@whereu"
On the question of Jesus being a literal Son, I think it comes down to our understanding of what the "literal" part adds.Also "just saying"
"
Not sure about what you mean "adds"?
I think our mates thoughts are, pre Mary, he was a literal Son already, totally by or of God.
And his reasoning is -> To send a Son you already (pre-existing) had to have one to send.
But the Bible clearly shows otherwise, so that's the Mystery?????
It would also appear the thinking is, to say otherwise, is to lower who and what he is and lowering a bigger significance of what the Father actually gave/sent and thus lowering the sacrifice (my assumption there, maybe wrong?)
It seems he rejects that he only become a Son, re from Mary.
Never the less, either way he would still be deemed as a literal Son, as God clearly Fathered him, but not in a human way or context.
In short, the 2nd Adam Man was made by the word and power of God, which is what come down = he is deemed as heavenly, not made of dust, earthly.
Jesus 4 times at least says, he come forth from the Father and was then sent into the world = after his Baptism - ex John 17:18, Gal 4:4.
"Forth" - out of the mouth of God, to the Angel to Mary. (Isa 55:10, 11 for example and this plan is included in John 1:1,2).
------------
As I would expect you know, JW's for an example, differing Christian faiths seem to find a few Key differing points to others, and cling to these like you don't know what, and seem to use it like -> 'WE' are THE one's that have it right and the rest of you, are pagan's etc if not cults.
Ex - JW's are the 144,000
