This day have I begotten you

[Jerry Shugart]

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".

That is exactly what I mean when I said that your ideas are based on speculation. According to your idea just because "one" manuscript might have originally contained the words which you quoted then we should just ignore what is said in the Bible at other places about this subject. After all, those words could have been added and were never a part of what was written originally. Also,from what I read about that manuscript there was more than one place where it was altered.

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.

Yes, and Strong's gives this meaning for the Greek word translated "first born": firstbegotten.

So we can understand this verse to read the following way:

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

Now let us look again at 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 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.

 

[daqq]

That is exactly what I mean when I said that your ideas are based on speculation. According to your idea just because "one" manuscript might have originally contained the words which you quoted then we should just ignore what is said in the Bible at other places about this subject. After all, those words could have been added and were never a part of what was written originally. Also,from what I read about that manuscript there was more than one place where it was altered.



Yes, and Strong's gives this meaning for the Greek word translated "first born": firstbegotten.

So we can understand this verse to read the following way:

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

Now let us look again at 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 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.

Already proven completely false here: JS Proven Wrong

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Already proven completely false here: JS Proven Wrong

You didn't prove that what I said about the meaning of the Greek word translated "and" at the beginning of Acts 13:32 is in error and that meaning proves that your assertions are in error:

"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.

 

[daqq]

Jerry Shugart Proven Wrong Again! LOL

Jerry Shugart Proven Wrong Again! LOL

You didn't prove that what I said about the meaning of the Greek word translated "and" at the beginning of Acts 13:32 is in error and that meaning proves that your assertions are in error:

"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.

Again, your understanding of the text has already been proven incorrect:

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.

You simply cannot accept the idea that your magnificent brain might be deceiving you.
You are twisting the words of Paul just as Peter warned.

:Nineveh:

 

[daqq]

Just remember Jerry: turnabout is fair play, and treat others as you wish to be treated, and you have surely revealed how you would like to be treated from your own actions herein: and your pseudo-futurist doctrine denies the work of Messiah at Golgotha, and the Prophets, and the words of Peter and most of the Apostolic writers, and the Gospel record; and such can easily be shown in one of your own lame threads, or who knows maybe even quite a few of your own lame threads, over, and over, and over again, just as you are foolishly doing here trying to destroy this thread by repeating the same post over and over just because you refuse to accept that you have been proven to be wrong.

:Nineveh:

 

[Zeke]

The metaphor of death was perverted by the literal letter interpretation of allegorical teachings passed down through the ages, Adam and Jesus (two types of many that preceded them) being templates of death/sleep and rebirth/awakening which is why so many of our fables and tales are about being awakened from a deep sleep.

Religious interpretations that secularize these timeless truths create Icons and cultural/national pride that seems right to man but exclude many others which is a traditional trait that voids their message.

 

[daqq]

The metaphor of death was perverted by the literal letter interpretation of allegorical teachings passed down through the ages, Adam and Jesus (two types of many that preceded them) being templates of death/sleep and rebirth/awakening which is why so many of our fables and tales are about being awakened from a deep sleep.

Religious interpretations that secularize these timeless truths create Icons and cultural/national pride that seems right to man but exclude many others which is a traditional trait that voids their message.

Agreed, even as Lazarus slept for the days, (three days and the half), the same days that Daniel likely also slept when he passed from death into life, (we are not told the exact days in that passage, [Dan 8:27], but we do read it so in the Gospel and the Apocalypse). And the one arising from that sleep is a son of Elohim, being a son of the resurrection, and the new creation sons enter into the service of the King; behold, the old things are passed away, all things are become new, and the tabernacle of Elohim is with men.

:Nineveh:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Just remember Jerry: turnabout is fair play, and treat others as you wish to be treated, and you have surely revealed how you would like to be treated from your own actions herein...

All I have done is to disagree with your ideas and I have used Scriptures plus the knowledge of Greek experts to prove my point. You have not even attempted to prove what I said about the meaning of the Greek word kai at the beginning of Acts 13:32 is in error. And the reason is simple. You cannot. Therefore, you should just believe what Paul said at Acts 13:32-37 and realize that the subject of all of those verses is the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead.

 

[daqq]

All I have done is to disagree with your ideas and I have used Scriptures plus the knowledge of Greek experts to prove my point. You have not even attempted to prove what I said about the meaning of the Greek word kai at the beginning of Acts 13:32 is in error. And the reason is simple. You cannot. Therefore, you should just believe what Paul said at Acts 13:32-37 and realize that the subject of all of those verses is the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead.

Perhaps you would do well to pay attention to what Zeke has just pointed out. What do you suppose that is about? No doubt Zeke sees something in what I posted to you that you still have not seemed to notice. :chuckle:

 

[Zeke]

Agreed, even as Lazarus slept for the days, (three days and the half), the same days that Daniel likely also slept when he passed from death into life, (we are not told the exact days in that passage, [Dan 8:27], but we do read it so in the Gospel and the Apocalypse). And the one arising from that sleep is a son of Elohim, being a son of the resurrection, and the new creation sons enter into the service of the King; behold, the old things are passed away, all things are become new, and the tabernacle of Elohim is with men.

:Nineveh:

Which coincides with Luke 17:20-21, Revelation 11:8, Galatians 1:12,4:24-28 as to "where" these events take place.

 

[daqq]

Mark 1:12-14
12 And straightway the Spirit drove him forth into the desert.
13 And he was in the desert forty days tempted of the Satan; and he was with the beasts, and the Angels ministered unto him.
14 Now after Yohanan was delivered up, Yeshua came into the Galilees, heralding the good message of Elohim:

Revelation 13:15
15 And there was given to him to give spirit to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause as many as would not bow to the image of the beast to be killed.

Whosoever stands before the beast(s) and does not bow the knee to the baal is killed.

Revelation 1:17-18
17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead: and he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am he that lives, and was dead; and behold, I am alive unto the ages of the ages, and have the keys of Death and of Hades.

As already stated; this is nowhere near 95AD, and in fact is before the crucifixion of Yeshua.

Wake up, Jerry! :chuckle:

 

[Zeke]

2Tim 2:13 the Ace up my sleave.

 

[daqq]

Which coincides with Luke 17:20-21, Revelation 11:8, Galatians 1:12,4:24-28 as to "where" these events take place.

O Egypt, great of flesh! (Ezekiel 16:26 KJV, and Sodom is therein, (see also 1 Pet 3:18)).

 

[Zeke]

O Egypt, great of flesh! (Ezekiel 16:26 KJV, and Sodom is therein, (see also 1 Pet 3:18)).

Romans 7:5, Luke 15:12-13, Romans 7:7, Luke 15:14-15, Romans 7:14, Exodus 16:3, Luke 15:17-18, Romans 7:24, Galatians 4:24, Acts 17:24 etc......................

 

[daqq]

Immanuel - Who is the "WE" in John 3:11?

Immanuel - Who is the "WE" in John 3:11?

Proverbs 30:4-5
4 Who has ascended up into the heavens or descended? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is the name of His Son, if you know?
5 Every Imrat-Word [Memra] of Eloah is refined: He is a shield to them that put their trust in Him [Gen 15:1].

And no one has ascended into the heavens but he that from the heavens descended:
The Son of man! [John 3:13]

But this whole thing was done so that what is spoken from YHWH by way of haNavi YeshaYah might be fulfilled, saying, Behold, the virgin shall retain engastri, (in belly), and shall texetai-produce a son, (tikto plant life), and you shall call his name עמנו אל, (Eμμανου·Hλ), which is interpreted, El is with us. And Yoseph arose from the hypnos deep sleep, and did as the Malak of YHWH commanded him, and received his wife of youth and wife of covenant: and knew her not until she produced a son, (tikto plant life), and he called his name I͞H.

John 3:1-13
1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nikodemos, a ruler of the Yhudim:
2 The same came unto him by night, and said to him, Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from Elohim; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless El is with him.
3 Yeshua answered, and said unto him, Yes, amen I say unto you, Except one be born from above he cannot see the kingdom of Elohim.
4 Nikodemos says to him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into the womb of his mother and be born?
5 Yeshua answered, Yes, amen I say unto you, Except one be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of Elohim.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said to you, You must be born from above.
8 The Spirit blows where He will, and you hear His voice, but know not whence He comes, and whither He goes: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9 Nikodemos answered and said to him, How can these things be?
10 Yeshua answered and said to him, Are you the teacher of Yisrael and do not understand these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto you, We speak that which we know, and bear witness of that which we have seen; and you receive not our witness.
12 If I told you earthly things, and you believe not, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
13 And no one has ascended into the heavens but he that descended out of the heavens: the Son of man!

Who are the "WE" in John 3:11? Yeshua confesses that El is with him! (John 3:2-3).

Acts 10:34-38
34 And Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that Elohim is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that fears Him and works righteousness is acceptable to Him.
36 The Logos-Word which He sent set-apart to the sons of Yisrael, preaching good tidings of peace by Meshiah I͞H, he is Master of all:
37 You yourselves know that rhema-word which was published throughout all Yhudah, beginning from the Galilees, [for there is "Yhudah beyond Yarden"] after the immersion which Yohanan preached:
38 Yeshua the one from Nazaret, how Elohim anointed him with the Holy Spirit and Power; who went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed of the devil: for El was with him.

Matt 1:23 — μεθ ημων ο θεος — "El is with us"
John 3:2 — ο θεος μετ αυτου — "El is with him"
Acts 10:38 — ο θεος ην μετ αυτου — "El was with him"

So then, Eμμανου·Hλ was with Yeshua, (from his immersion: Psalm 2:7).

:sheep:

 

[meshak]

Perhaps you would do well to pay attention to what Zeke has just pointed out. What do you suppose that is about? No doubt Zeke sees something in what I posted to you that you still have not seemed to notice. :chuckle:

to be honest, your posts are too deep for me but I understand your overall idea and context of your faith.

May be JS does not understand you either.

God bless you for your faithfulness.

 

[freelight]

The anointing that came UPON Jesus..................

The anointing that came UPON 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.

Hi JS,

I think we've covered the Acts 13 issue amply enough, acknowledging differences in interpretation, and still Jesus is glorified in his divine Sonship, GIVEN or enacted by the Father's own decree. The Father is the Progenitor, the Son the one Begotten. This relationship by the way, ever remains relationally speaking....in time and eternity. Let the reader interpret each within their own context, since all time and eternity abides in the infinite. While the psalms speaks of a begetting in time,...this also exists in eternity too...since all points in time, arise in the Eternal - hence while some Adoptionists may specially note a time of begetting at the baptism,....and Trinitarians assume the Son is somehow 'eternally begotten',...well....which ever,....hes still begotten. - so,...its just different sand thrown around in the same sandbox,...more or less.

~*~*~

Lets direct our contemplation to how Jesus is 'begotten' of 'God', and if any divine element, anointing, power, entity or being came upon or entered Jesus at any point in time. Let us note that Jesus ever remains a 'Son', by the ordinance of the Father, by his very condition of being 'begotten' (in both time and eternity, wherever on the map one's point of reference happens to be),...the Father-God ever remains his superior, his 'Head', his 'Fountain', his origin-source. A Father always precedes a Son, no matter your view of 'one substance' or 'one essence',..terms and modes within a time-reference maintain by definition. In time and in eternity, the Father-Son relationship remains.

In the life of Jesus, we can ascertain certain events where Jesus is 'begotten' in some significant way in this world of space-time,...and at least 3 of these would be his physical birth, his baptism and his resurrection. In all these phases or modes of 'God' fathering.....the Son is being begotten in some sense. While we emphasized a more 'Adoptionist' tone here concerning the controversy over Luke 3:22 so far, the significance of his birth and resurrection/ascension has by no means been downplayed, since in the 'Sonship' of the Messiah, all begettings have their place within the eternal plan of the 'logos' embodying in Jesus and manifesting the creative and redemptive plan thru his agency. - So we acknowledge all these wonderful facets of the Son of Man and Son of God (in their human and heavenly form), in his roles as 'Lord' and 'Messiah', as they synthesize and come to a head in his Sonship given in time and eternity. We acknowledge the scope of both the infinite and finite in our summation of the Messiah Jesus, as these are reflected in the various themes in scripture, and also in other schools for those of us who are more liberal or eclectic

> Here is where I also address daqq in engaging to share his view,

As I hinted earlier, about directing the discussion more towards what we assume came upon or into Jesus at his baptism, this could be more interesting and controversial,....as while its assumed in the text and traditionally that the Holy Spirit came upon him in the form of a dove, some Adoptionist views or schools (even Gnostic ones) assume that the divine 'logos' or preexisting 'Son of God'..or 'Son of Man' (here these titles referring to a divine personage)...came upon him (joined with him) at the baptism,...and at this time there was a special marriage or synthesis of the man Jesus and the divine Christ that commenced, whereby he was empowered to fulfill his earthly mission to reveal/manifest the glory of the Father, and the 'word made flesh'. There is another view that assumes the heavenly power named Michael, or 'Christ' as an aeon ( a high heavenly deity or luminary) came down and joined with Jesus at his baptism,...so we have the divine 'spirit' (by whatever name or form) anointing Jesus as it were at this special time, that spirit or power then working in and thru Jesus. In more universal new-age terms, we may differentiate the man Jesus, from the divine Christ-spirit or 'logos', there being the human Jesus and the 'divine pre-existent Christ'. Now whether these two natures or entities joined to become 'one', or the divine Christ left the man Jesus at some point and then rejoined him in his resurrection...is a matter of conjecture among certain camps. So we've identified the human Jesus and a pre-existing divine spirit or 'logos'.

The human and divine aspects associated with Jesus includes both Adoptionist and Trinitarian viewpoints here, regarding this pivotal verse being debated. I may share some more specifics and variances among the Adoptionist category of Christology, for exploration and elaboration. Noting the differences I've brought up about the human Jesus and some divine-spirit or 'logos' anointing or inter-acting in and thru him, I'll ask daqq to give his view, on these particulars. Is the man Jesus the 'logos'?, or is the 'logos' some pre-creational, pre-existing divine spirit-intelligence....that invested itself in the man Jesus for a period of time or merged to become one with Jesus (at his baptism or otherwise)? Just arousing inquiry on these fine points that have been hashed out and debated for centuries already, but are still pertinent questions for those interested today.

 

[daqq]

> Here is where I also address daqq in engaging to share his view,

As I hinted earlier, about directing the discussion more towards what we assume came upon or into Jesus at his baptism, this could be more interesting and controversial,....as while its assumed in the text and traditionally that the Holy Spirit came upon him in the form of a dove, some Adoptionist views or schools (even Gnostic ones) assume that the divine 'logos' or preexisting 'Son of God'..or 'Son of Man' (here these titles referring to a divine personage)...came upon him (joined with him) at the baptism,...and at this time there was a special marriage or synthesis of the man Jesus and the divine Christ that commenced, whereby he was empowered to fulfill his earthly mission to reveal/manifest the glory of the Father, and the 'word made flesh'. There is another view that assumes the heavenly power named Michael, or 'Christ' as an aeon ( a high heavenly deity or luminary) came down and joined with Jesus at his baptism,...so we have the divine 'spirit' (by whatever name or form) anointing Jesus as it were at this special time, that spirit or power then working in and thru Jesus. In more universal new-age terms, we may differentiate the man Jesus, from the divine Christ-spirit or 'logos', there being the human Jesus and the 'divine pre-existent Christ'. Now whether these two natures or entities joined to become 'one', or the divine Christ left the man Jesus at some point and then rejoined him in his resurrection...is a matter of conjecture among certain camps. So we've identified the human Jesus and a pre-existing divine spirit or 'logos'.

The human and divine aspects associated with Jesus includes both Adoptionist and Trinitarian viewpoints here, regarding this pivotal verse being debated. I may share some more specifics and variances among the Adoptionist category of Christology, for exploration and elaboration. Noting the differences I've brought up about the human Jesus and some divine-spirit or 'logos' anointing or inter-acting in and thru him, I'll ask daqq to give his view, on these particulars. Is the man Jesus the 'logos'?, or is the 'logos' some pre-creational, pre-existing divine spirit-intelligence....that invested itself in the man Jesus for a period of time or merged to become one with Jesus (at his baptism or otherwise)? Just arousing inquiry on these fine points that have been hashed out and debated for centuries already, but are still pertinent questions for those interested today.

Hi Freelight, thank you for your inquiry in the portion directed to myself. For now I will simply post what I have already said many times by way of the all-important Testimony of Yeshua himself; who clearly states that he himself is not the Logos in the same Gospel account that most everyone uses to "prove" that he is the God-Man and Logos. I post this again also with note that not only have I reposted it here to Jerry but also posted it two times in one of his own threads and he still has not responded to it, neither here, nor there in his own thread. I will leave the text outside the quote box so that it may be quoted in response, if you or anyone else wishes to do so, (without having to go back to Pg13 to respond to it).

If the Testimony of Jesus is the absolute Truth to Christians then why do they not believe it?
If "Jesus is Jehovah" or "JHWH", as Jerry likes to say, then why does Jerry not believe his words?
If "Jesus is God Almighty", and Jerry worships him as such, why does Jerry reject his Testimony?

Page 13 - Reply#194

Quote:]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.[End Quote.

If one is simply willing to follow the very simple and straightforward systematic flow of the logic in the above statements then Yeshua himself clearly defines who the Logos concerns: the Logos is not the man Yeshua himself but rather the Logos is the Logos-Word which Yeshua speaks. This is true because, as I keep saying, Testimony is Spirit, and that is why the Son of Elohim is also called the Son of man: for he was both written and spoken by man, and therefore he is the Son of man, for Testimony is Spirit, (your testimony is therefore your son; beware that your testimony not become a son of perdition!). But the Son was in the beginning with the Father and the Father gave him to mankind, (the Light and the Testimony of the Truth).

The Father judges no one. The man Yeshua judges no one. The Testimony of Yeshua will not pass away. The Logos is the Seeker and the Judge, the Son of Elohim, and the Son of man, and because he is the Word of Truth which is spoken by men of faithfulness and truth; he is considered a little lower than the Messengers, (because they speak him, because he is in them).

 

[Wick Stick]

...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).

You know what I find interesting about The Apocalypse? There's no Apocryphon preceding it. But there can never be an apocalypse, without there first being an apocryphon. That would be like writing a review of a book that doesn't yet exist.

Since we have the Apocalypse, we have most of the contents of John's Apocryphon quoted, the golden apples in silver settings. Not all (Rev 10:4), but most. John appears to complete the visions of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah.

But who, pray tell, illuminated John's apocryphon? Certainly not the Immerser; he lost his head. It seems that perhaps John the Disciple might deserve some credit after all, and that late date may not be out of the realm of possibility for the Apocalypse.

Meanwhile, the world is quite confused by Revelation, as they attempt to view it as the work of a single author, and give it a single date of authorship. That is not possible. First date the apocryphon (~30AD), and then you can date the Midrash (~90AD) provided for the 7 churches in Asia, who needed a little help understanding a book of purely Jewish symbols.

 

[Wick Stick]

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"]).

I would have pointed you to Zec 13 rather than 14, but... same song different verse.

Of course John is a messiah. There are always two anointed ones, and the latter is always the greater. Moshe and YehoSHUA, Eliyah and EliSHUA, Yohanan and YeSHUA. There's actually quite a body of Jewish writing out there on the two messiahs.