Wow! You mean to say Paul wasn't that prophet?
:rotfl:
This day have I begotten you
- Thread starter daqq
- Start date
:rotfl:
What was said in Luke 3:22 has everything to do with it. You can dissect the scripture into little portions so as to divide and conquer all you wish, and for your own means and ends, but that way is death and I refuse to follow your path any longer in my own walk. Additionally everywhere that the author of Hebrews quotes the same statement also has heavy bearing on the proper understanding of what the Psalm 2:7 decree really means and when it was spoken to Yeshua from the Father:
Hebrews 1:5
5 For unto which of the messengers said he at any time, "You are my Son, this day have I begotten you"? [Psalm 2:7, Luke 3:22, Acts 13:33] and again, "I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son"? [2 Samuel 7:14]
Hebrews 5:4-10
4 And no man takes this honor unto himself, but he that is called of Elohim, as was Ahron:
5 So also Meshiah glorified not himself to be made Chief Kohen; but He that spoke to him, "You are my Son, this day have I begotten you [Psalm 2:7, Luke 3:22, Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5].
6 As He says also in another place, "You a Kohen for ever after the order of Melki-Tzedek" [Psalm 110:4].
7 Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears, unto Him that was able to save him from death, [Luke 22:41-44] also was heard because of his reverent fear:
8 Though he were a Son, [Psalm 2:7, Luke 3:22, Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5, Hebrews 5:5, Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 5:6] yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.
9 And having been perfected he became unto all them that obey him the author-causation of salvation aionios:
10 Called of Elohim, "Chief Kohen after the order of Melki-Tzedek".
Again, you have no earthly human witness for any of the above statements in your unacceptable "Eternal Son" doctrine: it is a fantasy land theology which you have been hoodwinked into believing. The decree of Psalm 2:7 was not spoken to Yeshua somewhere in eternity past where no human witness could have known for sure so as to make such statements as evidence like we find in all the passages quoted above. The decree of Psam 2:7 was not spoken to Yeshua in the literal physical womb of Maryah where other no human being could have been there to witness such a statement being made so as to enter it into evidence as we have here before us in all the passages quoted above. The decree of Psalm 2:7 was not spoken to Messiah in eternity just after his crucifixion and resurrection where no physical human being could have been present to record it in writing such as what we have before us as evidence in all the passages quoted above. The Psalm 2:7 decree was spoken to Yeshua from the Father at his immersion by Yohanan the Immerser, at the Yarden River, at the commencement of his physical ministry which ministry occurred "in the days of his flesh", (Hebrews 5:7 quoted above). And additionally, as already stated, Yohanan the Immerser is the Witness to these things. If you do not believe his testimony then you are outside the written record and believing a different gospel of a private interpretation because the record states that the testimony of Yohanan the Witness is given so that ALL through him might believe. You are essentially denying the Witness so as to uphold your own privately held dogma, (which is what the Trinitarian doctrine actually is even though it has now become the majority opinion in the west).
John 1:6-7
6 There was a man sent from Elohim, whose name was Yohanan:
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Why do you refuse to address my comments in regard to what is written at Acts 19:30-34?
What is said there demonstrates that the phrase "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" is in regard to words said at the Lord Jesus' resurrection. I can only conclude that you are unable to prove that anything which I wrote about those veres is in error.
If you are so sure that you are right then why do you continue to run and hide from my comments on those verses?
Why are you trying to change the subject?
Why do you lie and accuse me of not responding while you plainly ignore and refuse to accept that I already responded and refuted your position with scripture? If you do not wish to accept what the scripture says in its entirety concerning the matter and topic of this thread then why are you even here? I have not changed the subject: how can you not see that there are other passages which address the same subject matter? This only shows that you cherry pick what suits your needs and ignore other scripture passages which refute your dogma exactly as has already been said and shown of you. In addition I have already clearly explained my position on the Acts passage twice now since you arrived even after it was already explained on page one of this thread. Is it my fault the scripture refutes your dogma? How many times do you expect me to post the same thing? Do you think the truth is going to change to your favor just because you refused to accept it the first three times? :chuckle:
Sorry that I almost missed several replies on the previous page including yours herein above.
However it appears I did answer from the same passages in the following response to Jerry:
The author of Hebrews pinpoints the timing of the statement at the immersion of Yeshua and adds the Psalm 110:4 statement seemingly by default because once Yeshua is declared, (by the Psalm 2:7 decree), to be "Son of Elohim" that makes him a Chief Kohen, (after the order of Melki-Tzedek). Please note that a Cheif Kohen is not the same as a Kohen Gadol, (High Priest), which the author of Hebrews does indeed use of Messiah but not in this passage. In fact Kohen Gadol is used of no one else anywhere in the Apostolic writings or Gospel accounts except concerning Messiah Yeshua here in the Epistle to the Hebrews, (Hebrews 4:14 "αρχιερεα μεγαν" [megas = gadol = great]).
Are you saying then that Christ fulfilled the role of the High Priest as shown in the law, but now has the ministry according to the order of Melchesedec.
LA
The Melki-Tzedek order is above the Levitical laws for priesthood and the chief priests knew this to be true even though the common people likely did not understand or care about such things. That is likely the real reason why the rulers of the people wanted to get rid of Yeshua: for he does make the veiled claim to a higher priesthood than their own, and they understood this claim when he made it from what he quoted by way of the scripture to them. There is a background struggle over authority going on right in front of the eye of the reader and yet most even today do not recognize this fact:
Matthew 22:41-46
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Yeshua asked them, saying:
42 What think you of Meshiah? Whose son is he? They say to him, The Son of David.
43 He says to them, How then does David in the Spirit call him Adon? saying:
44 "YHWH said unto Adoni, (my Master), Sit you on My right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool"?
45 If David then calls him Adon, (Master), how is he his son?
46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.
No doubt every Pharisee and chief Kohen knew precisely the entire context of this passage by memory; and no doubt they took this as a threat to their own authority because if indeed Yeshua is Meshiah the son of David then he is making a veiled claim to a higher authority by way of the Melki-Tzedek Elohim Priesthood which is above that of the Levitical and not subject to tribal lineage. The section Yeshua quotes from in the above is of course Psalm 110:1 and which Psalm of course includes the oath sworn concerning the Melki-Tzedek Priesthood from Psalm 110:4.
Also you are deflecting and ignoring what was already stated and shown several times about the particle δε which is found not in the passage where you pretend that I spoke about but rather is found in the passage where I specifically said it was found and quoted the Greek passage multiple times to explain what I was talking about. You are sidewinding and deflecting. AGAIN, the particle δε is found at the beginning of Acts 13:34, as follows, and "kai" is nowhere found in this verse:
Acts 13:34 W/H
34 ὅτι δὲ ἀνέστησεν αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν μηκέτι μέλλοντα ὑποστρέφειν εἰς διαφθοράν, οὕτως εἴρηκεν ὅτι Δώσω ὑμῖν τὰ ὅσια Δαυεὶδ τὰ πιστά.
http://biblehub.com/text/acts/13-34.htm
Acts 13:34 T/R
34 ὅτι δὲ ἀνέστησεν αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν μηκέτι μέλλοντα ὑποστρέφειν εἰς διαφθοράν οὕτως εἴρηκεν ὅτι Δώσω ὑμῖν τὰ ὅσια Δαβὶδ τὰ πιστά
http://biblehub.com/text/acts/13-34.htm
You might also notice that in the link above the literal rendering provided has "moreover" which is also denoting a slight difference in the direction of what is stated compared to what has previously been stated. If the author simply wanted to say "and", in complete continuance without any separation from the previous comments whatsoever, then the author would have simply used "kai" to say "and", (as you rightly noted but in the incorrect verse which I was not speaking about).
Also this particle, δε, is rendered in the AV KJV as "but" over three hundred times more than it is rendered "and" because, although it is a continuative particle it is disjunctive; it denotes an adversative change from what was previously stated or written.
Strong's Greek Definition for #1161
1161 // de // de // deh //
a primary particle (adversative or continuative); conj
AV - but 1237, and 934, now 166, then 132, also 18, yet 16, yea 13,
so 13, moreover 13, nevertheless 11, for 4, even 3, misc 10,
not tr 300; 2870
1) but, moreover, and, etc.
http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/strongs/ref/?stgh=greek&stnm=1161
In addition you would do well to explore what Thayer's and other good lexicons say about this particle such as the small amount which follows and the remainder at the link at the bottom of the quote:
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 1161: δέ
δέ (related to δή, as μέν to μήν, cf. Klotz ad Devar. ii. 2, p. 355), a particle adversative, distinctive, disjunctive, but, moreover (Winers Grammar, § 53, 7 and 10, 2); it is much more frequent in the historical parts of the N. T. than in the other books, very rare in the Epistles of John and the Apocalypse. (On its general neglect of elision (when the next word begins with a vowel) cf. Tdf. Proleg., p. 96; WHs Appendix, p. 146; Winers Grammar, § 5, 1a.; Buttmann, p. 10f) It is used: 1. universally, by way of opposition and distinction; it is added to statements opposed to a preceding statement: ἐάν ὀφθαλμός κτλ. Matthew 6:23; ἐλεύσονται δέ ἡμέραι, Mark 2:20; it opposes persons to persons or things previously mentioned or thought of — either with strong emphasis: ἐγώ δέ, Matthew 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44; ἡμεῖς δέ, 1 Corinthians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 10:13; σύ δέ, Matthew 6:6; ὑμεῖς δέ, Mark 8:29; οἱ δέ υἱοί τῆς βασιλείας, Matthew 8:12; αἱ ἀλώπεκες ... ὁ δέ υἱός τοῦ ἀνθρώπου Matthew 8:20; Luke 9:58; πᾶς ὁ λαός ... οἱ δέ φαρισαῖοι, Luke 7:29f; ὁ δέ πνευματικός, 1 Corinthians 2:15, and often; — or with a slight discrimination, ὁ δέ, αὐτός δέ: Mark 1:45; Mark 5:34; Mark 6:37; Mark 7:6; Matthew 13:29, 37, 52; Matthew 15:23ff; Luke 4:40, 43; Luke 5:16; Luke 6:8; Luke 8:10, 54; Luke 15:29; οἱ δέ, Matthew 2:5; Mark 3:4; Mark 8:28, etc., etc.; with the addition also of a proper name, as ὁ δέ Ἰησοῦς: Matthew 8:22 (Tdf. omits Ἰησοῦς); (R G Tr brackets); (Tdf. omits Ἰησοῦς); ; Mark 1:41 (R G L marginal reading Tr marginal reading); ἀποκροκριθεις δέ (ὁ) Σίμων, Luke 7:43 R G L brackets; ἡ δέ Μαρία, Luke 2:19, etc.
http://biblehub.com/greek/1161.htm
The author of the book of Acts is making a distinction at the start of verse thirty-four and this is clear not only by the usage of the particle δε but by the context which goes on to quote the other Isaiah and Psalms passages as proof texts regarding the resurrection of Yeshua. The passage clearly switches from explaining how Yeshua was raised up as a Prophet, even "The Prophet" spoken of and prophesied in the Torah, (Acts 13:33), to speaking of how Elohim raised him up from the dead, that is, the resurrection, (Acts 13:34). It is not my problem that Trinitarian scholars refuse to translate it for what it says.
Matthew 1:18 W/H
18 του δε| [ιησου] | χριστου η γενεσις ουτως ην μνηστευθεισης της μητρος αυτου μαριας τω ιωσηφ πριν η συνελθειν αυτους ευρεθη εν γαστρι εχουσα εκ πνευματος αγιου
18a MOREOVER THE GENESIS-NATIVITY OF MESHIAH WAS IN THIS MANNER --
Matthew 2:1 W/H
1 του δε ιησου γεννηθεντος εν βηθλεεμ της ιουδαιας εν ημεραις ηρωδου του βασιλεως ιδου μαγοι απο ανατολων παρεγενοντο εις ιεροσολυμα
1a BUT OF YESHUA HAVING BEEN BORN IN BETHLEHEM OF YHUDAH --
:shut: :chuckle:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Here is my answer to that:
At the beginning of verse 34 the Greek word de is translated "and." One of the meanings of the Greek word is: "it is joined to terms which are repeated with a certain emphasis, and with certain additions as tend to explain and establish them more exactly" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon).
That meaning fits perfectly with the idea that the "raising up" in both verses mean the same thing, the Lord's resurrection from the dead. In the KJV the word de is translated as "moreover" thirteen times so with that in mind let us look at these verses again:
"God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up (anistēmi) Jesus; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. 34. Morever as concerning that he raised (anistēmi) him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David" (Acts 13:33-34).
The word "moreover"means "in addition to what has been said" (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary).
Now perhaps you will finally address what I said about this passage:
"But God raised him from the dead: 31 and he was seen for many days of them that came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses unto the people. 32 And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers, 33 that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" (Acts 13:30-33; ASV).
In verses 30-31 the subject under discussion is the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Then the following verse begins with the Greek word kai, which is translated "and." The Greek word is a conjuction, which joins together what is said in verses 30-31 with what is said in the sentence which follows. Therefore, we can understand that the subject spoken of in the following passage is about the resurrection of the Lord Jesus:
"And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers, 33 that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus" (Acts 13:32-33; ASV).
When we examine the sentence which follows we can know that the words "raised up Jesus" are indeed referring to the Lord's resurrection:
"And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he hath spoken on this wise, I will give you the holy and sure [blessings] of David" (Acts 13:34; ASV).
Therefore, the words in "bold" here are in reference to what was said on the day of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus:
"...that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption" (Acts 13:33-34).
Thanks!
Last edited:
I have already answered you three times now concerning this point. You simply stating that the whole passage is speaking of the resurrection does not make it true. You are ignoring all other evidence that has been presented because you cherish your dogma more than the truth. Elohim raised up Yeshua, "THE PROPHET" foretold in Deuteronomy 18:15-18, and sent "THE PROPHET" Yeshua to the people, which is the commencement of the fulfillment of the promises to the fathers. This SPIRIT ANOINTING is the beginning of his ministry to the people, which commenced with his immersion by Yohanan, when Ruach Elohim descended from the heavens in somatiko-corporeal-bodily form as a dove and abode-remained upon him throughout his ministry and Golgotha. The apostles and disciples of Messiah agree with what I have said:
John 1:21 KJV
21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
Who is "THAT PROPHET" or as in other translations "THE PROPHET" whom they were all expecting? It is of course none other than The Prophet like unto Moshe who is foretold by Moshe in Deuteronomy 18:15-18 as already quoted and referenced herein manifold times.
John 1:25 KJV
25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
John 6:14-15 KJV
14 Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.
15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
Therefore please study this passage very carefully if you truly desire to understand:
Acts 3:26 T/R (KJV)
26 υμιν πρωτον ο θεος αναστησας [G450 ἀνίστημι - anistemi] τον παιδα αυτου ιησουν απεστειλεν αυτον ευλογουντα υμας εν τω αποστρεφειν εκαστον απο των πονηριων υμων
Acts 3:22-26 KJV
22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up [G450 ἀνίστημι - anistemi] unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people [Deuteronomy 18:15-19 abridged].
24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
26 Unto you first God, having raised up [G450 ἀνίστημι - anistemi] his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
Yeshua is not technically "His Son" until the Father says to him at his immersion:
"You are My Son, this day have I begotten you", (Luke 3:22 Codex Bezae). :chuckle:
:sheep:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You have not even answered me once concerning what I said about the Greek word translated "and" at the beginning of Acts 13:32:
"But God raised him from the dead: 31 and he was seen for many days of them that came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses unto the people. 32 And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers, 33 that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" (Acts 13:30-33; ASV).
In verses 30-31 the subject under discussion is the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Then the following verse begins with the Greek word kai, which is translated "and." The Greek word is a conjunction, which joins together what is said in verses 30-31 with what is said in the sentence which follows. Therefore, we can understand that the subject spoken of in the following passage is about the resurrection of the Lord Jesus:
"And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers, 33 that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus" (Acts 13:32-33; ASV).
According to you ideas verse 32 is totally unrelated to what is said in verses 30-31. That is impossible since the Greek word kai serves to join together what is said in verses 30-31 with what is said in verse 32. In fact, Strong's says that the word has "a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force."
That completely rules out your idea that verse 32 is speaking about something other than the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. If I am wrong concerning the meaning of the Greek word kai then please explain exactly what I said about it that is in error.
Thanks!
Last edited:
Now you are just wasting time and space: in your own words, "Thanks!" (lol).
Notice he quotes what appears to be the KJV but leaves out the contextual parameter from just above the passage he has quoted. By the context it should not read "in that he hath raised up Jesus again" but rather, because Paul is recounting all that had transpired, he refers back to the beginning of the ministry of Yeshua where Elohim raised him up in the sense of raising a Prophet in the Land. That can only actually mean the immersion of Yeshua and commencement of his ministry. The ASV renders the same statement without using the word "again", (because it is not a separate word in the text but rather the KJV typical rendering of the word anastesas-anistemi), so the ASV is apparently giving more recognition to the actual overall context. Beginning at verse thirty-two Paul begins to recount the overall message that he brings from the commencement of the ministry of Yeshua because his message and Gospel includes the Testimony of Yeshua and that necessarily must include the full ministry of Yeshua:
Acts 13:30-34 ASV
30 But God raised him from the dead:
31 and he was seen for many days of them that came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses unto the people.
32 And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers,
33 that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he hath spoken on this wise, I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.
35 Because he saith also in another psalm, Thou wilt not give thy Holy One to see corruption.
What I was trying to point out at the beginning of this thread on page one is that the word rendered "And" at the beginning of verse thirty-four is actually the particle "de" which very often is rendered as "but". This very strongly implies that the author is much more likely making a distinction between the "raising up of Yeshua" in the sense of a Prophet as opposed to the "raising up of Yeshua" at the Resurrection after his ministry was complete. If we simply correct this one single word in the ASV, at the front of verse thirty-four, (from "And" to "But"), the passage clearly expounds exactly what has been proposed throughout this thread: in fact it is clearly evident that both the author and Paul are making this distinction by quoting several different other passages to make the case for the Resurrection, (Isaiah 55:3 and Psalm 16:10 just for starters here in this passage).
The ASV with "And" corrected to "BUT" at the beginning of the Acts 13:34 statement:
Acts 13:30-34
30 But God raised him from the dead:
31 and he was seen for many days of them that came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses unto the people [end of preceding testimony concerning Yeshua and his resurrection].
32 And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers, [from here Paul is recounting from the commencement of the ministry of Yeshua]
33 that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; [at his immersion in the sense of raising up a Prophet to be sent unto Yisrael] as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee [Psalm 2:7].
34 BUT as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he hath spoken on this wise, I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David [Isaiah 55:3].
35 Because he saith also in another psalm, Thou wilt not give thy Holy One to see corruption [Psalm 16:10].
Thus we have herein "The Prophet" raised up and sent to the people just as Moshe foretold. This commenced with the immersion of Yeshua, (Psalm 2:7). Then, after he was crucified by the very same people he was sent to, Elohim raised him up from the dead, (Isaiah 55:3, Psalm 16:10).
That is simply not true at all. You are apparently checking a version somewhere of the KJV with Strong's links which has placed the word anistemi with both words even though they both refer to the same usage of the same word in the Greek text. They are divided and appear as two instances only because of the way the wording comes out in English when you add the word "again" into the translation. There is only one occurrence in each of the two verses you have quoted. The KJV follows the Textus Receptus which has the word anistemi once in each verse. The same is true with all other texts, (which I will provide links to below each verse).
Acts 13:33-34 T/R
33 οτι ταυτην ο θεος εκπεπληρωκε τοις τεκνοις αυτων ημιν αναστησας ιησουν ως και εν τω ψαλμω τω δευτερω γεγραπται υιος μου ει συ εγω σημερον γεγεννηκα σε
http://biblehub.com/text/acts/13-33.htm
34 οτι δε ανεστησεν αυτον εκ νεκρων μηκετι μελλοντα υποστρεφειν εις διαφθοραν ουτως ειρηκεν οτι δωσω υμιν τα οσια δαβιδ τα πιστα
http://biblehub.com/text/acts/13-34.htm
In addition, if "again" should truly be added into the reading in either place, would you not think that it should be in the second placement in this context, in verse thirty-four, which concerns Yeshua being raised from the dead, ("raised up again")? Lol, funny how the KJV does not do the same with the second occurrence in verse thirty four. Bias, belias, be liaz... :chuckle:
Acts 13:34a -- "οτι δε ανεστησεν αυτον εκ νεκρων" . . .
"BUT concerning that He raised him up again from the dead" . . .
It is exactly as was just stated a couple of posts back concerning this rendering in the KJV: the word "again" is nowhere in the text but simply the typical rendering of the KJV when it comes to the word anistemi and its forms. Whereas the ASV and other translations simply render anistemi as "raise up", "raised up", "rise up", and so on; the KJV instead often renders it "raise again", "raised again", "rise again", and so on, (and apparently that is especially so when it points the reader in the direction of a particular bias). It is not that it is always wrong but rather woefully wrong in this instance.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You expect me to answer your points about the Greek word translated "and" at the beginning of Acts 13:34 and I did just that!
But when I asked you to answer my point about the Greek word translated "and" at the beginning of Acts 13:32 you refuse!
That tells me only one thing. You know that I am right and you just don't want to admit it!
So then, JS, how is it that Messiah did not glorify himself to be made Chief Priest but rather waited upon the Father? Could this be done in the womb? or eternity past? or as you say, after he was resurrected? As I said, that is fantasy land theology and you have no earthly witness to testify to any such nonsense. The author of Hebrews clearly believes that the Father spoke those words to Yeshua during his lifetime just as he writes in that passage already quoted.
Here it is again:
Hebrews 5:4-8
4 And no man takes this honor unto himself, but he that is called of Elohim, as was Ahron:
5 So also Meshiah glorified not himself to be made Chief Kohen; but He that spoke to him, "You are my Son, this day have I begotten you [Psalm 2:7, Luke 3:22, Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5].
6 As He says also in another place, "You are a Kohen for ever after the order of Melki-Tzedek" [Psalm 110:4].
7 Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears, unto Him that was able to save him from death, [Luke 22:41-44] also was heard because of his reverent fear:
8 Though he were a Son, [Psalm 2:7, Luke 3:22, Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5, Hebrews 5:5, Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 5:6] yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.
Here it is again:
Hebrews 5:4-8
4 And no man takes this honor unto himself, but he that is called of Elohim, as was Ahron:
5 So also Meshiah glorified not himself to be made Chief Kohen; but He that spoke to him, "You are my Son, this day have I begotten you [Psalm 2:7, Luke 3:22, Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5].
6 As He says also in another place, "You are a Kohen for ever after the order of Melki-Tzedek" [Psalm 110:4].
7 Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears, unto Him that was able to save him from death, [Luke 22:41-44] also was heard because of his reverent fear:
8 Though he were a Son, [Psalm 2:7, Luke 3:22, Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5, Hebrews 5:5, Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 5:6] yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.
You did not respond to any of all that which was re-posted for your benefit once again? You clearly have no interest in the actual truth, (and I never said anything about the "and" being a "but" in the verse you keep harping on about even though I have explained that portion four times now). When are you going to start answering my questions to you?
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
You did not respond to any of all that which was re-posted for your benefit once again? You clearly have no interest in the actual truth, (and I never said anything about the "and" being a "but" in the verse you keep harping on about even though I have explained that portion four times now). When are you going to start answering my questions to you?
Maybe he thinks you're just supposed to esteem his stuff better than your own. :idunno:
And do you know why the author of Hebrews says "Though he were a Son" in this context?
It is just as I already have shown you:
Originally Posted by daqq
Acts 3:22-26 KJV
22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up [G450 ἀνίστημι - anistemi] unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people [Deuteronomy 18:15-19 abridged].
24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
26 Unto you first God, having raised up [G450 ἀνίστημι - anistemi] his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
Yeshua is not technically "His Son" until the Father says to him at his immersion:
"You are My Son, this day have I begotten you", (Luke 3:22 Codex Bezae). :chuckle:
:sheep:
:Nineveh: