Sorry i missed your response amidst all the posting, and it seems i am missing the points you are referring to, so i will respond to those you provide here.
Point 1. If Jesus was a super David, then as far as our existence was concerned, then Jesus could be eternal. The angels are, for instance.
Jesus was a super David, but the ability of God to be such does not relegate Him to simply being only that, but the supernatural Deity which enabled David, etc. And actually, apart from His kingship aspect, in practice, Jesus would be more a Moses and a Elijah than a David.
Point 2: If Jesus started out as man and then became a god, then he could have the power of creation, as far as the LDS are concerned.
The question is what does Scripture warrant, and your reasoning here confirms that you need a extraBiblical literature to assert such. God/Jesus is from “everlasting” (Ps. 90:2; Mic. 5:2) always existing as God, and who is a spirit (Jn. 4:24) which nature essentially is not that of flesh and blood, (Lk. 24:29) which Jesus took on, (Heb. 2:16) a body being having been prepared for Him. (Heb. 10:4)
Point 4: It may not violate the divinity of Christ, but neither does it absolutely confirm it.
What is being referred to here i am not sure.
Point 5: Jesus does not change; these passages merely refer to changes in our time.
Highly problematic, as to be consistent, you must attribute this to God the father as well, who states, I change not, and make everlasting limited, which sometimes in the O.T. can mean for an age, though not in the New, and as referring to God is best warranted to mean from eternity past to eternity future, unless you are going to believe God was created, or evolved.
Point 6: Father and Son. Creator and created, with the abilities given to the Son by the Father. Subordinationist at best.
Another theoretical postulation, but nowhere is Jesus said to be created (though He is the head of all creation), but one through whom all things were made, “and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (Jn. 1:3), as “all things were created by him, and for him”, (Col. 1:16) thus WTS adds “other” after “all” so as to disallow Jesus being pre-existent as creator. Also in testimony is, “Let US” make man in OUR image”, and 5 other times, before the royal “we” is known to be used. In addition, in no places is creative activity attributed to angels, rather, “Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens ALONE; that spreadeth abroad the earth BY MYSELF;” (Isa 44:24)
Your objective are wanting, and rejecting John is untenable, and the Scriptures in their totality provide abundant warrant for the doctrine of the Trinity as against other postulations.
But SS does not exclude the need, warrant, and viability of a strong and dedicated teaching by the Church on this and other doctrinal issues, as the Scripture materially provides such. But that alone is insufficient, rather, it was because the Scriptures best warrant the doctrine of the Trinity that is has so universally “stuck”, the exceptions usually being among those who look to a supreme teaching magisterium such as the WTS or LDS, etc. And the problem we have with Rome is with them progressively affirming teachings, which unlike the Trinity, critically lack Scriptural warrant, (and which as in the Assumption, the early fathers had various opinions about, not unanimous consent which are claimed for them: http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/livingtradition.html).
I miss the occasional post to me amidst all the fun as well, so no offense taken at all.
My poijt is that in order to show that Jesus is part of the Triune God, it is necessary to show it, not to show that he is not a David or Moses or Elijah.
Everlasting meant to the people of the time to be forever - that is, within time. God exists out of time and therefore does not come into contention here. Therefore, if Jesus existed from the beginning of Time to the end of Time, it is still not proof of His Divinity.
The very contention that Jesus is the (a) son of God is strong evidence that He was Created by God the Father. All the sons of God identified before or since were identified as creations of God.
Your objective are wanting, and rejecting John is untenable, and the Scriptures in their totality provide abundant warrant for the doctrine of the Trinity as against other postulations.
Okay. Stop. I do not reject John; you are missing my point entirely. My point is that without the Gospel of John, the Trinity is not defensible as a doctrine. The rest of the Bible is weak in describing the Trinity. Therefore we MUST include John. Does that make more sense?
But that alone is insufficient, rather, it was because the Scriptures best warrant the doctrine of the Trinity that is has so universally “stuck”, the exceptions usually being among those who look to a supreme teaching magisterium such as the WTS or LDS, etc.
How many Protestants are there who believe in subordinationalism at the best, and a Duality or Oneness at the worst? A large minority or possibly a majority. How many people here on this board think of God the Father as the stern overseer of all Creation, Jesus as his representative here on earth, and the Holy Spirit as either a force of their will or else as a messenger boy that is sent by God or Jesus?