I'm sincerely glad to hear that.
I am likewise doing the same.
There isn't more to it, with the "it" specifically referring to when Jesus was actually "begotten", and I'll prove the same momentarily by addressing your claims and the scriptures that you cited in attempts to prove or substantiate your claims.
In reality, there's no such sense, and if you'll seriously consider what I'm about to say, then you'll easily and clearly see this for yourself.
The Apostle John penned these words, right?
Well, ask yourself the following question:
When did the Apostle John "behold his glory" or, more specifically, "the glory as of the only begotten of the Father"?
I mean, John was obviously talking about something that he "beheld" during Christ's incarnation, BUT did John see Christ's "glory as of the only begotten of the Father" pre-resurrection or post-resurrection?
The correct answer is post-resurrection, and we can know this of a certainty by simply reading the words of Jesus that this same Apostle John penned later on in this same gospel.
I'm referring to the following:
John chapter 17
[1] These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
[2] As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
[3] And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
[4] I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
[5] And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
It wasn't until Jesus was crucified, buried, and RISEN FROM THE DEAD that the Father "glorified his Son" or glorified Jesus "with the glory that he had with the Father before the world was".
THIS is "the glory as of the only begotten of the Father" (John 1:14) that John "beheld", and he "beheld" it POST-RESURRECTION or after Jesus had been "begotten" or raised from the dead.
Unlike the vast majority of professing Christians today, the Apostle John fully understood what Jesus being "begotten" actually meant.
He did, after all, later on pen the following:
Revelation chapter 1
[4] John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;
[5] And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
[6] And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Again, the Apostle John fully understood that Jesus truly is "the only begotten Son of God" or "the first begotten of the dead" in that Jesus Christ is the only person to have ever been raised from the dead who has already received his glorified body. The rest of us have this hope, but Jesus truly is "the only begotten Son of God" or "the first begotten of the dead" even as I type.
Again, in reality, there's simply no such sense.
Remember, John is writing POST-RESURRECTION. With such being the case, he's simply saying "that we might live through him", with the "him" being Jesus, because he is God's "only begotten Son" or the only person to have ever been raised from the dead who has already received his glorified body. As I've said before, there is NO SALVATION offered to anybody apart from Christ's resurrection from the dead and our belief in the same.
Perhaps this will help you to better understand what John was actually saying here.
Turning back to the gospel of this same Apostle John which had previously been penned, John said the following:
"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (John 1:18)
Again, in his gospel, John was writing POST-RESURRECTION.
With this reality in mind, how did "the only begotten Son" wind up "in the bosom of the Father"?
Well, I believe that Moses gave us the correct answer to this question.
Please consider the following:
Exodus chapter 4
[1] And Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The LORD hath not appeared unto thee.
[2] And the LORD said unto him, What is that in thine hand? And he said, A rod.
[3] And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it.
[4] And the LORD said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand:
[5] That they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee.
[6] And the LORD said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow.
[7] And he said, Put thine hand into thy bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again; and plucked it out of his bosom, and, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh.
[8] And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign.
The LORD gave signs to Moses by which he was to convince the children of Israel that he had actually sent Moses unto them, and these signs pointed directly to Jesus Christ.
In relation to the first sign, Jesus is the rod who was cast down to the ground or to this earth in that he left heaven to come to this earth. While here, figuratively speaking, he became a serpent, similar to the serpent on the pole that Moses was instructed to make, in that he became sin for us or took upon himself all of the sins that we had committed while in league with "that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan" (Rev. 12:9, 20:2). Ultimately, he was picked back up, or resurrected from the dead, and he returned to his former state before being cast down to the ground.
The same exact principle applies in the second sign that the LORD gave to Moses. In other words, in the same manner that Moses placed his hand in his bosom, Jesus was initially in the bosom of the Father. Similarly, when Moses removed his hand from his bosom and it became leprous, when Jesus left the Father's bosom to come to this earth, he, figuratively speaking, became leprous by taking all of our sins upon himself. Finally, when Moses' hand was again returned to his bosom, it returned to its former state, and Christ similarly did the same when he returned to the Father's bosom AFTER HE WAS BEGOTTEN OR AFTER HE WAS RAISED FROM THE DEAD.
Again, my point is that John fully understood what it meant that Jesus was "begotten", and it had nothing to do with either his earthly birth or with something that allegedly took place prior to Christ's incarnation.
I'm sorry, but that's all that I probably have time for today.
