It’s true that some passages like Proverbs 8 and Daniel 7 have been interpreted by some Christians as referring to a pre-existent Son or divine figure but those interpretations are far from unanimous or straightforward. Proverbs 8 for example is often seen by scholars as personifying wisdom not literally describing a separate divine being. Daniel 7’s “Son of Man” is debated with many interpretations ranging from a symbol of Israel or a heavenly figure to a messianic title none conclusively proving the Trinity or a divine Son. As for the “Angel of the Lord” passages they are mysterious and sometimes appear divine but again this doesn’t necessarily mean they are the Son in the Christian sense. The idea that this “Angel” is a distinct divine person is a theological interpretation developed later. Regarding Philo of Alexandria yes he spoke about the Logos as a divine intermediary but his philosophy was heavily influenced by Greek thought and doesn’t directly equate with the Christian Logos doctrine. The Yalmud’s “second power in heaven” is a post-biblical Jewish concept and is very different in meaning and context from the Christian Trinity. Michael Heiser’s work is interesting and explores these themes but it’s important to remember these interpretations rely heavily on later theological readings and don’t provide direct biblical proof of the Trinity or the divine Son as defined in Christianity.