Did Jesus say to himself I'm God

savedsinner7

Wangdoodle

Then why this.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology says this about the Greek stauros:

Corresponding to the vb. (stauroo) which was more common, stauros can mean a stake which was sometimes pointed on which an executed criminal was publicly displayed in shame as a further punishment. It could be used for hanging (so probably Diod. Sic., 2, 18, 2), impaling, or strangulation. stauros could also be an instrument of torture, perhaps in the sense of the Lat. patibulum, a crossbeam laid on the shoulders. Finally it could be an instrument of execution in the form of a vertical stake and a crossbeam of the same length forming a cross in the narrower sense of the term. It took the form either of a T (Lat. crux commissa) or of a + (crux immissa). (Vol. 1, page 391)

silentrascal

[quote=Tj3]You saying so does not alter what scripture says.QUOTE]


And likewise, your holding fast to a false doctrine such as the trinity does not in itself make it so, when Scripture clearly shows otherwise.

BOTH in Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14 does the Bible tell us that Jesus is a created being, and they do so in no uncertain terms. Jesus, in his prehuman existence, was “the first-born of all creation.” (Colossians 1:15, NJB) He was “the beginning of God’s creation.” (Revelation 3:14, RS, Catholic edition). “Beginning” [Greek, ar·khe′] cannot rightly be interpreted to mean that Jesus was the ‘beginner’ of God’s creation. In his Bible writings, John uses various forms of the Greek word ar·khe′ more than 20 times, and these always have the common meaning of “beginning.” Yes, Jesus was created by God as the beginning of God’s invisible creations.

Your rendition of the original Greek is clearly incorrect. The context shows clearly that not only was Jesus the very first, the beginning of God's creations, but that God, in turn, gave Jesus the power and ability to create all other things after him. As the "only-begotten" son of God, Jesus is the only thing directly created by God, and then as the scriptures show, all other things came into being through Jesus.

Revelation 1:7, 8 is NOT Jesus speaking, it is God Almighty himself (whom Jesus is not and never was a part of). Those verses are one of 3 times in which God speaks from heaven in the vision given to John.

Nothing YOU can say will change that fact.

John 20:25 would appropriately use the term "nails" as there was more than one. Being hung on an upright pole, Jesus hands were nailed together above his head through the wrists, and then his feet were nailed through together as well. One nail above his head, and one nail through the feet.....thus "nails".

You should get your doctrine from somewhere other than blasphemous false religion.

Clearly, the mistranslating of John 1:1 has blinded people's minds into thinking something that it clearly does NOT say, namely that Jesus is equal to God. How so? Consider these things, and note that it is not simply a teaching of the Watchtower Society (which TJ3 has already demonstrated a clear bigotry and bias towards):

AT JOHN 1:1 the King James Version reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Trinitarians claim that this means that “the Word” (Greek, ho lo′gos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself.

Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the King James Version says, “The Word was with God.” (Italics ours.) Someone who is “with” another person cannot be the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean “the” God, this “would then contradict the preceding clause,” which says that the Word was with God.

Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:

1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun the·os′ (god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was (“and the Word [lo′gos] was with God [a form of the·os′]”). This first the·os′ is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God (“and the Word was with [the] God”).

On the other hand, there is no article before the second the·os′ at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, “and god was the Word.” Yet we have seen that many translations render this second the·os′ (a predicate noun) as “divine,” “godlike,” or “a god.” On what authority do they do this?

The Koine Greek language had a definite article (“the”), but it did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”). So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context.

The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions “with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.” As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo′gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: “The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os′] cannot be regarded as definite.”

So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was “divine,” “godlike,” “a god,” but not Almighty God. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called “the Word” in his role as God’s Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his Superior, Almighty God.

There are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the article “a” when translating Greek sentences with the same structure. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, the King James Version says: “They supposed it had been a spirit.” In the Koine Greek, there is no “a” before “spirit.” But almost all translations in other languages add an “a” in order to make the rendering fit the context. In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was “a god,” or “divine.”

Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: “The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself.” And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . ‘the word was a divine being.’”

Tj3

Simply repeating it while ignoring the fact that your position was already refuted does not make your position any more palatable.


You are interpreting this by means of your understanding of the English translation of the Greek. You also ignored the fact that Micah 5:2 invalidates your argument. But let's look at another passage.

Ps 89:27
27 Also I will make him My firstborn,
The highest of the kings of the earth.
NKJV

Note that this speaks of King David, who was the last born, but it says that God will make him the first born. Please explain why David is called the first born if it does not mean pre-eminence?

Let's look at this example:

Jer 31:9
9 They shall come with weeping,
And with supplications I will lead them.
I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters,
In a straight way in which they shall not stumble;
For I am a Father to Israel,
And Ephraim is My firstborn.
NKJV

Ephraim was born AFTER Manasseh - if this does not mean pre-eminence, why is Ephraim called the "first born"?

Greek has a different word for "first created", and that is protoktisis. If Paul meant what you claim, why did he not use this word?


Circular reasoning. This book is the Revelation of Jesus, not the Revelation of God the father, but you assume that that your conclusion that Jesus is not God and then make that a premise in your argument. That is a logic fallacy. Of course in your haste to declare Jesus not to be God, you omit the fact that He was even prophecied to be God in Is 9:6, and we are told elsewhere in Revelation by Jesus that He is God.

Rev 22:12-16
12 "And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last." 14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie. 16 I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches.
NKJV

Note the names that He calls Himself? Note that Almighty God in Rev 1:8 calls Himself by the same names. Are you suggesting blasphemy on the part of Jesus?


Nice try, but this is referring specifically and solely to the hands.

John 20:25-26
25 The other disciples therefore said to him, "We have seen the Lord." So he said to them, "Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe."
NKJV


Phil 2:5-8
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
NKJV


Stop wasting words on the political statements and spend the time trying to prove your points.


Fascinating. The JWs says that the Roman Catholic church is the centre of the whore of Babylon and all false religion and you take His comments as fact. I do not have a copy of this specific commentary (but I do have a copy of the Watchtower CD where this comes from, BTW), however let's look a rebuttal from someone who has reviewed the commentary:

"Harner actually denies that "a God" is a proper translation of John 1:1. After quoting the Greek of what John actually wrote, "theos en ho logos", Harner then shows how the Greek would have to read if it was to be translated, "a God". Harner gives five different clauses A-E. He writes, "CLAUSE D, ho logos en theos, would probably mean that the logos was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos, but as a distinct being from ho theos." Harner's Clause D is the precise definition used by Jehovah's Witnesses, yet Harner rules this out as what John is actually saying! Harner then writes, "CLAUSE E "ho logos en theios" would mean that the logos was 'divine' without specifying further in what way or to what extent it was divine. It could also imply that the logos, being only theios, was subordinate to theos." Again notice that Harner rules this interpretation out based upon what John actually wrote! Although CLAUSES D AND E are both exactly what Jehovah's Witnesses claim John was saying, Harner rules both out as NOT POSSIBLE! (Philip B. Harner, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1." in The Journal of Biblical Literature)"
(Source: Harner, Philip B.: Journal Of Biblical Literature: Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 15:39 and John 1:1. (Edited by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, 1973, Vol 92 p. 85))


I am not going to waste my time going through various English translations. I could give you several also which disagree with you, but we will get farther if we look at what the original text meant.


The Greek adjective meaning divine is theios, not theos.

silentrascal

{Simply repeating it while ignoring the fact that your position was already refuted does not make your position any more palatable.}

The only fact is that I was not refuted, YOU were, and that you continue to maintain an errant position on the matter.

{You are interpreting this by means of your understanding of the English translation of the Greek. You also ignored the fact that Micah 5:2 invalidates your argument. }

I could say the same for you, and you ignore the fact that Micah 5:2 does nothing of the kind. You can say it does until you're blue in the face; it won't change the fact that it, in fact, does not.

Looking closer at Psalm 89:27, it was not calling attention to David being a literal firstborn son, because 1 Chronicles 2:13-15 would disprove that. In Psalm 89:20, 27, God was here referring to prophetically to the one foreshadowed by David, God's own "firstborn" Son in heaven upon whom he confers Kingship more exalted than any human ruler. You can compare Ezekiel 34:24, where the Messiah is spoken of as "my servant David".

As far as Jeremiah 31:9 is concerned: The tribe of Ephraim became the most prominent tribe of the northern kingdom of ten tribes, its name often standing for that entire kingdom. Because God chose to have Ephraim receive the firstborn son’s blessing from his grandfather Jacob instead of Manasseh, the real firstborn son of Joseph, God rightly spoke of the tribe of Ephraim as “my firstborn.”—Jer 31:9, 20; Ho 11:1-8, 12; compare Ge 48:13-20.

{Circular reasoning. This book is the Revelation of Jesus, not the Revelation of God the father, but you assume that that your conclusion that Jesus is not God and then make that a premise in your argument. That is a logic fallacy. Of course in your haste to declare Jesus not to be God, you omit the fact that He was even prophecied to be God in Is 9:6, and we are told elsewhere in Revelation by Jesus that He is God.}

Circular reasoning on your part, rather. Because you illogically go into it with the errant view of Jesus and God being one and the same, when the rest of the Holy Scriptures say completely the opposite. Of course, in your unwillingness to consider that you are incorrect in anyway, you fail to see that in Isaiah 9:6 while Jesus is called "Mighty God", he is not called (not here nor in any other part of the Bible) "Almighty God", a title which doesn't belong to Jesus, but belongs to God and God alone.

The book of Revelation, if you'd care to actually read the first scripture of the first chapter in the book is "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented (it) in signs through him to his slave John," - Notice this was a revelation GIVEN to Jesus BY God. This wasn't "the revelation of Jesus" as you very errantly state. Isaiah 9:6 did not prophecy Jesus to be God, and nor did ANY portion of the book of Revelation. The very first verse of the book makes it clear that this was a revelation given to John by Jesus, and Jesus received it from a higher source than he.

As far as Revelation 22:12-16 is concerned, you continue with the errant assumption that Jesus is God (a position the Bible does not share). The speaking in these verses is not by Jesus Christ, but rather by God himself (the first of 3 such instances of God speaking directly in the book of Revelation). So there was no blasphemy, it was God speaking regarding himself. It wasn't Jesus speaking at all until verse 16.

{Nice try, but this is referring specifically and solely to the hands. John 20:25-26
25 The other disciples therefore said to him, "We have seen the Lord." So he said to them, "Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe."
NKJV}

Nice try yourself, but the fact that he didn't mention the nail through his feet does not in itself discount Jesus have been nailed, hands and feet, on an upright stake.

Phillipians 2:6 - "who, although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely that he should be equal to God" - Right there you have it, at no time did Jesus ever even consider making himself equal to God. Jesus knew he wasn't God, Jesus knew he had a God that he himself gave worship to.

Let's also not forget Phil 2:9 (which you conveniently omitted) - "For this very sreason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every (other) name," - Once more, Jesus was in a lesser position than God. God, being superior and separate from Jesus, bestowed upon his Son a privileged position that Jesus could not have taken himself.

{The Greek adjective meaning divine is theios, not theos.}

Wrong. The Greek adjective for "divine" is theos, not "theios". But let me guess, you'll still say that's wrong.

Tj3

You may want to use the quoting feature. It would make your responses easier to follow. It is the the 5th icon in the from the right in the toolbar above. Just highlight the area that you wish to quote and it will add the tags.

BTW, you may note that I simply deleted your political statements in order to get to the meat.

Lastly, bnecause of the length, I have broken this response into two parts. This is part 1 of 2


Just saying it does not make it so. It appears that you have no answer to this so you hope that it will just go away. Let's look at it again:

Mic 5:2
2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting."
NKJV

The One to be ruler in Israel, who comes out of bethlenhem, I trust we agree is Jesus. And note that it says that He is from everlasting. I can understand why you did not respond to this - it clearly tells us that Jesus, the one who created all that there is, is from everlasting. And we have further evidence that Jesus pre-exosted the word. The gospel of John tells us that He shared the glory of God with the father before the world was created.

John 17:4-5
5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
NKJV

No sirree, this one will not go away simply by wishing that it did.


In Psalm 89, there is a prophetic reference to Jesus, but this particular passage refers specifically to David.

Ps 89:20
20 I have found My servant David;
With My holy oil I have anointed him,
NKJV

Read the context between verse 20 and 27.


You have just confirmed what I said - it is means the one who is pre-eminient.


Still waiting for anything which denies that Jesus is God.


Let's look at your "Mighty God" argument. There are two problems with this approach:

1) If you have Almighty God, you have 2 gods, thus the Jehovah’s Witnesses defeat their own argument when they claim to be fighting in favour of monotheism. This same problem arises when they try to claim that John 1:1 says that the Word was “a god”, rather than the proper translation of “The Word was God”. Again, they make Jesus a second god. Scripture tells us that God has no other gods before him; therefore any other “gods” are either false gods, or demons. This shows the contradictory nature of the Jehovah’s Witness position on this topic.

2) The second problem is that the term “Mighty God” is indeed used in scripture to refer to Jehovah:

Jer 32:17-18
18 You show lovingkindness to thousands, and repay the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them--the Great, the Mighty God, whose name is the LORD of hosts.
NKJV

Isa 10:21-23
21 The remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob,
To the Mighty God.
22 For though your people, O Israel, be as the sand of the sea,
A remnant of them will return;
The destruction decreed shall overflow with righteousness.
23 For the Lord GOD of hosts
Will make a determined end
In the midst of all the land.
NKJV

Gen 49:24
24 But his bow remained in strength,
And the arms of his hands were made strong
By the hands of the Mighty God of Jacob
(From there is the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel),
NKJV

It is interesting to note that the term “Mighty God” is used in scripture 4 times, 3 times clearly referring to Jehovah, and the fourth is prophetic of Jesus. This Therefore this is a clear reference equating Jesus with God.
it.

Tj3

This is Part 2 of 2



Maybe you should read a bit further down where we are told who is speaking:

Rev 1:4-5
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 from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth.
NKJV

Nothing here says that God the Father is speaking.


Agreed, and you have just conceded your position. It is God speaking and he identifies Himself thusly:

Rev 22:16
16 I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star."
NKJV

Thus Jesus is God.


No cigar. He is specifically talking about hands, and more than one nail was used, which would not be necessary for an upright stake, even if we were to ignore all histoprical evidence.


It is interesting that you did not mentiion the Bible translation that you used. A quick check shows that it is the NWT, and there were no qualified translators on the translation committee for the NWT, so let's stick to more credible translations.


Again, let's look at that from a credible translation:

Phil 2:9-11
9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
NKJV

I trust that you will not that the context in verses 5 and 6:

Phil 2:5-8
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
NKJV

Let's look at this. He was in the form of God (not man), did not consider it robbery to be equal to God (this would be blasphemy for a mere man), made Himself of no reputation (note that this was on His own authority), and came in the likeness of men.

The last part is further confirmed by 1 Tim 3:16:

1 Tim 3:15-16
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
NKJV


Right. I will say that you are wrong because you are. I see that you are unable to refute

silentrascal

Maybe you should read a bit further down where we are told who is speaking:

Rev 1:4-5
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 from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth.
NKJV

Nothing here says that God the Father is speaking.
Maybe you need to look again at the very first verse of the book. The revelation was given TO Jesus by GOD, and Jesus then gave it to John. There's no denying the order in which the revelation was given; the highest source (God) gave it to a separate and lower being (Jesus) who then gave it the least being (John).

Agreed, and you have just conceded your position. It is God speaking and he identifies Himself thusly:

Rev 22:16
16 I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star."
NKJV Thus Jesus is God.


BZZZZZZZ.....WRONG AGAIN. As the entire Bible attests to, Jesus and God are NOT one and the same. Being that the Bible does not contradict itself, the use of logic would come into play here. God spoke first, identifying himself as the Alpha and Omega. When God was finished speaking, Jesus then spoke up. Two different speakers......two different dialogues spoken. Thus, Jesus is NOT God.

No cigar. He is specifically talking about hands, and more than one nail was used, which would not be necessary for an upright stake, even if we were to ignore all histoprical evidence.

Still wrong. He simply mentioned hands. No inference that he only mentioned hands because the feet weren't nailed. All historical and grammatical evidence points to a single stake, with hands nailed above the head and feet together nailed beneath him.

It is interesting that you did not mentiion the Bible translation that you used. A quick check shows that it is the NWT, and there were no qualified translators on the translation committee for the NWT, so let's stick to more credible translations.

So you're openly admitting your bias and bigotry and that is what's dictating your stubborness in holding fast to your clearly errant point of view. I'm afraid your say-so that they weren't qualified doesn't make it at all so. Given your bias and bigotry, I won't hold any credit to anything you would consider as a "credible translation".

Again, let's look at that from a credible translation:

Phil 2:9-11
9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
NKJV

I trust that you will not that the context in verses 5 and 6:

Phil 2:5-8
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
NKJV

Let's look at this. He was in the form of God (not man), did not consider it robbery to be equal to God (this would be blasphemy for a mere man), made Himself of no reputation (note that this was on His own authority), and came in the likeness of men.

The last part is further confirmed by 1 Tim 3:16:

1 Tim 3:15-16
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
NKJV

I'm afraid every bit of what you just said is refuted, in no uncertain terms, by your own admitted bias. Your adherence to a non-credible translation also doesn't help your argument.

Phil 2:6 - Jesus never gave consideration to his being equal to God. Plain and simply put: Jesus NEVER claimed himself to be equal to his God and his Father.

Phil 2:9 - God (someone with a greater position and authority than Jesus) elevated Jesus to a privileged position. If Jesus were God, he would already have the highest position and wouldn't need anyone to give him anything. Again, plain and simply put: Jesus IS NOT and NEVER WAS God. Jesus is ALWAYS lesser than and separate from Almighty God.

Right. I will say that you are wrong because you are. I see that you are unable to refute.

You've already been refuted and shown to be wrong. Your denial changes nothing.

Tj3

sigh - we just went through that cycle. Did you not read my response? WE are not going to get anywhere if you choose to mjust repeat your last message and not address my response. If you have no answer, just say so. Accept the possibiligty that you are wrong.


Again, if you have not dealt with the issue. You are replacing dealing with what scripture says with your personal opinion and that just doesn't cut it.



Read what the passage of scripture actually says. Again refusing to deal with it does not make it go away.


I challenge you to name a single member of the NWT translation team who had the qualifications necessary to translate either Greek or Hebrew texts. If you claim that they were, I will bring forward the details regarding the translation team, and I suspect that you know what the evidence shows.


Oh come on now - you are going to lie about what i said? Where did I say that i was biased? Why won'ty you deal with the material before us? Have you no answers now?


Phil 2:5-8
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
NKJV


Then you are denying scripture which says that Jesus humbled Himself and prior to creation had the glory of God. By what authority are you denying scripture? I noticed that you have no rebuttal to Micah 5:2 which tells us that Jesus is from everlasting. I notice that you have no response to 1 Tim 3:16 which says that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh.

Phil 2:5-8
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
NKJV

John 17:5
5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
NKJV

You have no rebuttal? Scripture is abundantly clear. Why are you unwilling to accept what scripture says?

deist

You're all wrong. Jesus was neither God nor a divine being. He was just a man & now he's dead.