5% of untruth. Yes, Christ died for us. And Christ Jesus is God. So you failed. There is indeed a huge amount of comparison between Adam and Christ, but I don't expect you to be able to see it.

If I was lying you would probably be correct in your assessment. Romans 5 is a direct comparison between Adam and Christ.....which I said. Adam, a human being "who was a 'type' of the one who was to come" --- a type of Christ making Christ the antitype to Adam....so he had to be as much a human being as Adam was.........You do know about typologies right?

And only God is Lord of the Sabbath. Which makes Jesus God.

Then you are saying Jesus lied? He said He existed before Abraham, not in prophecy but in truth, in reality. So either He lied, or He is God. Those are the only choices. Either He lied, which means He cannot be our savior; or He is God, which means you are on the wrong side of this debate.

No, Jesus didn't lie at all ----- the verse does not specify literal preexistence or notional preexistence ---- therefore, it can just as easily mean that Jesus existed before Abraham through prophecy, through the foreknowledge and plan of God.

Did He qualify His statement in any way? No. He did not say they are one in the care of the sheep. He said they are one! Period!

Read John 10 - it's there in the context.

John 17:20-23 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. We are to be one with the Father also ----- if John 10:30 means Jesus is one with the Father and means that he is God -- is John 10:30 also applicable to us if we are one with the Father we are God?

SMH, they understood exactly what He was saying to them. They understood He was claiming to be God, which is why they tried to stone Him. If He was ONLY a man, then He was indeed guilty of blasphemy. But because He was/is God, He was not guilty.

Sorry, I stick with the context especially knowing that they did not believe he was the Messiah --- hmmm - they understood him to be a man --- "because you, being a man, make yourself God.” ---- the language used shows they think he is claiming to be someone he isn't. Which would be the Christ, the Messiah from John 10:24,25. Jesus did rebuke them in John 10:34-36.

That is not what Thomas said. He called Jesus "God". And if Jesus was not God, then accepting the acclamation of Godhood from Thomas would have been a sin.

Thomas said 'My Lord and My God'. You take it to literally mean Thomas saying Jesus is God - heck just a few days earlier he didn't even believe Jesus had risen - now he is turning around and calling Jesus Almighty God --- I don't think so.
Moses accepted being called 'god' - did he sin? Judges in the OT are called 'gods' - have they sinned?

No, because we, the Church, just like the moon, do not make our own light. We reflect the light to the world. God is the source of Light, and Jesus is also the source of Light.

Neither is Jesus God because he is the light of the world and God is light --- Jesus is the radiance of the glory of God. So it's God's glory, God's light that Jesus reflects.
In Revelation, the new Jerusalem: "And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. The Lamb is the lamp reflecting God's light.

David is not called "God" in Psalm 45.

I didn't say he was ---- there is a line of kings descended from David which are known as Davidic kings.

<snip> Well, what do we do about the human Israelite Davidic King to whom this is first addressed at Psalm 45?
Is he also God because he was addressed as 'God'?

 

[Alter2Ego]

Jesus was only ever a man and according to the Bible is still a man right now. Here's a couple questions to get you thinking. Is the Word flesh? Can you find any quotes by Jesus in the Old Testament?

Really, Runningman? Which Bible are you getting that from? I've read from numerous Bible versions, including those translated by lying Trinitarians, and despite of their attempts to manipulate scripture, none have succeeded in painting Jesus as a mere mortal "right now." Please quote scripture verbatim and provide Bible book, chapter, and verse.


According to scripture, Jesus was a spirit person aka an ANGEL prior to his spirit life being transferred into the womb of Mary.

Luke 1:26​

In her sixth month, the angel Gaʹbri·el was sent from God to a city of Galʹi·lee named Nazʹa·reth,

Luke 1:27​

to a virgin promised in marriage to a man named Joseph of David’s house, and the name of the virgin was Mary.

Luke 1:30​

So the angel said to her: “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.

Luke 1:31​

And look! you will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and you are to name him Jesus.

Luke 1:32​

This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father,

Luke 1:33​

and he will rule as King over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end to his Kingdom.”

Luke 1:34​

But Mary said to the angel: “How is this to be, since I am not having sexual relations with a man?”

Luke 1:35​

In answer the angel said to her: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. And for that reason the one who is born will be called holy, God’s Son.
In answer the angel said to her: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. And for that reason the one who is born will be called holy, God’s Son.

 

[Alter2Ego]

the Word is never said to be a "thing" when it refers to the Son- the Word is a Who, not an it WHO created all things, is before all created things and in WHOM all things exist and those same things came into existence from- The Word who is God. God is not a thing but a Who.

John 1:3 “Everything came to be through it.” The logos is an “it” not a “him.”

Translators have deliberately chosen to use “him” because they wanted to emphasize that the Word was the male person we know as Jesus. This was a theological choice, not a linguistic one.

"Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you” (Proverbs 4:6).

Is the Wisdom in Proverbs 4:6 a distinct divine person?

The "Word" is not literally a person for the same reason that "Wisdom" is not literally a person. Both are to be taken metaphorically.

Jesus is the personification of the Word because He speaks the words of God. To listen to Jesus equals listening to the Word of God.

Peterlag:

Although I agree with some of what you have posted on the matter of Christendom's pagan trinity god at this website, I disagree with some of your comments.

Tell us, where did you get your information that, to quote you: "The logos is an 'it' not a 'him'"? Your claim that "Translators have deliberately chosen to use "him" at that particular portion of scripture (as opposed to "it") can hardly be dismissed as merely a theological choice when context is paid attention to. Part of the context to John 1:3 (surrounding words, verses, and chapters) makes it abundantly clear that the individual referred to as "the Word" or "the logos" is indeed a HIM. Notice part of the context below. The portions in brackets are my additions in order to clarify matters.


"{14} And the Word [the logos] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, being full of grace and truth: and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father. {18} and though no one hath ever seen God, or can see Him: yet the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, hath made Him known. (John 1:14 and 18 -- Worsley New Testament)

John 1 Worsley's New Testament

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16 -- King James Bible)

John 3 KJV

Now, suppose you explain to those reading this thread how the term "only-begotten son" -- indicating a male gender-- turned into "it" within the context of the very same book of John, particularly the context at John 3:16 where it says in plain language that God gave his only-begotten son? Are you suggesting that John 3:16 was supposed to have said God "gave his only-begotten IT?"

 

[Runningman]

Really, Runningman? Which Bible are you getting that from? I've read from numerous Bible versions, including those translated by lying Trinitarians, and despite of their attempts to manipulate scripture, none have succeeded in painting Jesus as a mere mortal "right now." Please quote scripture verbatim and provide Bible book, chapter, and verse.


According to scripture, Jesus was a spirit person aka an ANGEL prior to his spirit life being transferred into the womb of Mary.

Luke 1:26​

In her sixth month, the angel Gaʹbri·el was sent from God to a city of Galʹi·lee named Nazʹa·reth,

Luke 1:27​

to a virgin promised in marriage to a man named Joseph of David’s house, and the name of the virgin was Mary.

Luke 1:30​

So the angel said to her: “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.

Luke 1:31​

And look! you will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and you are to name him Jesus.

Luke 1:32​

This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father,

Luke 1:33​

and he will rule as King over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end to his Kingdom.”

Luke 1:34​

But Mary said to the angel: “How is this to be, since I am not having sexual relations with a man?”

Luke 1:35​

In answer the angel said to her: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. And for that reason the one who is born will be called holy, God’s Son.
In answer the angel said to her: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. And for that reason the one who is born will be called holy, God’s Son.

Not really sure what you're seeing. I think you bolded some things you're trying to draw my attention to, but after looking at them closely, what I see is that Jesus' rule is only over the house of Jacob and that the one who will be born is called God's Son. I know you quoting from the NWT, which I don't often read, but this specific passage seems accurate. This is what I am quoting too. Please specify where you are seeing that says Jesus was an angel prior to being born.

One of the many verses I would quote to support how Jesus is only a man is below:

Acts 2 (Berean Standard Bible)
22Men of Israel, listen to this message: Jesus of Nazareth was a man certified by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did among you through Him, as you yourselves know.

People typically called Jesus a man and walked on to their next point. Why did no one come right out and say anything differently?