This day have I begotten you

[Jerry Shugart]

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.

You do not even attempt to prove what I said is in error. Why is that?

 

[daqq]

You do not even attempt to prove what I said is in error. Why is that?

You do not read anything logically but rather with paradigm blinders on. Not interested anymore. Why would I want to go through another four or five pages of repeating myself over and over again, with whole a new set of questions and objections from you, just because you have already made up your mind that you are not going to accept any scripture which refutes your stance anyways? You have not proven anything, and you never answer any of my questions or respond when the scripture clearly refutes your stance, and starting the whole process all over again with a new set of passages with someone who is not really interested in the truth to begin with simply has no appeal to me.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You do not read anything logically but rather with paradigm blinders on.

I am the one who is quoting from the Scriptures and then using the Scriptures to support what I think that they are saying. You accuse me of not being logical but instead reading the Scriptures with my paradigm blinders on. If that is true then I am sure that you will be able to prove what you said.

Have at it!

 

[daqq]

I am the one who is quoting from the Scriptures and then using the Scriptures to support what I think that they are saying. You accuse me of not being logical but instead reading the Scriptures with my paradigm blinders on. If that is true then I am sure that you will be able to prove what you said.

Have at it!

Why don't you show us all how "this day" or "today" can take place in eternity where there is no time? The very statement "Eternal Son Doctrine" is an oxymoronic statement because sons are always begotten of fathers and therefore naturally have a beginning. But this thread does not even concentrate on such basic things and rather attempts to go into the deeper things from the scripture. If you cannot get past the oxymoronic idea of an eternally begotten son who was supposedly never actually begotten but eternal, even though the scripture says he was begotten, then how can you expect to understand the deeper things? You say that the statement, "This day have I begotten you", takes place after Yeshua was resurrected somewhere in eternity, (where there are no days), but you have yet to actually provide any evidence whatsoever to substantiate your opinion, and that is because it is precisely that: nothing more than your own dogmatic oxymoronic scripture contradicting opinion. Please go ahead; prove to us all that "this day" or "today" happens anywhere outside of time, and while you are at it you might as well show us all how begotten does not really mean begotten.

 

[Wick Stick]

Well, the author of Hebrews regarded the children as already being extant "in the loins" of the father (Heb 7). So there's no problem with the Son existing eternally, but not being begotten until some certain day. :smile:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Why don't you show us all how "this day" or "today" can take place in eternity where there is no time?

The words were spoken at the resurrection of the Lord Jesus and that happened on the earth where there is time.

"This day have I begotten you", takes place after Yeshua was resurrected somewhere in eternity...

He was on the earth when He was resurrected from the dead.

...but you have yet to actually provide any evidence whatsoever to substantiate your opinion, and that is because it is precisely that: nothing more than your own dogmatic oxymoronic scripture contradicting opinion.

You have not provided any evidence at all which proves what I said is in error. You are so desperate to find somethimg that you assert thsat the resurrection of the Lord Jesus' body took place in the eternal state.

Please go ahead; prove to us all that "this day" or "today" happens anywhere outside of time, and while you are at it you might as well show us all how begotten does not really mean begotten.

When do you say these words were spoken?:

"Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" (Acts 13:33; ASV).​

 

[daqq]

Well, the author of Hebrews regarded the children as already being extant "in the loins" of the father (Heb 7). So there's no problem with the Son existing eternally, but not being begotten until some certain day. :smile:

Yeah but how do you get tribe of Judah when Joseph is not the father, Mariam is woven with Elisheba, and the Prophetess is the sister of Moses? One would think that Zecharias should have written MaherSHalalCHashbaz on his writing tablet instead!

 

[daqq]

The words were spoken at the resurrection of the Lord Jesus and that happened on the earth where there is time.



He was on the earth when He was resurrected from the dead.



You have not provided any evidence at all which proves what I said is in error. You are so desperate to find somethimg that you assert thsat the resurrection of the Lord Jesus' body took place in the eternal state.



When do you say these words were spoken?:

"Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" (Acts 13:33; ASV).​

I cannot explain any more of it to you because it concerns being born from above.

Galatians 1:14-17 KJV
14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Isaiah 49:1-6 KJV
1 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.
2 And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me;
3 And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.
4 Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the LORD, and my work with my God.
5 And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.
6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

Galatians 4:22-27 KJV
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband [Isaiah 54:1-3 - Mishkan-Tabernacle symbolism].

So then, you have to go back into the womb of your mother(covenant), and wait for Elohim to call you forth from "the womb" just as Yeshua answers in double affirmation to Nikodemus when he asked him that very question, ("Amen, amen" ~ "YES, verily", John 3:4-5 KJV), and just as Paul likewise teaches and says of himself and all the faithful. At the same time Messiah must be formed in you, (Galatians 4:19), and that can only happen by believing and acting upon his full Testimony in your life, walk, and doctrine.

 

[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 are 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).​

 

[Wick Stick]

Yeah but how do you get tribe of Judah when Joseph is not the father, Mariam is woven with Elisheba, and the Prophetess is the sister of Moses? One would think that Zecharias should have written MaherSHalalCHashbaz on his writing tablet instead!

Or perhaps Lo Ammi?

The answer is adoption.

 

[daqq]

Or perhaps Lo Ammi?

The answer is adoption.

Achi achi! So Yohanan did the same which he preached, (and which Paul likewise would later do, Philippians 3:7-8), that is, he forsook all and counted it all as loss so as to gain Messiah, though he was a kohen like his father Zkaryah, (Luke 1:5, Apokalypse Yaakob), and had a rightful place among the kohanim. But he was a Nazir from "the womb of his mother", (Luke 1:15), and he was an hairy baal like Eliyahu, (2 Kings 1:8), and an Enosh with a belt of skin about his loins, consuming bitter curds and wild honey from the field by the tip of his staff, (like Yonathan, 1 Samuel 14:27). Like a wild man coming forth from the woods, like Samson with the jawbone of a donkey, he was so hairy no one could perceive a visage for all the Nazarite hair flowing down from his head; not a soul could tell you what he looked like, for it was not possible to discern the outline of his face. But in his time appointed there came a holy wind, and a great white light shone round about, and holy fire on the waters of the furnace of the Yarden, (an old Syriac tradition), and all his hair was shaved off; yea, the hair of the head, and the hair of the feet, even the beard was consumed, (Isaiah 7:20), and a new man was born from above, (72).

 

[daqq]

Achi achi! So Yohanan did the same which he preached, (and which Paul likewise would later do, Philippians 3:7-8), that is, he forsook all and counted it all as loss so as to gain Messiah, though he was a kohen like his father Zkaryah, (Luke 1:5, Apokalypse Yaakob), and had a rightful place among the kohanim. But he was a Nazir from "the womb of his mother", (Luke 1:15), and he was an hairy baal like Eliyahu, (2 Kings 1:8), and an Enosh with a belt of skin about his loins, consuming bitter curds and wild honey from the field by the tip of his staff, (like Yonathan, 1 Samuel 14:27). Like a wild man coming forth from the woods, like Samson with the jawbone of a donkey, he was so hairy no one could perceive a visage for all the Nazarite hair flowing down from his head; not a soul could tell you what he looked like, for it was not possible to discern the outline of his face. But in his time appointed there came a holy wind, and a great white light shone round about, and holy fire on the waters of the furnace of the Yarden, (an old Syriac tradition), and all his hair was shaved off; yea, the hair of the head, and the hair of the feet, even the beard was consumed, (Isaiah 7:20), and a new man was born from above, (72).

:think: Hmmm, it appears that the head of Yohanan may be the half of the kingdom . . . :chuckle:

Mark 6:21-28
21 And there came to be a well-timed day, at which Herod on his birthday made a supper to his magistrates, and captains of thousands, and the foremost-chieftains of the Galilees:
22 And the daughter, that of Herodias, having entered therein and danced, she pleased Herod and them that sat at meat with him; and the king said to the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever you will and I will give it to you.
23 And he swore to her, Whatsoever you shall ask of me, I will give it to you, Unto the half of my kingdom! [Esther 5:3, 6, 7:2]
24 And she went out, and said unto her mother, What shall I ask? And she said, The head of Yohanan the Immerser.
25 And she came in straightway with haste unto the king, and asked, saying, I will that in this hour you give me on a pinaki-writing table the head of Yohanan the Immerser!
26 And the king was exceeding sorry; but for the sake of his oaths, and of them that sat at meat, he would not reject her.
27 And straightway the king sent forth a guardsman, commanding his head to be brought:
28 And he went forth and beheaded him in the prison, and brought his head on a pinaki-writing table, and gave it to the damsel; and the damsel gave it to her mother.

:execute:

Ahah, yes, the head of Yohanan the Immerser is the half of the kingdom even according to king Herod himself who brazenly swore the oath, (in his pride quoting king Ahasuerus from the book of Esther, comparing himself to Xerxes), but where is the writing of Yohanan if he is the greatest among the prophets and of those having been born of nashiym? What was in his head that is so important? No doubt these things came about much earlier than the modern pseudo prophets and futurist shepherds like to imagine, (circa 95AD). :Nineveh:

 

[daqq]

Or perhaps Lo Ammi?

The answer is adoption.

Achi achi! So Yohanan did the same which he preached, (and which Paul likewise would later do, Philippians 3:7-8), that is, he forsook all and counted it all as loss so as to gain Messiah, though he was a kohen like his father Zkaryah, (Luke 1:5, Apokalypse Yaakob), and had a rightful place among the kohanim. But he was a Nazir from "the womb of his mother", (Luke 1:15), and he was an hairy baal like Eliyahu, (2 Kings 1:8), and an Enosh with a belt of skin about his loins, consuming bitter curds and wild honey from the field by the tip of his staff, (like Yonathan, 1 Samuel 14:27). Like a wild man coming forth from the woods, like Samson with the jawbone of a donkey, he was so hairy no one could perceive a visage for all the Nazarite hair flowing down from his head; not a soul could tell you what he looked like, for it was not possible to discern the outline of his face. But in his time appointed there came a holy wind, and a great white light shone round about, and holy fire on the waters of the furnace of the Yarden, (an old Syriac tradition), and all his hair was shaved off; yea, the hair of the head, and the hair of the feet, even the beard was consumed, (Isaiah 7:20), and a new man was born from above, (72).

:think: Hmmm, it appears that the head of Yohanan may be the half of the kingdom . . . :chuckle:

Mark 6:21-28
21 And there came to be a well-timed day, at which Herod on his birthday made a supper to his magistrates, and captains of thousands, and the foremost-chieftains of the Galilees:
22 And the daughter, that of Herodias, having entered therein and danced, she pleased Herod and them that sat at meat with him; and the king said to the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever you will and I will give it to you.
23 And he swore to her, Whatsoever you shall ask of me, I will give it to you, Unto the half of my kingdom! [Esther 5:3, 6, 7:2]
24 And she went out, and said unto her mother, What shall I ask? And she said, The head of Yohanan the Immerser.
25 And she came in straightway with haste unto the king, and asked, saying, I will that in this hour you give me on a pinaki-writing table the head of Yohanan the Immerser!
26 And the king was exceeding sorry; but for the sake of his oaths, and of them that sat at meat, he would not reject her.
27 And straightway the king sent forth a guardsman, commanding his head to be brought:
28 And he went forth and beheaded him in the prison, and brought his head on a pinaki-writing table, and gave it to the damsel; and the damsel gave it to her mother.

:execute:

Ahah, yes, the head of Yohanan the Immerser is the half of the kingdom even according to king Herod himself who brazenly swore the oath, (in his pride quoting king Ahasuerus from the book of Esther, comparing himself to Xerxes), but where is the writing of Yohanan if he is the greatest among the prophets and of those having been born of nashiym? What was in his head that is so important? No doubt these things came about much earlier than the modern pseudo prophets and futurist shepherds like to imagine, (circa 95AD). :Nineveh:

So then, achi my brother, where is this written of Yohanan Eliyahu?

Mark 9:12-13
12 And he said to them, Eliyahu indeed comes first, and restores all things: and how is it written of the Son of man? that he should suffer many things and εξουδενηθη? [set to utter nothingness, (bazah - despised), "nought"]
13 Contrariwise, I say to you that Eliyahu has come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they pleased, just as it is written of him.

Where is it written of MSHCH-baz Eliyahu that they would do with him as they pleased, and karath-cut-off his head, and that he would be εξουδενηθη? (set to utter nothingness and despised [bazah])? He is half the dominion and the greatest of men having been born of nashiym, (for so are the kohanin likened to nashiym).

Zechariah 14:1-2
1 Behold, the day of YHWH comes, and your SHalal shall be apportioned in your midst:
2 For I will gather all the goyim against Yerushalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses plundered, and the nashiym ravished: [they did with Yohanan Eliyahu as they pleased] and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, [into the prison of Herod; for Yohanan is half the kingdom] and the residue of the people shall not be karath-cut-off out of the city.

So Yohanan the Immerser is likewise a MeSHiaCH anointed one because he has the Spirit anointing of Eliyahu upon him, (Luke 1:17). But though he was the greatest of men having been born of nashiym they did with him as they pleased, (Zechariah 14:2), and karath-cut-off his head, (karath - 1 Sam 17:51, 1 Sam 31:9, 2 Sam 20:22, Dan 9:26, [to nought, nothingness, or "he is not"]).

 

[daqq]

The words were spoken at the resurrection of the Lord Jesus and that happened on the earth where there is time.

He was on the earth when He was resurrected from the dead.

You have not provided any evidence at all which proves what I said is in error. You are so desperate to find somethimg that you assert thsat the resurrection of the Lord Jesus' body took place in the eternal state.

When do you say these words were spoken?:

"Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" (Acts 13:33; ASV).​

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 are 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).​

Since you appear to be looking for a time and place where I do not answer you, probably so that you can run around saying that I never answered you, (otherwise why would you keep posting the same things over five pages after I have already offered my position from the scripture these many times?), and so that you do not succeed in deceiving others into believing that I have not answered you; the following will from henceforth continue to be my response to you in this thread unless and until you actually speak of something that has not already been addressed:

Pg15, Pg16, Pg17, Pg18, Pg19

:Nineveh:

 

[freelight]

The begetting of the Son at the baptism......

The begetting of the Son at the baptism......

The words were spoken at the resurrection of the Lord Jesus and that happened on the earth where there is time.

Lets recap a few things

Remember, the prophetic decree from the LORD himself "You are my son, this day I have begotten you" was spoken/written way before Jesus was born thru David or whoever wrote that psalm. We need to see the original passage in its context, then chronologically as its applied in the NT,...in the gospels, Book of Acts, Hebrews. In all instances this divine decree is not necesassarily related to or spoken at any 'resurrection' event, BUT was SPOKEN at Jesus baptism, as has already been proved by textual evidence, and patristic witnesses that the passage of Luke 3:22 originally contained the "today I have begotten you", which was later TAKEN OUT, and replaced with "in whom I am well pleased". - some believe this was done to wipe out any support for an Adoptionist Christology, which saw Jesus being 'anointed' or 'made' the Son of God AT his baptism, as opposed to Jesus being the eternal Son of God in eternity or at his birth, etc. So, Luke 3:22 is most significant here, which is a primary passage this very thread is centered on, and which we've amply covered, with resource links for study and supporting evidence. I might add that Dr. Bart Ehrman provides a convincing case on the changes made to Luke 3:22 as well (see here - one can access Bart's blog, but must become a member to read full articles, proceeds go to charity) - so one can look at all the issues over Luke 3:22 and decide for himself, what is the correct reading, and why any changes were made.

We already covered Psalm 2:7 mentioned in Acts 13, as alluding to the raising up of Jesus by God as the messianic promise, concerning his Christood and Lordship. While the surrounding context is the resurrection in that passage (as you noted), we observed that the verse correlating to Psalm 2:7 is about his 'raising up' to be all that his Sonship and anointed office entails within that decree. We then see that the 2 references to Psalm 2:7 in the book of Hebrews do not necessarily deal with his resurrection, but God's decree over him as being His Son, Firstborn, Messiah, High priest, the one who inherits the kingdom-rule of God ( this refers back to the decrees made in the book of Psalms). Back to understanding the original decree, and all that it entails...."You are my Son" (Sonship/Fatherhood)....."Today, I have begotten you" (indicating a special event in TIME, when the Son was 'begotten' by God's own profession, by His Spirit-anointing). This goes to show that although God of course is eternal himself, and his consciousness fills eternity/infinity (All that IS)....He manifests/reveals himself in space and time, to bring forth His Son, the created expression of himself. The logos was made flesh,....the eternal Spirit(cause) manifests a Son (effect). What is 'begotten' always implies by its very definition, by its very activity,....a generation, an inception, a birth, a production, a coming into being, a created offspring. The very designation of 'Son' implies a 'Fathering'.

We have no record or divine decree by God himself, particularly Psalm 2:7 referring directly/specifically to the resurrection of the Messiah. We have it spoken at Jesus baptism, confirmed as God fulfilling his promise to His anointed in Acts, attested to in Hebrews speaking of the Son's preeminence in creation, as heir of all things, priest after the order of Melchizedek. - this account speaks of a more ancient Sonship, before or at the dawn of creation, but some would differentiate between a pre-existing divine logos (pre-existent Christ-spirit, aeon, archangel)....and the man Jesus with whom the divine logos came down upon in the form of a dove, to anoint and/or enter into him, empowering him to go forth to inherit all things, ministering in the full power of the Spirit. This part can be more complex in differentiating the human and divine aspects or elements involved in Jesus ministry, for in an Adoptionist Christology, the divine spirit/logos/Christ/Michael?....came down upon Jesus and enjoined him, anointing and empowering him for ministry...granting all powers of Sonship and authority as the Son of God/Son of Man. Here we may have define or properly contextualize our terms and titles as to avoid confusion. - Perhaps we can begin a new thread on 'Adoptionism', the various views and historical records on this particular category of Christology,....on how Jesus the man was anointed with the Holy Spirit and power, if this was mainly for his earthly ministry only, if this divine anointing changed his nature, joined or transformed his nature, etc. - a good deal of the Christological debates were hashing out these very details

When do you say these words were spoken?:

"Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" (Acts 13:33; ASV).​

Are you seriously still pondering this? :think:

 

[daqq]

Lets recap a few things

Remember, the prophetic decree from the LORD himself "You are my son, this day I have begotten you" was spoken/written way before Jesus was born thru David or whoever wrote that psalm. We need to see the original passage in its context, then chronologically as its applied in the NT,...in the gospels, Book of Acts, Hebrews. In all instances this divine decree is not necesassarily related to or spoken at any 'resurrection' event, BUT was SPOKEN at Jesus baptism, as has already been proved by textual evidence, and patristic witnesses that the passage of Luke 3:22 originally contained the "today I have begotten you", which was later TAKEN OUT, and replaced with "in whom I am well pleased". - some believe this was done to wipe out any support for an Adoptionist Christology, which saw Jesus being 'anointed' or 'made' the Son of God AT his baptism, as opposed to Jesus being the eternal Son of God in eternity or at his birth, etc. So, Luke 3:22 is most significant here, which is a primary passage this very thread is centered on, and which we've amply covered, with resource links for study and supporting evidence. I might add that Dr. Bart Ehrman provides a convincing case on the changes made to Luke 3:22 as well (see here - one can access Bart's blog, but must become a member to read full articles, proceeds go to charity) - so one can look at all the issues over Luke 3:22 and decide for himself, what is the correct reading, and why any changes were made.

We already covered Psalm 2:7 mentioned in Acts 13, as alluding to the raising up of Jesus by God as the messianic promise, concerning his Christood and Lordship. While the surrounding context is the resurrection in that passage (as you noted), we observed that the verse correlating to Psalm 2:7 is about his 'raising up' to be all that his Sonship and anointed office entails within that decree. We then see that the 2 references to Psalm 2:7 in the book of Hebrews do not necessarily deal with his resurrection, but God's decree over him as being His Son, Firstborn, Messiah, High priest, the one who inherits the kingdom-rule of God ( this refers back to the decrees made in the book of Psalms). Back to understanding the original decree, and all that it entails...."You are my Son" (Sonship/Fatherhood)....."Today, I have begotten you" (indicating a special event in TIME, when the Son was 'begotten' by God's own profession, by His Spirit-anointing). This goes to show that although God of course is eternal himself, and his consciousness fills eternity/infinity (All that IS)....He manifests/reveals himself in space and time, to bring forth His Son, the created expression of himself. The logos was made flesh,....the eternal Spirit(cause) manifests a Son (effect). What is 'begotten' always implies by its very definition, by its very activity,....a generation, an inception, a birth, a production, a coming into being, a created offspring. The very designation of 'Son' implies a 'Fathering'.

We have no record or divine decree by God himself, particularly Psalm 2:7 referring directly/specifically to the resurrection of the Messiah. We have it spoken at Jesus baptism, confirmed as God fulfilling his promise to His anointed in Acts, attested to in Hebrews speaking of the Son's preeminence in creation, as heir of all things, priest after the order of Melchizedek. - this account speaks of a more ancient Sonship, before or at the dawn of creation, but some would differentiate between a pre-existing divine logos (pre-existent Christ-spirit, aeon, archangel)....and the man Jesus with whom the divine logos came down upon in the form of a dove, to anoint and/or enter into him, empowering him to go forth to inherit all things, ministering in the full power of the Spirit. This part can be more complex in differentiating the human and divine aspects or elements involved in Jesus ministry, for in an Adoptionist Christology, the divine spirit/logos/Christ/Michael?....came down upon Jesus and enjoined him, anointing and empowering him for ministry...granting all powers of Sonship and authority as the Son of God/Son of Man. Here we may have define or properly contextualize our terms and titles as to avoid confusion. - Perhaps we can begin a new thread on 'Adoptionism', the various views and historical records on this particular category of Christology,....on how Jesus the man was anointed with the Holy Spirit and power, if this was mainly for his earthly ministry only, if this divine anointing changed his nature, joined or transformed his nature, etc. - a good deal of the Christological debates were hashing out these very details




Are you seriously still pondering this? :think:

Very well summarized and very well spoken Freelight.
If you are gearing up for a new thread that sounds great.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Remember, the prophetic decree from the LORD himself "You are my son, this day I have begotten you" was spoken/written way before Jesus was born thru David or whoever wrote that psalm. We need to see the original passage in its context, then chronologically as its applied in the NT,...in the gospels, Book of Acts, Hebrews. In all instances this divine decree is not necesassarily related to or spoken at any 'resurrection' event, BUT was SPOKEN at Jesus baptism, as has already been proved by textual evidence, and patristic witnesses that the passage of Luke 3:22 originally contained the "today I have begotten you", which was later TAKEN OUT, and replaced with "in whom I am well pleased".

You have proved nothing about that. That is nothing but speculation! I base my idea on the very words of Paul spoken at Acts 13:30-37:

"But God raised him from the dead: 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. And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers, 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, he hath spoken on this wise, I will give you the holy and sure [blessings] of David. Because he saith also in another [psalm], Thou wilt not give Thy Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had in his own generation served the counsel of God, fell asleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: but he whom God raised up saw no corruption" (Acts 13:30-37).​

I proved that these words of Paul, from start to finish, are speaking about the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead. And no one was able to demonstrate that what I said is in error.

Besides that, at another place Paul uses similiar language about the Lord Jesus being "begotten" in regard to His being resurrected from the dead:

"And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence" (Col.1:18).​

 

[daqq]

You have proved nothing about that. That is nothing but speculation! I base my idea on the very words of Paul spoken at Acts 13:30-37:

"But God raised him from the dead: 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. And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers, 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, he hath spoken on this wise, I will give you the holy and sure [blessings] of David. Because he saith also in another [psalm], Thou wilt not give Thy Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had in his own generation served the counsel of God, fell asleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: but he whom God raised up saw no corruption" (Acts 13:30-37).​

I proved that these words of Paul, from start to finish, are speaking about the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead. And no one was able to demonstrate that what I said is in error.

Besides that, at another place Paul uses similiar language about the Lord Jesus being "begotten" in regard to His being resurrected from the dead:

"And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence" (Col.1:18).​

Lol, you never even quoted "start to finish" so how could you be correct?
You lack not only understanding but are guilty of ignoring context and cherry picking.

 

[daqq]

JS Proven Wrong

JS Proven Wrong

Acts 13:24 ASV (W/Notes)
24 when John had first preached ⁷before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.
Note 7. Greek: before the face of his entering in

Acts 13:24 W/H
24 προκηρυξαντος ιωαννου προ προσωπου της εισοδου αυτου βαπτισμα μετανοιας παντι τω λαω ισραηλ
24 Yohanan having first preached an immersion of repentance to all the people of Yisrael before the entering in of his countenance.

Acts 13:21-35
21 And afterward they asked for a king: and Elohim gave unto them Shaul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for the space of forty years.
22 And when He had removed him, He ηγειρεν-raised up David to be their king; to whom also He bare witness and said, "I have found David the son of Yishay, a man after My heart, who shall do all My will."
23 Of the seed of this man has Elohim according to promise brought unto Yisrael a Savior, Yeshua:
24 Yohanan having first preached an immersion of repentance to all the people of Yisrael before the entering in of his countenance.
25 And as Yohanan was fulfilling his course, he said, "Who dou you suppose me to be? I am not he: but behold, there comes one after [meta-with-amid] me the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to unloose."
26 Men, brethren, sons of the genos of Abraham, and those among you fearing Elohim, unto us is the word of this salvation sent forth.
27 For they that dwell in Yerushalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor the voices of the prophets which are read every Shabbat, fulfilled them by condemning him.
28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet they requested of Pilate that he should be slain.
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 ηγειρεν-raised him from the dead:
31 and he was seen for many days of them that came up with him from the Galilees 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 has fulfilled the same unto our children in that He αναστησας-raised up Yeshua; as also it is written in the second Psalm, "You are My Son, this day have I begotten you."
34 But as concerning that He ανεστησεν-raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, He has spoken in this manner, "I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David."
35 For he [David] says also in another Psalm, "You will not give your Holy One to see corruption."

As one may see, both egeiro, (a raising up in the sense of awakening), and anistemi, (a raising up in the sense of standing up), are used interchangeably for either a raising up to the status of a sent one, or a prophet, or a king, and likewise either word can be used for a raising up from the dead. The above passage is an expansion of the primary outline statement given in Acts 3 which has of course already been quoted:

Acts 3:22-26
22 Moshe indeed said, "A Prophet shall YHWH Elohim αναστησει-raise up unto you from among your brethren, like unto me; unto him shall you hearken in all things whatsoever he shall speak unto you.
23 And it shall be, that every soul that shall not hearken to that Prophet, shall be utterly destroyed from among the people."
24 Yea and all the prophets from Samuel and them that followed after, as many as have spoken, they also told of these days.
25 You are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which Elohim made with your fathers, saying unto Abraham, "And in your seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed."
26 Unto you first, Elohim αναστησας-raised up His servant, sending him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.

So, again, it is clear from the overall context in both of these related passages, and especially from the Acts 13 passage quoted above herein, that Paul in Acts 13:32-35 is recounting and encapsulating the overall message from the whole discourse: for he begins anew in Acts 13:32 with the promise to the fathers and the people of Yisrael which was fulfilled in the raising up of Yeshua as "That Prophet" like unto Moshe, who was foretold in Deuteronomy 18:15-19, and who was sent to the people to Testify the Truth. Without the Testimony of Yeshua we do not have the promise fulfilled and therefore this section necessarily includes the full ministry of Yeshua commencing with his immersion. Elohim raised up Yeshua and sent him to the people to Testify the Good News, the Gospel, the Truth, the Message of Salvation. This raising up of Yeshua can only mean his raising up at his immersion, when the Voice spoke from the heavens, saying, "You are My Son, this day have I begotten you", the same word-for-word declaration and decree from Psalm 2:7 as clearly established by the testimony of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The only reason anyone cannot see this after the extensive argumentation herein with Jerry Shugart, (Pg15, Pg16, Pg17, Pg18, Pg19, Pg20, Pg1), is because he or she, like Jerry Shugart, simply does not want to see it because it disproves a previously supposed doctrinal paradigm dogma bias.

:Nineveh:

 

[freelight]

Sonship includes all phases of Jesus life experience..............

Sonship includes all phases of Jesus life experience..............

You have proved nothing about that. That is nothing but speculation! I base my idea on the very words of Paul spoken at Acts 13:30-37:

"But God raised him from the dead: 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. And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers, 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, he hath spoken on this wise, I will give you the holy and sure [blessings] of David. Because he saith also in another [psalm], Thou wilt not give Thy Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had in his own generation served the counsel of God, fell asleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: but he whom God raised up saw no corruption" (Acts 13:30-37).​

I proved that these words of Paul, from start to finish, are speaking about the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead. And no one was able to demonstrate that what I said is in error.

Daqq and I already addressed this showing that the grammatical structure and words used in the passage allows for the verse quoting Psalm 2:7 to indicate the fulfilling of the promise of raising Jesus up to fulfill his messianic/kingly ministry, which alludes to the decree of the Lord spoken over him at Luke 3:22 (which originally had the whole quote of Psalm 2:7, which included "today I have begotten you". This has all been covered here. Again, its a matter of seeing this by way of all the evidence provided, and weighing that with the available facts and knowledge of everywhere Psalm 2:7 is quoted in the scriptures and the context in which it is used. Its not so much that what you keep professing is in 'error', but that you're not seeing the significance of the Psalm 2:7 from the very inception of this thread-subject and the implications involved in the tampering of the original text of Luke 3:22. For evidence on Luke 3:22 being tampered with see here & here (shared previously).

Besides that, at another place Paul uses similiar language about the Lord Jesus being "begotten" in regard to His being resurrected from the dead:

"And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence" (Col.1:18).​

Yes, Paul speaks of Christ being the Firstborn from the dead (John in Revelation also uses similar language, the 'firstborn of the dead', etc.), the firstfruits of the resurrection, firstborn of many brethren. Paul's gospel centers mostly on the resurrection of Jesus, so his Christology is tied to it as a most significant event....but only in the Acts account is his speech recorded to have quoted Psalm 2:7, but as we've shown....this psalm does not speak of a resurrection of any kind, but we've seen that the passages beside Acts 13:33, use the passage to speak of the inheritance of the Messiah, his Sonship being bestowed in a special way at the baptism, empowered by the Spirit that came upon him. This is more of an Adoptionist View of course, which appears to be the view of some of the earliest Jewish followers of Jesus (such as the Nazorenes, Ebionites, followers of the Way, etc.). - we might note that most traditional-orthodox Jews believe and teach that their Messiah will be a Man, specially appointed and anointed by YHWH, but still a man, not a demi-god, aeon, archangel or one of 3 personalities that make up a Tri-une Deity, something quite foreign to orthodox Judaism.

If we want to conclude all here and take in the total testimony of scripture, the Son of Man/Son of God includes all the significant events of his birth, baptism, death, burial, resurrection and ascension into glory (the full engagement and convergence of both human and divine natures). The total human journey and experience of Jesus with the divine spirit is all-inclusive to all that pertains to his Christhood and Sonship. I think the scriptural and patristic testimony bears this out, while the details are what are commonly debated as far as 'Christology' goes. The potential significance of the Luke 3:22 interpolation should not however be overlooked, because it factors into the total equation of things, and brings the messianic promise within its more Jewish embrace and cultural-context.