This day have I begotten you

[Jerry Shugart]

Maybe he thinks you're just supposed to esteem his stuff better than your own.

Not better. I answered what he said about the meaning of the Greek word translated "and" at the beginning of Acts 13:34. However, he refuses to answer what I said about the meaning of the Greek word translated "and" at the beginning of Acts 13:32.

Doesn't that make you curious?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Not better. I answered what he said about the meaning of the Greek word translated "and" at the beginning of Acts 13:34. However, he refuses to answer what I said about the meaning of the Greek word translated "and" at the beginning of Acts 13:32.

Doesn't that make you curious?

Curious as to why you didn't understand his explanation.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I never said anything about the "and" being a "but" in the verse you keep harping on about

I never said that you did.

Why don't you finally step up to the plate and actually address what I said about the meaning of the Greek word translated "and" at the beginning of Acts 13:32.

It won't bite you!

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Someone should perhaps then tell him that I have nothing of my own . . .

Nothing that's not given anyhow.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Curious as to why you didn't understand his explanation.

He never said a word about my remarks about the meaning of the Greek word translated "and" at the beginning of Acts 13:32. If you think that he did then just copy and paste his words.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I have already answered you three times now concerning this point.

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.

 

[daqq]

Not better. I answered what he said about the meaning of the Greek word translated "and" at the beginning of Acts 13:34. However, he refuses to answer what I said about the meaning of the Greek word translated "and" at the beginning of Acts 13:32.

Doesn't that make you curious?

I'm curious why you never answered to this when it was posted in your own thread:

Here is the perfect logic behind what I say, Freelight, taken straight from the Testimony of Yeshua himself in the very same Gospel account which so many use to supposedly prove that the man Yeshua or Jesus is "God Almighty born into human flesh" as they say. But when we take certain key statements of the Master himself, as follows, the error of Trinity is clearly exposed by the Testimony of Yeshua himself. The first key statement is that Yeshua says his words are SPIRIT, and even this should be enough to fully support what I have said, but if you follow the logic laid out in sequence from the statements below there is absolutely no denying the outcome of these clear emphatic statements.

The words of Yeshua are Spirit:

John 6:62-63
62 What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending up [to] where he was before?
63 It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are Life.

The Father judges no one but has committed all judgment to the Son:

John 5:22
22. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment unto the Son:

The man Yeshua also states that he himself judges no one:

John 8:15
15. You judge after the flesh: I judge no one.

There is only one who judges and he is the Seeker and the Judge:

John 8:50
50. And I seek not mine own glory: one there is, the Seeker and Judge. [Rev 2:23]

The Memra-Logos-Word which the man Yeshua speaks is not his own:

John 14:24
24. He that loves me not, keeps not my sayings: and the Logos-Word which you hear is not of me, but-contrariwise [it is] of the Father who sent me.

The Memra-Logos-Word is the Seeker and the Judge:

John 12:47-48
47. And if anyone hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but that the world might be delivered.
48. He that rejects me, and receives not my words, has one that judges him: the Logos-Word that I have spoken, that one shall judge him in the last day.

Revelation 19:11-16
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no one knew but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Logos-Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

The Son of Elohim and Son of Man is the Memra-Logos-Word who descended from the heavens in pneumatikos-spiritual somatiko-bodily form of a dove and abode-remained upon-within the man Yeshua throughout his ministry and Golgotha. No one has seen Elohim at any time because spoken word cannot be seen with the eyes of the flesh. The "new covenant" new Spirit, (Ezekiel 11:19, 18:31, 36:26), is therefore the most holy Word of the Testimony of Yeshua. Anyone claiming to have "the Holy Spirit" but not having and upholding the Testimony of Yeshua in uprightness is therefore deceived.

This is over and above everything else that has been discussed herein just since you arrived in this thread, (this is from where the above post was taken when it was posted in your own thread). The man Yeshua does not even claim to be the Logos or Word as clearly shown in the above statements. You have not understood because you have deliberately closed your eyes to the scripture which is the very Word you claim to believe and follow.

Anyhow, @freelight, we clearly have a critical difference between the man Yeshua and the Son of Elohim now demonstrated in this thread, (Yeshua became a son of Elohim at his immersion and the commencement of his ministry; and the firstborn, and the author of our faith). The Son of Elohim is the Logos-Word and the Son of Man who descended from the heavens in somatiko-corporeal-bodily form of a dove at the immersion of the man Yeshua. That one is the Logos, the only Judge, through whom all things were created:

Psalm 33:6 (32:6) LXX
6 (32:6) τω λογω του κυριου οι ουρανοι εστερεωθησαν και τω πνευματι του στοματος αυτου πασα η δυναμις αυτων
6 (32:6) By the Logos of YHWH the heavens were established; and all their hosts by the Spirit of His mouth.

The Son of Elohim proceeds from the Father because he is the Spirit of His mouth:
In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the Elohim, and the Logos was Elohim.
He was not the man Yeshua but the Spirit of the Holy One who abode upon the man Yeshua.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I'm curious why you never answered to this when it was posted in your own thread

Because I do not want to run off to something else while I am waiting for you to address what I said about the meaning of the Greek word translated "and" at the beginning of Acts 13:32.

I answered what you said about the meaning of the Greek word translated "and" at the beginning of Acts 13:34 so why don't you return the favor?

You hold others up to cross-examination but you refuse to be cross-examined!

 

[freelight]

The 10 Words, their significance...............

The 10 Words, their significance...............

Hi freelight,

Perhaps you can answer my following observation about these verses from the 13th Chapter of Acts:

"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 kia, 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!

Hi JS,

Daqq has already made it clear, that the reference made in Acts 13:33 of raising up Jesus concerns God fulfilling the promise he made to his children, to which the decree "You are My Son; today I have begotten You" refers to his over all promise given thru His Messiah, since you have to go back to see the psalm itself and the earliest gospel accounts using this passage (the one's that were ommitted in luke 3:22 and thus all gospel accounts after the 4th century due to doctrinal bias, where they took out "this day I have begotten you" and replaced it with "in whom I am well pleased") and other NT references to this particular passage, and then understand them in their context. - This divine anouncement from God Himself to his Messiah was decreed over Jesus AT His baptism. The promise of God to his Messiah concerns the 'anointing' of His Spirit upon his Messenger, and all the kingdom providence privileges given to God's people thru His Christ, which includes his people becoming His 'Messiah' (a collective body or community of people indwelt by His living word, His Spirit, 'the body of Christ'),...for He still calls Israel 'His Son',.....they are one kingdom, having one King.

The decree of Sonship includes all his kingly power and authority in the ministration of God's rule in human affairs. In the baptismal anointing of God coming down upon/into the man Jesus, the reality of 'Immanuel' was realized on earth, for Jesus was truly 'God with us' (God embodied, revealed, manifesting), the fountainhead of God resting upon Jesus and working thru him. All this is understood in the Acts 13:33, related directly to the divine decree of the 'begetting' of the Messiah as God's Son, an event that takes place IN TIME.

- In the context of the passage it then changes emphasis and articulates that the next descriptions refer directly to the resurrection of Jesus -

30 But God raised Him from the dead; 31 and for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people. 32 And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, 33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘You are My Son; today i have begotten You.’ 34 As for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’ 35 Therefore He also says in another Psalm, ‘You will not allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.’ 36 For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and was laid among his fathers and underwent decay; 37 but He whom God raised did not undergo decay.

- The NASB shows that a change in the emphasis of the passage is shifting in verse 34, as noted and also explained ealier by daqq. That very verse and all descriptions after it are referring or related to his resurrection more specifically. While the entire context begins and ends referring to God raising Jesus from the dead, verse 32 & 33 are about God raising Jesus up as a 'fulfillment' of God's promise via the divine decree of Psalm 2:7. (the 'raising up' here does not necessarily refer to the resurrection, but the promise of God articulated in Psalm 2:7 which this very sentence speaks of).

Furthermore, If you read the entire 2nd Psalm, do you see anything there about the Messiah's resurrection? It is about the Messiah's victory over God's enemies and his glory universally speaking. References to this decree in the book of Hebrews is about the Messiah's INHERITANCE, which come with the seal or anointing of SONSHIP upon the Messiah, the MAN God put His Spirit/Name upon.

We have to come back to understanding Psalm 2:7, in its full scope. Again,....the 10 words, "You are my Son, This day I have begotten you" speaks of the inheritance given to the Messiah by God's own decree. If this decree was given AT Jesus baptism, its meaning is most significant, and it challenges the later developed dogma formulated by orthodox professors, that Jesus was the Son of God from eternity, as eternally existing as the Son, or 'God the Son' within an eternal Trinity. An obvious reason the "This day I have begotten you" verse was taken out of the full quote of Psalm 2:7 in the gospels, was that it directly challenged the 'Eternal Son' doctrine of orthodoxy, and held a more 'Adoptionist' view of Jesus, a 'Christology' the Orthodox could not have since it threatened their theology. Hence a little 'textual doctoring' to fix things! Now below is evidence provided for our observations so far -

Besides Allan Cronshaw's 'Ten Words' page I already shared,...this page here summarizes and gives EVIDENCE that Luke 3:22 and apparently all gospel references of the divine decree given at Jesus baptism were 'altered', the full quote of Psalm 2:7 Not being given, which is "You are my Son, Today I have begotten you". The latter half of this divine anouncement was CHANGED to "in whom I am well pleased". Again full proofs and references are provided in the article. Read it in its entirety and discover such for yourself. - if you're intellectually honest and desire to know the truth of any given particular.

So you see how this very verse is so important, and it proves the 'Church' and her 'professors' had alot at stake so made efforts to 'wipe out' the "today I have begotten you" verse in the particular passages where GOD Himself is making a decree over Jesus. If this indeed God himself making this decree, I'd think such a corrupting of the original decree by interpolation (ommission) is a rather serious crime in intellectual dishonesty, to say nothing of taking the scripture for what it actually says, preserving the earliest most reliable textual evidence for any given passage. Granted there are variant readings in extant manuscripts, so that study of all available manuscripts and historical attestments much be considered when coming to the correct reading or understanding of passages. But this is a real 'kicker'. Who here is being 'honest' with God's word? - the earliest textual traditions included "today I have begotten you",..this is attested in the proofs given here, - and was especially maintained by those keeping to more Jewish tradition of the followers of Jesus, the Ebionites, Nazarenes, followers of the Way, etc. - these one's likely have a truer rendition of the earliest gospel records, faithful to the Jewish understanding, since later 'manipulations' of scripture were done by the growing church-state in Rome, bowing to the influence of gentile-pagan concepts and belief-constructs. From the 4-5th centuries on,...pressure from doctrinal debates over the Trinity and efforts to maintain the full divinity of Jesus at all costs (even doctoring 'scriptures') were in full sway.

With that, I think more could be shared meditating upon the 'divine decree' and all its implications...which Allan Cronshaw does well in doing, for those looking to expand on a more spiritual, figurative and allegorical interpretation of scripture, which speaks of the kingdom within. An Adoptionist Christology also allows a more human Jesus as our example and prototype, showing that we CAN by our own repentance and committment to divine will, empowered by God's Spirit and grace, actually LIVE as Jesus lived, as he said "follow me",....showing us by his own example, how to DO God's will, and realize the kingdom within our midst, both within and without. Hence we too can be 'Christ' (God's anointed) and figuratively and spiritually, this is exactly the case that is presented in the scripture,...Israel being God's Son,...living by the laws written in his heart/mind, the word of God inspired and quickened in the 'inner man', that he become's God's Son, God's Messiah. Remember Jesus is our exemplar, the firstborn among many brethren, the one who calls us to follow after him, to demonstrate our sonship with God, by doing his will. Remember in Paul's language, we are the body of Christ, the head and the body are ONE. There is one Israel, one community, one kingdom, one divine Name and identity which includes 'God and his Son(s)'.

We cannot overlook this issue of God's decree of Sonship, which includes the 'begetting' of Sonship at his baptism. This of course does not discount or diminish any significance of him ALSO being declared the Son of God by his resurrection (in the succession of his proofs of being chosen by God), since some passages make note of this,....but the anouncement given AT his baptism has initial and Messianic significance,...at least more so in the Hebrew sense, as far as Messiah's INHERITANCE is concerned. - this is important to note. I hope this has further clarified things. I know I be can rather extensive in my commentaries, thanks for bearing with me as each nuance, inflection and creative description all has its place in the bigger picture of helping to 'com-prehend' the matter(s) at hand. - this is why I go on

Selah

Update: I just now read daqq's last post while in 'preview mode' - I think we can certainly recognize a difference or distinction between the man Jesus and the divine spirit-logos-anointing that came upon and into the man Jesus and operated thru him during his earthly ministry. I think the whole trinitarian effort to describe both the 'human' and 'divine' aspects of Jesus stems from this recognition that there was a divine spirit at work in Jesus, God working in and thru him. Obviously anyone representing 'God', is 'God' in so much as he genuinely represents Him, figuratley speaking. I think it is important to recognize the human and divine elements at work synergistically in Jesus the Messiah. Problems, differences or complications however arise when any particular profession or formulation is assumed to be the only 'correct' or 'right' way of concluding the constitution of Jesus, deeming that 'orthodox' and all other views, heretical. Back to essentials,....it is always God, working in and thru Jesus. Jesus reveals God to us, and is therefore 'God' to us. This however does not make Jesus himself 'God ALMIGHTY', the incorporeal infinite Spirit-Father-God. Only 'God' is 'God', and 'God' reveals himself thru his 'logos', by His Spirit-anointing (the 'Christ', Son of God/Son of Man), By the Agent(s) who serves Him, the one who does His will. God needs a body, hands, feet, a mouth in this world to be His VOICE, his image personified. This is pretty basic stuff folks. - Since I'm of the elcectic school, I'm more liberal in my Christology, and all-inclusive to a degree. I just dont include any view that is presumptuous or unnecessarily dogmatic, and am ever researching my own observations, as any student of truth is apt to do.

:thumb:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Daqq has already made it clear,

I know what he asserts and if his assertions are correct then why does he refuse to 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 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 his 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."

In Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon we read that the word kai "serves as a copulative i.e. to connect...it marks something added to what has already been said" (Joseph Henry Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,1977] 315).

Therefore, with that in mind the following verses can only be in regard to one thing, the resurrection of the Lord Jesus:

"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).​

With this in view we can know with certainity that the words in "bold" were spoken when the Lord Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

freelight, if I have said anything in this post which is in error then I am certain that you will able to tell me specifically where I made my error. I will await your response.

Thanks!

 

[freelight]

Hairsplitting fun........

Hairsplitting fun........

I know what he asserts and if his assertions are correct then why does he refuse to 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 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 his 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."

In Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon we read that the word kai "serves as a copulative i.e. to connect...it marks something added to what has already been said" (Joseph Henry Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,1977] 315).

Therefore, with that in mind the following verses can only be in regard to one thing, the resurrection of the Lord Jesus:

"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).​

With this in view we can know with certainity that the words in "bold" were spoken when the Lord Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

freelight, if I have said anything in this post which is in error then I am certain that you will able to tell me specifically where I made my error. I will await your response.

Thanks!

I think the main verse we hilighted at least in the Textus Receptus is verse 34, which does not use the word 'kai'...but 'de' - see here ( reverse interlinear) - the point we made earlier in this particular verse is that it introduces a new stream of thought about the Psalm 2:7 quote which concerns the promises of God given to his messiah, to which he 'raised him up' to accomplish. The 'raising up' then in this case we interpret to refer to the significant time of anouncement at his baptism, which initiated him as it were, into the fullness of his ministry as God's Son. - remember, all that the original Psalm entitled him to. This is one way to translate the particular verse within the total context, which the grammar apparently allows unless you can disprove such a 'translation' beyond any doubt. So,...verse 34 is the more pivotal verse here introducing the communication flow back to the the resurrection specifically. See the various translations that support this view -

Concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he has spoken thus: ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’ - WEB

And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he spoke in this way, ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’ -RSV

But regarding the fact that he has raised Jesus from the dead, no more about to return to corruption, thus he said: ‘I will give to you the sacred and sure promises made to David.’ -MOUNCE

Now as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he hath said thus, I will give you the holy things of David, which are faithful. -GNV

But that he raised him from among [the] dead, no more to return to corruption, he spoke thus: I will give to you the faithful mercies of David. -DARBY

God raised him from the dead so that he will never be subject to decay. As God has said, “‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.’ -NIV

Notice here, there is an introducing of a specific reference to what the passage "I will give you the holy and sure mercies of David" CONCERNING the resurrection in particular, comparing Jesus body with the body of David, that Jesus had an incorruptible body. It shows that verse 33 was not necessarily or directly speaking about the resurrection of Jesus, but his Messianic calling, decree of Sonship and kingdom inheritance by quoting Psalm 2:7. This is what i was alluding to in my last commentary. So the verse being quoted is significant here, its original and total meaning, not just what is superimposed upon it by an 'assumption' of context. - One can include a related thought within a greater context indicating something else with-in that surrounding context.

But concerning your 'kai' in verse 32 (here from the NASB concordanc),...it is even more 'versatile' a word than 'de' (see here- NASB concordance) used in verse 34, but both words seem to be pretty flexible. - however this is translated, I dont see it affecting the context of the entire passage concerned, because in vs. 34 it emphasizes that what is shared there specifically relates to the resurrection. It returns the subject back to the resurrection in a given particular.

In any case,....split hairs if we must...the decree of the LORD to his Anointed holds, and in the context of the original psalm, gospel and NT passages of this verse being used,...the total scope of its meaning holds concerning the inheritance, rule, glory and power of The Messiah. Even if one assumes that Jesus Sonship or claim to be Messiah is more tied with his RESURRECTION as the seal or proof of his Christhood, the baptismal anointing and heavenly decree at that particular event, has its special meaning as well,...BOTH are part of the testimony of Jesus of course. From a holistic point of view, I think we could all agree on that. By this time, I think we've hashed this out pretty well, unless one wants to go Mcguyver on the greek grammar

So, its not so much a matter of anyone proving your observations wrong, since one can go DEEPER into the rules of greek grammar and how to translate/interpret any given text arrangement. Its more of a matter of offering a different alternative reading than you are accustomed to, to research it out, to consider it. One could 'assume' that every verse in this entire passage refers to the Resurrection of Jesus, but we have given/supplied more on Psalm 2:7 (the full original passage) which is pivotal here in considering more of an Adoptionist viewpoint, although there are variations within this school as well, concerning the nature of Jesus and his relationship with the divine spirit/logos/anointing that came upon him or entered into him. That relationshp extends to another topic of course...which keeps the Christological wheels turning

 

[Jerry Shugart]

But concerning your 'kai' in verse 32 (here from the NASB concordanc),...it is even more 'versatile' a word than 'de' (see here- NASB concordance) used in verse 34, but both words seem to be pretty flexible. - however this is translated, I dont see it affecting the context of the entire passage concerned, because in vs. 34 it emphasizes that what is shared there specifically relates to the resurrection. It returns the subject back to the resurrection in a given particular.

I quoted from two of the sources found on your link for kai and nothing on that link contradicts what I said here:

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."

In Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon we read that the word kai "serves as a copulative i.e. to connect...it marks something added to what has already been said" (Joseph Henry Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,1977] 315).

Therefore, with that in mind the following verses can only be in regard to one thing, the resurrection of the Lord Jesus:

"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).​

With this in view we can know with certainity that the words in "bold" were spoken when the Lord Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

You said nothing at all that really addresses what I said here so I can only believe that you are unable to demonstrate what I said is not true.

I think the main verse we hilighted at least in the Textus Receptus is verse 34, which does not use the word 'kai'...but 'de'...

I have already addressed that but for your benefit I will repeat what I said:

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).

So there is nothing about the use of de that forbids the idea that the "raising up" spoken of in verse 33 is the same "raising up" of verse 34.

If you do not have an argument of substance in regard to the use of kai at the beginning of Acts 13:32 then I can only conclude that you have no answer to what I said about it.

Thanks anyway!

 

[daqq]

Hi JS,

Daqq has already made it clear, that the reference made in Acts 13:33 of raising up Jesus concerns God fulfilling the promise he made to his children, to which the decree "You are My Son; today I have begotten You" refers to his over all promise given thru His Messiah, since you have to go back to see the psalm itself and the earliest gospel accounts using this passage (the one's that were ommitted in luke 3:22 and thus all gospel accounts after the 4th century due to doctrinal bias, where they took out "this day I have begotten you" and replaced it with "in whom I am well pleased") and other NT references to this particular passage, and then understand them in their context. - This divine anouncement from God Himself to his Messiah was decreed over Jesus AT His baptism. The promise of God to his Messiah concerns the 'anointing' of His Spirit upon his Messenger, and all the kingdom providence privileges given to God's people thru His Christ, which includes his people becoming His 'Messiah' (a collective body or community of people indwelt by His living word, His Spirit, 'the body of Christ'),...for He still calls Israel 'His Son',.....they are one kingdom, having one King.

The decree of Sonship includes all his kingly power and authority in the ministration of God's rule in human affairs. In the baptismal anointing of God coming down upon/into the man Jesus, the reality of 'Immanuel' was realized on earth, for Jesus was truly 'God with us' (God embodied, revealed, manifesting), the fountainhead of God resting upon Jesus and working thru him. All this is understood in the Acts 13:33, related directly to the divine decree of the 'begetting' of the Messiah as God's Son, an event that takes place IN TIME.

- In the context of the passage it then changes emphasis and articulates that the next descriptions refer directly to the resurrection of Jesus -



- The NASB shows that a change in the emphasis of the passage is shifting in verse 34, as noted and also explained ealier by daqq. That very verse and all descriptions after it are referring or related to his resurrection more specifically. While the entire context begins and ends referring to God raising Jesus from the dead, verse 32 & 33 are about God raising Jesus up as a 'fulfillment' of God's promise via the divine decree of Psalm 2:7. (the 'raising up' here does not necessarily refer to the resurrection, but the promise of God articulated in Psalm 2:7 which this very sentence speaks of).

Furthermore, If you read the entire 2nd Psalm, do you see anything there about the Messiah's resurrection? It is about the Messiah's victory over God's enemies and his glory universally speaking. References to this decree in the book of Hebrews is about the Messiah's INHERITANCE, which come with the seal or anointing of SONSHIP upon the Messiah, the MAN God put His Spirit/Name upon.

We have to come back to understanding Psalm 2:7, in its full scope. Again,....the 10 words, "You are my Son, This day I have begotten you" speaks of the inheritance given to the Messiah by God's own decree. If this decree was given AT Jesus baptism, its meaning is most significant, and it challenges the later developed dogma formulated by orthodox professors, that Jesus was the Son of God from eternity, as eternally existing as the Son, or 'God the Son' within an eternal Trinity. An obvious reason the "This day I have begotten you" verse was taken out of the full quote of Psalm 2:7 in the gospels, was that it directly challenged the 'Eternal Son' doctrine of orthodoxy, and held a more 'Adoptionist' view of Jesus, a 'Christology' the Orthodox could not have since it threatened their theology. Hence a little 'textual doctoring' to fix things! Now below is evidence provided for our observations so far -

Besides Allan Cronshaw's 'Ten Words' page I already shared,...this page here summarizes and gives EVIDENCE that Luke 3:22 and apparently all gospel references of the divine decree given at Jesus baptism were 'altered', the full quote of Psalm 2:7 Not being given, which is "You are my Son, Today I have begotten you". The latter half of this divine anouncement was CHANGED to "in whom I am well pleased". Again full proofs and references are provided in the article. Read it in its entirety and discover such for yourself. - if you're intellectually honest and desire to know the truth of any given particular.

So you see how this very verse is so important, and it proves the 'Church' and her 'professors' had alot at stake so made efforts to 'wipe out' the "today I have begotten you" verse in the particular passages where GOD Himself is making a decree over Jesus. If this indeed God himself making this decree, I'd think such a corrupting of the original decree by interpolation (ommission) is a rather serious crime in intellectual dishonesty, to say nothing of taking the scripture for what it actually says, preserving the earliest most reliable textual evidence for any given passage. Granted there are variant readings in extant manuscripts, so that study of all available manuscripts and historical attestments much be considered when coming to the correct reading or understanding of passages. But this is a real 'kicker'. Who here is being 'honest' with God's word? - the earliest textual traditions included "today I have begotten you",..this is attested in the proofs given here, - and was especially maintained by those keeping to more Jewish tradition of the followers of Jesus, the Ebionites, Nazarenes, followers of the Way, etc. - these one's likely have a truer rendition of the earliest gospel records, faithful to the Jewish understanding, since later 'manipulations' of scripture were done by the growing church-state in Rome, bowing to the influence of gentile-pagan concepts and belief-constructs. From the 4-5th centuries on,...pressure from doctrinal debates over the Trinity and efforts to maintain the full divinity of Jesus at all costs (even doctoring 'scriptures') were in full sway.

With that, I think more could be shared meditating upon the 'divine decree' and all its implications...which Allan Cronshaw does well in doing, for those looking to expand on a more spiritual, figurative and allegorical interpretation of scripture, which speaks of the kingdom within. An Adoptionist Christology also allows a more human Jesus as our example and prototype, showing that we CAN by our own repentance and committment to divine will, empowered by God's Spirit and grace, actually LIVE as Jesus lived, as he said "follow me",....showing us by his own example, how to DO God's will, and realize the kingdom within our midst, both within and without. Hence we too can be 'Christ' (God's anointed) and figuratively and spiritually, this is exactly the case that is presented in the scripture,...Israel being God's Son,...living by the laws written in his heart/mind, the word of God inspired and quickened in the 'inner man', that he become's God's Son, God's Messiah. Remember Jesus is our exemplar, the firstborn among many brethren, the one who calls us to follow after him, to demonstrate our sonship with God, by doing his will. Remember in Paul's language, we are the body of Christ, the head and the body are ONE. There is one Israel, one community, one kingdom, one divine Name and identity which includes 'God and his Son(s)'.

We cannot overlook this issue of God's decree of Sonship, which includes the 'begetting' of Sonship at his baptism. This of course does not discount or diminish any significance of him ALSO being declared the Son of God by his resurrection (in the succession of his proofs of being chosen by God), since some passages make note of this,....but the anouncement given AT his baptism has initial and Messianic significance,...at least more so in the Hebrew sense, as far as Messiah's INHERITANCE is concerned. - this is important to note. I hope this has further clarified things. I know I be can rather extensive in my commentaries, thanks for bearing with me as each nuance, inflection and creative description all has its place in the bigger picture of helping to 'com-prehend' the matter(s) at hand. - this is why I go on

Selah

Update: I just now read daqq's last post while in 'preview mode' - I think we can certainly recognize a difference or distinction between the man Jesus and the divine spirit-logos-anointing that came upon and into the man Jesus and operated thru him during his earthly ministry. I think the whole trinitarian effort to describe both the 'human' and 'divine' aspects of Jesus stems from this recognition that there was a divine spirit at work in Jesus, God working in and thru him. Obviously anyone representing 'God', is 'God' in so much as he genuinely represents Him, figuratley speaking. I think it is important to recognize the human and divine elements at work synergistically in Jesus the Messiah. Problems, differences or complications however arise when any particular profession or formulation is assumed to be the only 'correct' or 'right' way of concluding the constitution of Jesus, deeming that 'orthodox' and all other views, heretical. Back to essentials,....it is always God, working in and thru Jesus. Jesus reveals God to us, and is therefore 'God' to us. This however does not make Jesus himself 'God ALMIGHTY', the incorporeal infinite Spirit-Father-God. Only 'God' is 'God', and 'God' reveals himself thru his 'logos', by His Spirit-anointing (the 'Christ', Son of God/Son of Man), By the Agent(s) who serves Him, the one who does His will. God needs a body, hands, feet, a mouth in this world to be His VOICE, his image personified. This is pretty basic stuff folks. - Since I'm of the elcectic school, I'm more liberal in my Christology, and all-inclusive to a degree. I just dont include any view that is presumptuous or unnecessarily dogmatic, and am ever researching my own observations, as any student of truth is apt to do.

:thumb:

Well said! And thanks for taking the time to research and write this all out Freelight.

 

[daqq]

He never said a word about my remarks about the meaning of the Greek word translated "and" at the beginning of Acts 13:32. If you think that he did then just copy and paste his words.

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.

You simply are not willing to see or understand what has happened. In my view I am adopted into a family, and because of that the authors and writers of the New Testament are my spiritual brethren, and likewise because of that I adopt their teachings, (as I said I really have nothing of my own that really counts in this life and these are the things that really count). I already showed you how the author of Hebrews does not agree with your understanding of the passage you keep harping about. The author of Hebrews makes this clear in the several posts which I quoted and explained, (which you again ignored), in fact the author of Hebrews even goes so far as to place the day of the Psalm 2:7 decree, as spoken to Yeshua by the Father, within the physical lifetime of Yeshua, saying, "In the days of his flesh", in the same passage. The author of Hebrews does not agree with your overall theology because the same author places the decree somewhere in the physical earthly lifespan of Yeshua while you protest that the decree must have been made sometime after Yeshua was resurrected. It is not me that you are disagreeing with but the author of Hebrews. That makes you therefore the divisive one because you refuse to believe the authors of the New Testament so that you may continue with your own privately held doctrine to support your own theological biases and preconceived mindset. You make yourself a thief and a robber who is doing nothing more than taking from what is not yours and using little segregated portions to concoct your own divisive heresy. If you saw yourself as adopted into a family and these writers as your brethren then you would not do what you do with their words. If you desire for me to see anything you have to say then you need to say it with the scripture and not just your interpretations on your own authority. Otherwise I am going to side with my brethren and you I do not know.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You simply are not willing to see or understand what has happened. In my view I am adopted into a family, and because of that the authors and writers of the New Testament are my spiritual brethren, and likewise because of that I adopt their teachings...

Then why do you refuse to adopt what Paul wrote here?:

"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 your 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."

The word "copulative" means "joining together coordinate words or word groups and expressing addition of their meanings" (Merriam-Webster.com).

The word "cumulative" means "increasing by successive additions" (Merriam-Webster.com).

In Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon we read that the word kai "serves as a copulative i.e. to connect...it marks something added to what has already been said" (Joseph Henry Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,1977] 315).

Therefore, with that in mind the following verses can only be in regard to one thing, the resurrection of the Lord Jesus:

"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).​

With this in view we can know with certainity that the words in "bold" were spoken when the Lord Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

You still have not addressed the meaning of the Greek word kai which is translated "and" at the beginning of Acts 13:32. When we understand the meaning of that word then we can understand that the discourse of Paul beginning at verse 30 until verse 37 is speaking of nothing but the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

And you remain mum in regard to the meaning of that word, a word that sinks your ship!

If you desire for me to see anything you have to say then you need to say it with the scripture and not just your interpretations on your own authority. Otherwise I am going to side with my brethren and you I do not know.

I am saying it with the Scriptures with the aid of experts on the Greek language. Nothing which I say is based on my own authority but instead on Paul's own words.

It is you who refuses to believe what Paul said.

 

[daqq]

Then why do you refuse to adopt what Paul wrote here?:

"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 your 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."

The word "copulative" means "joining together coordinate words or word groups and expressing addition of their meanings" (Merriam-Webster.com).

The word "cumulative" means "increasing by successive additions" (Merriam-Webster.com).

In Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon we read that the word kai "serves as a copulative i.e. to connect...it marks something added to what has already been said" (Joseph Henry Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,1977] 315).

Therefore, with that in mind the following verses can only be in regard to one thing, the resurrection of the Lord Jesus:

"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).​

With this in view we can know with certainity that the words in "bold" were spoken when the Lord Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

You still have not addressed the meaning of the Greek word kai which is translated "and" at the beginning of Acts 13:32. When we understand the meaning of that word then we can understand that the discourse of Paul beginning at verse 30 until verse 37 is speaking of nothing but the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

And you remain mum in regard to the meaning of that word, a word that sinks your ship!

You're missing the point: I do agree with Paul but not with you because after quoting the passage you immediately switch over to your false interpretation of it. The minute you say, "In verses 30-31 the subject under discussion is the resurrection of the Lord Jesus", we're done because you have rejected what the author of Hebrews already teaches in this matter and I have already explained this five or six times for you now in several different ways with several different scripture passages. This all started because you erroneously quoted the KJV which adds "again" when it should not have been inserted into the text of Acts 13:33 KJV. As anyone may see even the forum default NKJV has the statement corrected without the word "again" in the NKJV, Acts 13:33. You are ignoring the particle "de" at the beginning of verse thirty-four which makes a distinction in the middle of the overall statement. That means the portion before it, (verse thirty-three), is not speaking of the resurrection but rather Paul must be recounting from the beginning of the ministry of Yeshua. I already explained this many times now. Here is your post again with the statement in bold red where I stop reading because you are ignoring any and all evidence which is found contrary to your own private opinion:

Then why do you refuse to adopt what Paul wrote here?:

"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.

We're done at this point because you reject the testimony of Hebrews 5:4-10.

Here is that exposition of the Hebrews 5 passage yet again:

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.

The truth will not change no matter how many times you reject it and ask for another answer.

 

[daqq]

You're missing the point: I do agree with Paul but not with you because after quoting the passage you immediately switch over to your false interpretation of it. The minute you say, "In verses 30-31 the subject under discussion is the resurrection of the Lord Jesus", we're done because you have rejected what the author of Hebrews already teaches in this matter and I have already explained this five or six times for you now in several different ways with several different scripture passages. This all started because you erroneously quoted the KJV which adds "again" when it should not have been inserted into the text of Acts 13:33 KJV. As anyone may see even the forum default NKJV has the statement corrected without the word "again" in the NKJV, Acts 13:33. You are ignoring the particle "de" at the beginning of verse thirty-four which makes a distinction in the middle of the overall statement. That means the portion before it, (verse thirty-three), is not speaking of the resurrection but rather Paul must be recounting from the beginning of the ministry of Yeshua. I already explained this many times now.

Additionally, JS, Acts 13:30 also contains the particle δε at the beginning of the statement. Should we therefore also render it as "and"? This just goes to show that such situations are decisions which are up to the translators and their opinions concerning the text because it could go either way depending on the context. But look what happens when we do the same in Acts 13:30 which the translators already do in Acts 13:34 at the beginning of that statement:

Acts 13:30 W/H
30 ο δε θεος ηγειρεν αυτον εκ νεκρων

Acts 13:29-30 (an improper reading of the text!)
29 And when they had fulfilled all things that were written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb.
30 And God raised him from the dead:

Does the above rendering of δε as "And" accurately reflect what the text is truly attempting to relate to the audience? The answer is an obvious, NO, it does not accurately reflect the full impact of what the passage intends to convey to the reader, (which is in opposition to what was previously said as already explained before in this thread). The same exact thing happens with Acts 13:34 because the most common rendering of δε in the statement as "And" deflects the mind of the reader away from perceiving the full impact of the change in discourse: from the raising up of Yeshua as "that Prophet" foretold in the Torah, (Acts 13:33), to a discussion with proof texts, (Isaiah 55:3 and Psalm 16:10), concerning the raising up of Yeshua from the dead, (Acts 13:34-35). This also has already been explained to you many times over though you attempt to deny it.

 

[daqq]

Now therefore with all this understanding we may take this small portion of what Paul says and break it down into little sermonettes. Paul is going to speak of two main things: 1) how Elohim raised up Yeshua in the first place, as "That Prophet like unto Moshe", and sent him to the people to fulfill the promise to the fathers, (which is only found in the full Testimony of Yeshua and therefore must include his earthly physical ministry to the people), and, 2) how Elohim raised up Yeshua from the dead after they had crucified him:

Sermonette #1 - The raising up of Yeshua as "That Prophet", (Deut 18:15-19), like unto Moshe:

Acts 13:29-33
29 And when they had fulfilled all things that were written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb.
30 But Elohim raised him from the dead:
31 and he was seen for many days of them that came up with him from Galilee to Yerushalem, who are now his witnesses unto the people.
32 And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers:
33 that Elohim fulfilled the same [promise] unto our children in that He raised up Yeshua; as also it is written in the second Psalm, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee", [Psalm 2:7].

Sermonette #1 Reading:

Psalm 2 (Posted in the OP)
Why did the nations rage and the peoples imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood; and the rulers gathered themselves together against YHWH, and against His Anointed One. {Pause}

"Let us break their bonds asunder and cast away their yoke from off us!"

The One dwelling in the heavens shall mock them, and the Adonai-Master shall deride them: at that time he shall speak to them in his anger, and in his passion he will agitate them, declaring the decree of YHWH:

"But I am appointed king under Him upon His holy mount Zion, YHWH has said unto me: You are My Son, this day have I begotten you; ask of Me, and I will give you the nations for your inheritance, and you shall possess the extremities of the earth; you will shepherd them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of a potter shall you break them."

Now therefore understand, O kings, let the judges of the earth be instructed; serve YHWH with fear, and render exultation unto Him with trembling. Take hold of the Son; lest at any time you anger YHWH, and perish from the way of the Just, when the passion of his fury is a little kindled. Blessed are all they who place their trust on him [the Son, the Just].

Sermonette #2 - The raising up of Yeshua from the dead:

Acts 13:34-35
34 But as concerning that He raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, He hath spoken in this manner, "I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David", [Isaiah 55:3].
35 Because he [David] says also in another Psalm, "Thou wilt not give thy Holy One to see corruption", [Psalm 16:10].

Sermonette #2 Readings:

Isaiah 55:1-4
1 Alas! every one that thirsts, come to the waters; and he that has no money; come, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price!
2 Wherefore do you spend money for that which is not bread? and your labor for that which satisfies not? hearken diligently unto Me, and eat that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness:
3 Incline your ear, and come unto Me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David!
4 Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people.

Psalm 16:1-11
1 A Secret Treasure of David. Preserve me, O El, for in you do I put my trust.
2 You have said to YHWH Adonai, "You are my goodness, there is nothing beside you."
3 For the holy ones who are in the land, and the honorable, all my delight is in them.
4 Those who have hastened backward; their griefs are multiplied: I will not pour out their drink offerings of blood, nor will I take up their names on my lips.
5 YHWH is the portion of my inheritance and of my cup: You are He that maintains my lot.
6 The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage.
7 I will bless the Master who has given me counsel: my reins also instruct me in the night seasons.
8 I have set the Master always before me: because He is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.
9 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices: my flesh also shall rest in hope.
10 For you will not leave my soul in sheol; neither will you suffer your Holy One to see corruption.
11 You cause me to know the path of life: in your presence is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures for evermore.

So we clearly see two sections for the two different points Paul is making in Acts 13:29-35.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The minute you say, "In verses 30-31 the subject under discussion is the resurrection of the Lord Jesus", we're done because you have rejected what the author of Hebrews already teaches in this matter and I have already explained this five or six times for you now in several different ways with several different scripture passages

Let us look at these verses:

"And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec" (Heb.4:5-6).​

We can see a relationship between the words in regard to the Lord Jesus being "begotten" and Him being made a High Priest. We also know that while He was on the earth the Lord Jesus was not a Priest:

"For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law" (Heb.8:4).​

Therefore, the Lord's duty as the High Priest did not begin until He was resurrected from the dead and ascended to heaven where He now serves as High Priest. So I find it hard to believe that the words in regard to Him being begotten is in regard to things which happened prior to the time of His earthly ministry. Instead, I believe that these words were said at His resurrection, something which happened shortly before he ascended into heaven:

"Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee" (Heb.5:5).​

 

[daqq]

Let us look at these verses:

"And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec" (Heb.4:5-6).​

We can see a relationship between the words in regard to the Lord Jesus being "begotten" and Him being made a High Priest. We also know that while He was on the earth the Lord Jesus was not a Priest:

"For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law" (Heb.8:4).​

Therefore, the Lord's duty as the High Priest did not begin until He was resurrected from the dead and ascended to heaven where He now serves as High Priest. So we can know that the following words in "bold" cannot possibly be in regard to anything at all which happened while the Lord Jesus walked the earth:

"And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec" (Heb.4:5-6).​

That being true then we can know that the words in "bold" must refer to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus from the dead, the same truth revealed by Paul at Acts 13:30-37.

If that is what you wish to believe that is on you; but I already know how you operate so there is no sense in trying to explain my position to you anymore. Herein you have once again asserted bold conclusions, which are not actually stated in what you have quoted, but I see no point in trying to single any of them out because you do not really care about knowing the truth so much as forcing the scripture to confess to your own belief system. That is not how it works.