John 3:18

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
.



Paul was a Pharisee. As such he was a student of the Old Testament-- thus
he would've been familiar with biblical adoption. For example:


Pharaoh's daughter adopted Moses. (Ex 2:10)

Jacob adopted two of Joseph's sons. (Gen 48:5-6)

In neither account is the word "adopted" used. Pharaoh's daughter raised Moses as her own son. Period. No "adoption" process.


There's also an adoption when men slept with the maid(s) to produce
children for their wives. (Gen 16:2 and Gen 30:3)
You're seeing adoption where there isn't any. What you refer to was how men produced children when their wives couldn't. There was NO adoption here either. Ishamel was legitimately Abraham's son. No adoption.


Let's say, for argument's sake, that you have managed to successfully
undergo the birth spoken of by John 1:12-13 and John 3:3-8. If that's the
case, then I know for a fact that the Spirit has been working to convince you
that you are already adopted into God's family.
You're just not getting this. The biblical adoption, per Rom 8:23, is about when the believer receives a glorified immortal body.

Believers are born into God's family. You seem rather unfamiliar with God's Word.

John 1:12,13
12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God
13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

You can ignore "born of God" all you want, but that's what believers are. As a result of faith in Christ.

If I'm correct, then I am right in accusing you of willfully, and stubbornly, sinning against God's
providence.
Oh, mishmash. You are definitely not correct, so it's YOU who are willfully and stubbornly sinning against God's WORD.


I give you actual verses that tell us how a believer becomes a child of God, and you remain stuck on adoption.

I have an adopted daughter. She does NOT have any of my or my wife's DNA. So if we both were killed in a car wreck, with no ID on us, there would be no way to tell from tissue samples that she is my daughter. Is that so hard to understand?

But, in the biblical sense, every believer HAS the Holy Spirit IN them, (think of DNA), and the Holy Spirit testifies WITH our spirit that we ARE the children of God.

Apparently you are unable or unwilling to understand that the sealing ministry of the Holy Spirit marks the believer as God's own possession.

Just as my natural son is my own flesh (possession).

This is or should not be difficult to understand.
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
FreeGrace2 said:
The child's DNA identifies their parent's DNA.
.If there's anybody has God's DNA it would be Jesus because his Father has
but one descendant. (Luke 1:35, John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18,
and 1John 4:9 )

OK, it's clear to me that you have no understanding, nor do you want any, of Eph 1:13,14. That's your choice.


FAQ: How was Jesus able to remain sinless his entire life?

As the Romans would say, "poci non pocari, non
poci picari". Or, "able NOT to son, and NOT able to sin", all of which speaks to both His human nature, which was controlled by the Holy Spirit during His ministry, and His divine nature.


REPLY: He had God's DNA.

Well, maybe you CAN understand this. Yes, and what is "God's DNA" in Jesus? The Holy Spirit. Thank you.


1 John 3:9 . . No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed
abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Born-again Christians do not have God's seed abiding in them because they
not only can sin, but they do sin; on practically a regular basis.

And you do not understand 1 Jn 3:9 at all either.


The "seed" that "abides in him" is the Holy Spirit. This verse addresses our NEW born again nature, which we get at saving faith. And from THAT nature, we cannot sin.

We continue to sin from our human nature, the one we get at birth.

1 John 1:8-10 . . If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and
the truth is not in us. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a
liar, and His word is not in us._
yes, all believers do sin. Because all believers still have their sinful human nature, the one inherited from Adam.

Romans 5:12 - Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

Romans 5:15 - But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
.
Shame on me forgetting to mention the most important adoption of all time:
Joseph and Jesus.


An angel of The Lord spoke to Joseph in a dream and instructed him to take
part in naming Mary's virgin-conceived baby boy.


"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus" (Matt
1:21)


Joseph complied.

"And he gave him the name Jesus." (Matt 1:25)

No dice. If the Bible SAYS Jesus was "adopted" then He was. But the Bible doesn't say he was adopted. Only you say that. Your examples fail completely.
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
Why is there so much confusion and who is confused about what? 1 John 4:9 says Jesus is God’s only begotten Son before being human. The pre-existence of Jesus is accurate.
Not to derail this thread, but the one about ECT seems to have died and is probably buried in a number of pages.

In my devotion time this morning, I came across several verses that refute your insistence that "for ever and ever" doesn't actually mean it literally. Well, I've got news for you.

Rev 11:15 - The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign for ever and ever.

You may claim Christ's reign will be only 1,000 years and then end. If you do, you need to read Rev 21.

Rev 15:7 - Then one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven golden bowls filled with the wrath of God, who lives for ever and ever.

It is impossible for you to screw up this verse. Everyone knows that God is eternal and therefore He "lives for ever and ever" literally.

Finally,

Rev 14:11 - And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.”

If, as you claim, unbelievers' souls will cease to exist, how can smoke of their torment rise "for ever and ever". THEN, the verse notes that there will be "no rest day or night" for those whose smokey torment will rise for ever and ever.

Here is another verse just like Rev 20:10 that says plainly that "they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever".

When a specific time frame, like "day and night" is included with "for ever and ever" you can be sure that the action is unending.
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,691
113
.
Shame on me forgetting to mention the most important adoption of all time:
Joseph and Jesus.


An angel of The Lord spoke to Joseph in a dream and instructed him to take
part in naming Mary's virgin-conceived baby boy.


"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus" (Matt
1:21)


Joseph complied.

"And he gave him the name Jesus." (Matt 1:25)

So Christ went in the books as Joseph's son because that's how it worked in
those days when a man stood with a woman to name her child (cf. Luke
1:59, Luke 2:21). And from that day on; Joseph was regarded by all,
including Mary, as Jesus' father. (Matt 13:55, Luke 2:27, Luke 2:41, Luke
2:48)


God decreed Jesus to ascend David's throne (Luke 1:32) but had to do it
with Solomon because it is thru him that the throne passes down. (1Chron
22:9-10, cf. 1Kings 1:13-39)


Christ had to obtain a place in Solomon's genealogy by means of adoption
because that was the only legitimate way that Jesus could ascend David's
throne seeing as how neither foster kids nor stepchildren have inheritance
rights.
_
Why are the genealogies of Jesus different in Matthew 1 and Luke 3? I’ve read some speculation that the Matthew 1 account is for a Joseph and the Luke 3 account is for Mary. 🤔
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
Why are the genealogies of Jesus different in Matthew 1 and Luke 3? I’ve read some speculation that the Matthew 1 account is for a Joseph and the Luke 3 account is for Mary. 🤔
Correct. One lineage is the real line (Mary's) and the other is the legal line (Joseph).
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
5,896
1,084
113
Oregon
.
Believers are born into God's family.

Were your statement true, then there would be no need for adoption in the
plan of salvation-- not now, not ever.

But the thing is, born-again Christians are not God's offspring because Jesus
alone has that distinction. In point of fact, born-again Christians are God's
handiwork, i.e. creations. (2Cor 5:17, Eph 2:10)

The birth spoken of by John 1:12-13 and John 3:3-8 isn't the kind of birth
that takes place when a woman has a baby. A better word for it is
regeneration.

Titus 3:5 . . He saved us, through the washing of regeneration

The Greek word translated "regeneration" pertains to renovation; defined by
Webster's as restoring to a former better state (as by cleaning, repairing, or
rebuilding).

So, we could say that born-again Christians were destroyed in the garden of
Eden with Adam when he tasted the forbidden fruit; and have been built back
better; including an improved body. (John 6:50-51, Rom 8:23, 1Cor 15:53)
_
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
FreeGrace2 said:
Believers are born into God's family.
.Were your statement true, then there would be no need for adoption in the
plan of salvation-- not now, not ever.

My statement is based DIRECTLY on John 1:13. You are free to reject Scripture, but I won't.


But the thing is, born-again Christians are not God's offspring because Jesus
alone has that distinction. In point of fact, born-again Christians are God's
handiwork, i.e. creations. (2Cor 5:17, Eph 2:10)
No one who is familiar with Scripture calls believers "God's offspring". The biblical term is "God's child/children".


The birth spoken of by John 1:12-13 and John 3:3-8 isn't the kind of birth
that takes place when a woman has a baby. A better word for it is
regeneration.
you're just dodging the issue. It IS a spiritual birth. But, do you know WHAT is being RE-generated or born AGAIN?


Titus 3:5 . . He saved us, through the washing of regeneration

Right. Now, do you know what gets RE-generated?


The Greek word translated "regeneration" pertains to renovation; defined by
Webster's as restoring to a former better state (as by cleaning, repairing, or
rebuilding).
Do you know specifically WHAT is RE-generated?


So, we could say that born-again Christians were destroyed in the garden of
Eden with Adam when he tasted the forbidden fruit; and have been built back
better; including an improved body. (John 6:50-51, Rom 8:23, 1Cor 15:53)=_
Well, I wouldn't say that because I don't believe it. No one was destroyed in the garden. What are you thinking of?
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,691
113
Not to derail this thread, but the one about ECT seems to have died and is probably buried in a number of pages.

In my devotion time this morning, I came across several verses that refute your insistence that "for ever and ever" doesn't actually mean it literally. Well, I've got news for you.

Rev 11:15 - The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign for ever and ever.

You may claim Christ's reign will be only 1,000 years and then end. If you do, you need to read Rev 21.

Rev 15:7 - Then one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven golden bowls filled with the wrath of God, who lives for ever and ever.

It is impossible for you to screw up this verse. Everyone knows that God is eternal and therefore He "lives for ever and ever" literally.

Finally,

Rev 14:11 - And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.”

If, as you claim, unbelievers' souls will cease to exist, how can smoke of their torment rise "for ever and ever". THEN, the verse notes that there will be "no rest day or night" for those whose smokey torment will rise for ever and ever.

Here is another verse just like Rev 20:10 that says plainly that "they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever".

When a specific time frame, like "day and night" is included with "for ever and ever" you can be sure that the action is unending.
That’s your interpretation and it doesn’t jive with scripture in general. God alone possesses immortality and those whom God grant’s immortality can live forever. The unsaved don’t live forever under any circumstances.

Forever is sometimes literal in the Bible and sometimes it isn’t literal; it takes wisdom to know the difference.

The biggest clue you’re looking at the ECT doctrine through a very limited and narrow perspective is you have just a few verses that seem to infer it without ever explicitly stating what you personally believe the conclusion of them should be. Meanwhile, I use the Bible citing verses from Genesis to Revelation to prove the Bible meshes with conditional immortality. You draw inferences and prove nothing; I prove the wicked are destroyed in plain language verses without any need for additional interpretation.

If you figure out how to make the Bible mesh then you’ll find it’s in total harmony. I already know the arguments you’re going to use in response so don’t bother for the sake of not detailing this thread. Even better, if you really want to talk about it with people again, why not open another thread?
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
That’s your interpretation and it doesn’t jive with scripture in general.
Lame comeback. I just showed you 2 verses that used "for ever and ever" for Deity. And you think Scripture doesn't mean "never ending" in those verses? You really just don't want to know the truth.

God alone possesses immortality and those whom God grant’s immortality can live forever.
And you opine that God never granted souls to exist consciously forever. Yet, you have NO verses that say that God grants immortality to "only some souls" but not others. That would be required in order to support your opinion. And you have no evidence for your opinion.

The unsaved don’t live forever under any circumstances.
Just an opinion. Scripture tells us that their punishment is eternal. Scripture tells us that they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Forever is sometimes literal in the Bible and sometimes it isn’t literal; it takes wisdom to know the difference.
Yes, it sure does, and you aren't demonstrating any wisdom at all. Instead, you only demonstrate your emotions about people being tormented unending.

The biggest clue you’re looking at the ECT doctrine through a very limited and narrow perspective is you have just a few verses that seem to infer it without ever explicitly stating what you personally believe the conclusion of them should be. Meanwhile, I use the Bible citing verses from Genesis to Revelation to prove the Bible meshes with conditional immortality.
In FACT, the verses from the OT that you keep using refer to capital punishment when "death" is mentioned. So you haven't "meshed" anything.

You draw inferences and prove nothing
hardly. You are the one who acknowledges that the first 2 humans to be cast into the LOF will be tormented for ever, yet you reject that anyone else will be, even though the Bible doesn't state or support your opinion.

I prove the wicked are destroyed in plain language verses without any need for additional interpretation.
That's right. They don't. We KNOW that all unbelievers will be resurrected back into their mortal bodies and then cast into the LOF.

The OBVIOUS conclusion is that all mention of destruction and perishing of unbelievers would refer to their mortal bodies.

If you figure out how to make the Bible mesh then you’ll find it’s in total harmony.
I have already done that. You need to.
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
5,896
1,084
113
Oregon
.
Why are the genealogies of Jesus different in Matthew 1 and Luke 3? I’ve
read some speculation that the Matthew 1 account is for a Joseph and the
Luke 3 account is for Mary.

The genealogy given in the gospel of Luke is sometimes appropriated to
establish Mary's connection to David, but I don't recommend that route
because the language, the grammar, and the punctuation of Luke 3:23 is
much too controversial.

Along with that: there's a serious question about the listings of Shieltiel and
Zerubbabel. In Matthew's genealogy, the two men are linked to David via
Solomon. In Luke's genealogy, they're linked to David via Solomon's brother
Nathan.

Their respective descendants are different too. Zerubbabel's son is listed as
Abihud in Matthew's genealogy, whereas his son is listed as Rhesa in Luke's.

Unfortunately, to date there exists no consensus among the experts how
best to resolve the confusion caused by the presence of Shieltiel and
Zerubbabel in both genealogies. Were we scientific in our thinking; we'd
have to consider the data compromised; which is unfortunate because if we
disregard Luke's genealogy, then we pretty much have to disregard
Matthew's too.

* It's been suggested that Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are common names so
we shouldn't be surprised to find them listed in both genealogies. However,
they are listed as father and son in both genealogies, which we cannot
expect reasonable people to accept as mere coincidence.
_
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
.



The genealogy given in the gospel of Luke is sometimes appropriated to
establish Mary's connection to David, but I don't recommend that route
because the language, the grammar, and the punctuation of Luke 3:23 is
much too controversial.


Along with that: there's a serious question about the listings of Shieltiel and
Zerubbabel. In Matthew's genealogy, the two men are linked to David via
Solomon. In Luke's genealogy, they're linked to David via Solomon's brother
Nathan.

And that is the whole point! The real line of Christ is through Nathan. The legal line is through Solomon.


Up until David, both lines are the same. With David, they split between Solomon and Nathan.
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
5,896
1,084
113
Oregon
.
With David, they split between Solomon and Nathan.

Jesus' heritage may not be all that important to Gentiles, but it's very
important to Jews because no man can ascend David's throne lest they first
and foremost be his natural heir; no exceptions. (Ps 89:3-4, Ps 89:35
36, and Ps 132:11).

In addition, David's son Solomon was the channel designated to perpetuate
David's royalty. (1Chron 22:9-10)

Now, the problem is: David's throne has never, nor will it ever, pass down
thru women; no: it always, and only, passes down thru men. So Jesus' mom
could give her son David's blood, but she could not give him David's throne.

Now; the man of the hour was Joseph-- he was related to David (Matt 1:20)
and he was related to Solomon (Matt 1:6-16) and was also engaged to
Jesus' mom. (Matt 1:18)

But it was too late for Joseph to father Jesus because the little guy was
already conceived before Joseph had a chance to sleep with his best girl.
(Matt 1:18) However, there's a fix for this.

Jacob set a precedent for his posterity back in Genesis 48:5-6 when he
adopted Joseph's two sons Manasseh and Ephraim, effectively establishing
them as tribal heads equal in position, privilege, and power to his twelve
original sons. (Mannaseh and Ephraim didn't bring the total number of the
tribes of Israel up to fourteen. They're actually half-tribes whose
combination composes the tribe of Joseph.)

* Jacob's action was for Rachel's sake due to her death giving birth to
Benjamin; thus preventing her from having any more children of her own.
Jacob added Mannaseh and Ephraim to Rachel's brood, bringing the total
number of her sons up to six-- two of her own, two by her maid Bilhah, and
two by Joseph's wife Asenath. They had some strange customs back then
but what're you gonna do; it is what it is.

Anyway, long story short: Joseph married his best girl and gave her baby his
name; effectively installing little Jesus in a direct line to Solomon and thus
fully qualifying him for a shot at David's throne; which of course was already
in the bag.

Luke 1:32 . .The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father
David
_
 

Live4Him3

Jesus is Lord
May 19, 2022
1,383
640
113
If I understand you correctly, you believe Jesus wasn’t God’s only begotten Son prior to being a human.
You understand me correctly.

Jesus most definitely was NOT God’s only begotten Son prior to becoming a human being.

When He was a human, He also wasn’t God’s only begotten Son until after resurrection?
That is correct.

Jesus didn’t become God’s only begotten Son until the day in which he was raised from the dead because that is the day in which he was truly begotten.

Please consider the following…

If anybody knows when Jesus truly became God’s only begotten Son, then it is God the Father and Jesus the only begotten Son.

Whether you’re presently aware of it or not, we are privileged to learn of a conversation between God the Father and Jesus his Son in our Bibles in which we’re not only told precisely on what day Jesus was truly begotten, but in which Christ himself tells us on which day he was truly begotten.

I am referring to the following:

“I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; THIS DAY have I begotten thee.” (Psalm 2:7)

In this post, which will be rather long, I will first cover this verse of scripture in its original context within the second psalm itself, and then I will cover how it is interpreted the three different times that it is cited in relation to Jesus in the New Testament. In all four instances, as I’ll now document from rightly-divided scripture, Jesus was clearly “begotten” on the “day” in which he was raised from the dead.

Turning to the second psalm, we read:

Psalm 2

[1] Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
[2] The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
[3] Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

The first 3 verses of this prophetic Messianic psalm foretold of the time when the Gentiles (“the heathen”), the people of Israel (“the people”), Herod (“the kings of the earth”) and Pilate (“the rulers”) took counsel together against the LORD and against his anointed (or “against his Christ”, as we’ll see momentarily) or of the time when they all conspired together to crucify Jesus Christ.

This is by no means my own “private interpretation” (II Pet. 1:20).

Instead, it is the plain teaching of scripture.

In relation to the same, we read:

Acts chapter 4

[23] And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them.
[24] And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:
[25] Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?
[26] The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
[27] For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
[28] For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

Although we’re not told here exactly who “the heathen” (Psalm 2:1, Acts 4:25) or “the Gentiles” (Acts 4:27) were who, along with Herod, Pilate, and the people of Israel, “were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ”, we are told elsewhere that “the Gentiles” were the Roman soldiers.

In relation to the same, we read:

Matthew chapter 20

[17] And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and said unto them,
[18] Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,
[19] And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.

Of course, “the Gentiles” who mocked, scourged, and crucified Jesus were the Roman soldiers.

God’s response to this conspiracy?

Psalm 2

[4] He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
[5] Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
[6] Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

God laughs, derides them, speaks unto them in his wrath, and vexes them in his sore displeasure.

What, exactly, does he speak?

He tells them that this same Jesus whom they have crucified will yet be his king upon his holy hill of Zion or that Christ, at his second coming, will yet rule over this earth from the throne of David in Zion or Jerusalem as is prophesied in several different places elsewhere in the Bible.

One such place where this is prophesied would be the following:

Luke chapter 1

[26] And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
[27] To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
[28] And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
[29] And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
[30] And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
[31] And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
[32] He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
[33] And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

How can someone who has been crucified and is dead yet be king?

We’re given the answer to this question in the very next verse.

We read:

Psalm 2

[7] I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; THIS DAY have I begotten thee.

Here, we are privileged to learn of a conversation between God the Father and his Son, Jesus, as is declared by Jesus himself.

Here is who is speaking of whom.

[7] I (Jesus) will declare the decree: the LORD (God the Father) hath said unto me (Jesus) Thou (Jesus) art my (God the Father’s) Son; THIS DAY have I (God the Father) begotten thee (Jesus). – Parentheses mine.

To answer the question that I asked earlier, the way that someone who is dead (Jesus) can yet be king is if God raises him from the dead, and this is exactly what this verse of scripture is talking about.

Yes, God the Father told Jesus his Son that on “THIS DAY”, the day in which Christ was raised from the dead, he would be “begotten”.

Again, this is not my “private interpretation” (II Pet. 1:20) or something that I’m seeking to force upon this passage of scripture, but, instead, it is the plain teaching of scripture.

Turning to the first of three places in the New Testament where Psalm 2:7 is cited, we read:

Acts chapter 13

[26] Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.
[27] For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.
[28] And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.
[29] And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
[30] But God raised him from the dead:
[31] And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.
[32] And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
[33] God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY have I begotten thee.

Did you get that?

The promise which God made in Psalm 2:7, he has fulfilled “in that he hath raised up Jesus again; AS IT IS ALSO WRITTEN IN THE SECOND PSALM, THOU ART MY SON, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE.”

Again, Jesus was “begotten” on “THIS DAY” or on the day in which he was raised from the dead.

(Continued in my next post)
 

Live4Him3

Jesus is Lord
May 19, 2022
1,383
640
113
(Continued from my previous post)

Psalm 2:7 is cited two more times in the New Testament in relation to Jesus, and both of those citations are found in the epistle to the Hebrews. Before I cite them, please allow me to give just a little background information on the epistle to the Hebrews itself.

The epistle to the Hebrews was written to Hebrew Christians who had come out from being under the law or who had come out from being under the Old Testament/Covenant.

In this epistle, the writer regularly cites two or three Old Testament/Covenant witnesses in order to not only show that this new and better testament/covenant was foretold of in the Old Testament/Covenant, but in order to also show the supremacy of the New Testament/Covenant to the Old Testament/Covenant.

While proving his case, the author regularly makes contrasts between something in the Old Testament/Covenant versus something in the New Testament/Covenant in order to show the supremacy of the latter.

In the first two chapters of this epistle (I understand that chapters and verses were later added), the author seeks to show the supremacy of Christ to angels because the Old Testament/Covenant was given by the disposition of angels whereas the New Testament/Covenant was given through God’s Son. In other words, if the author can prove the supremacy of God’s Son over the angels, then he has proven that this New Testament/Covenant which came via God’s Son is superior to the Old Testament/Covenant which was given by the disposition of angels.

In relation to the Old Testament/Covenant being given by the disposition of angels, we read:

Acts chapter 7

[51] Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
[52] Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
[53] Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

Again:

“Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” (Gal. 3:19)

Yet again:

Hebrews chapter 2

[1] Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.
[2] For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;
[3] How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

With this background information before us, let’s now look at the second time that Psalm 2:7 is cited in relation to Jesus in the New Testament.

We read:

Hebrews chapter 1

[1] God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
[2] Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
[3] Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
[4] Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
[5] For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Here, we see that, at some point in time, Jesus needed to be “appointed heir of all things” and also had to be “made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they”. Before we address why Jesus, the one who initially created all things (John 1:3), including the angels (Col. 1:16-17), needed to receive things “by inheritance”, please notice that the first of the author’s proof texts to support his allegation is Psalm 2:7, which, again, tells us about the “day” in which Jesus was truly “begotten”. In other words, Jesus being “appointed heir of all things” and “being made so much better than the angles, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they” were both directly linked to the “day” in which Jesus was truly “begotten”.

So, why did Jesus need to receive a much better name than the angels via inheritance?

The answer to this question is given to us by this very same epistle writer.

While attributing what David had written in another prophetic Messianic psalm, Psalm 8, to Jesus, the author said:

Hebrews chapter 2

[5] For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
[6] But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
[7] Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
[8] Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
[9] But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

During his incarnation, Jesus, the Creator of all things, including the angels, “was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death”; only to later be “crowned with glory and honour” after his resurrection from the dead and ascension back to his Father in heaven.

In relation to this Biblical truth, we also read such things as the following:

Philippians chapter 2

[5] Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
[6] Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
[7] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
[8] And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
[9] Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
[10] That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
[11] And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Prior to his incarnation, Jesus was only 100% fully God, or “in the form of God”, or “equal with God”.

However, after his incarnation, or after he “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men”, or after he “was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death” (Heb. 2:9), Jesus also became 100% fully man or “the son of man”.

Having “become obedient to death”, God “highly exalted him, and gave him a name which is above every name” after he was “begotten” or raised from the dead, and THIS is not only when Jesus “by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they”, with the “they” being the angels, but this is also precisely “the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18) that we must believe in to be saved.

Along these same lines, we read:

Ephesians chapter 1

[15] Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,
[16] Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;
[17] That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
[18] The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
[19] And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to usward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
[20] Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
[21] Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
[22] And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
[23] Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Again, it wasn’t until Christ was “raised from the dead” that he was given a name that is “far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion”, or “far above” angelic beings, “and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come”, and THIS is “the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18) that we must believe in to be saved.

(Continued in my next post)
 

Live4Him3

Jesus is Lord
May 19, 2022
1,383
640
113
(Continued from my previous post)

Yet again, we read:

I Peter chapter 3

[18] For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
[19] By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
[20] Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
[21] The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
[22] Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

Again, it wasn’t until the time of “the resurrection of Jesus Christ” or the “day” in which he was truly “begotten” that “angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him”.

Once more, THIS is “the name of the only begotten Son of God” (I John 3:18) that we must believe in to be saved.

Pause here for a moment to ask yourself the following questions:

“Did Jesus receive a more excellent name than the angels by inheritance prior to his incarnation?”

Of course, the correct answer to this question is “NO, he did not”.

“Did Jesus receive a more excellent name than the angels by inheritance prior to his resurrection from the dead during his incarnation?”

Of course, the correct answer to this question is “NO, he did not”.

“Did Jesus receive a more excellent name than the angels by inheritance after his resurrection from the dead during his incarnation?

Of course, the correct answer to this question is “YES, he did”, and this is precisely why the author of the epistle to the Hebrews cited Psalm 2:7, a verse about the “day” in which Jesus was “begotten”, as one of his proof texts to prove his allegation.

Moving now to the third and final time that Psalm 2:7 is cited in the New Testament, we read:

Hebrews chapter 5

[1] For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
[2] Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
[3] And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
[4] And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
[5] 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.
[6] As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Here, Psalm 2:7 is cited in relation to the timeframe when the priesthood changed from the temporal Levitical priesthood to the eternal priesthood of Christ who is “a priest FOR EVER after the order of Melchisedec”.

Assuming that you’re already familiar with this change in the priesthood, pause again to ask yourself the following questions:

“Was the temporal Levitical priesthood replaced by the eternal priesthood of Christ prior to Christ’s incarnation?”

Of course, the correct answer to this question is “NO, it was not”.

“Was the temporal Levitical priesthood replaced by the eternal priesthood of Christ prior to Christ’s resurrection from the dead during his incarnation?”

Of course, the correct answer to this question is “NO, it was not”.

“Was the temporal Levitical priesthood replaced by the eternal priesthood of Christ after Christ was raised from the dead during his incarnation?”

Of course, the correct answer to this question is “YES, it was”, and this is precisely why the author of the epistle to the Hebrews cited Psalm 2:7, a verse about the “day” in which Christ was truly “begotten”, as one of his proof texts to support his allegation.

In its original context in Psalm 2:7 and in every other place it is quoted in the New Testament, the “day” in which Jesus was “begotten” is the day in which God raised him from the dead.

Continuing on in the second Psalm that we opened with, we read:

Psalm 2

[8] Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
[9] Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

This is a continuation of the same conversation between the Father and the Son.

In other words, having raised Jesus from the dead, the Father tells Jesus:

[8] Ask (Jesus is the one being told to ask) of me (God the Father), and I (God the Father) shall give thee (Jesus) the heathen for thine (Jesus’) inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy (Jesus’) possession.
[9] Thou (Jesus) shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou (Jesus) shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. – Parentheses mine.

THIS, “the heathen (nations)..and the uttermost parts of the earth”, IS JESUS’ INHERITANCE…NOT heaven.

Furthermore, as Christians, THIS IS OUR INHERITANCE because we are “joint-heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17).

Once more, this is not my own “private interpretation” (II Pet. 1:20), but rather the plain teaching of scripture.

We read:

Revelation chapter 2

[24] But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.
[25] But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.
[26] And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
[27] And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

That was Jesus speaking to THE CHURCH in Thyatira (Rev. 2:18).

He told THE CHURCH that if they held fast UNTIL HE COMES, and overcame, and kept his works unto the end, then he would give them power over the nations or “the heathen” (Psalm 2:8).

He continued on to tell them that they would rule them with a rod of iron and that they would break them to shivers as the vessels of a potter EVEN AS HE RECEIVED OF HIS FATHER.

Where did he receive the same of his Father?

In Psalm 2:8-9, even as we just read.

In fact, the part about “ruling with a rod of iron” (Psalm 2:9) is mentioned twice more in the same book of Revelation.

We read:

“And she brought forth a man child, WHO WAS TO RULE ALL NATIONS WITH A ROD OF IRON: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.” (Rev. 12:5)

When Jesus returns TO THIS EARTH, he will “rule all nations with a rod of iron”, even as the Father promised him AND US AS HIS "JOINT-HEIRS" (Rom. 8:17) in Psalm 2:8-9 and Revelation 2:26-27.

Again, we read:

Revelation chapter 19


[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 man knew, but he himself.
[13] And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The 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.

Again, WHEN JESUS RETURNS TO THIS EARTH, he shall RULE THE NATIONS WITH A ROD OF IRON, even as the Father promised him in Psalm 2:8-9.

If we truly are “joint-heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17), then we shall share his inheritance with him, and his inheritance is NOT heaven.

Heaven is merely an intermediary place.

If somebody told you that you’re going to spend eternity there or that you’re going to one day be “raptured” there, then they flat-out lied to you.

Jesus said:

“Blessed are the meek: FOR THEY SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH.” (Matt. 5:5)

Yes, Jesus, while quoting Psalm 37:11, taught that “THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH”…NOT heaven.

Let’s quickly finish out the second psalm.

Psalm 2

[10] Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
[11] Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
[12] Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

In light of the fact that Jesus has been raised from the dead or “begotten”…

In light of the fact that Jesus will yet be God’s appointed king on his holy hill of Zion at his second coming…

In light of the fact that Jesus and his saints shall rule the nations with a rod of iron when he returns TO THIS EARTH…

…the kings and judges of this earth are instructed to be wise.

Yes, they’re instructed to serve the LORD with fear, and to rejoice with trembling, and to kiss the Son, Jesus, lest he be angry and wipe them out in his wrath when he returns.

In closing, I truly have lost all desire to even post here anymore, but I didn’t want to leave your comment and question unaddressed or unanswered.

Who has ears to hear, let them hear.
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
Jesus didn’t become God’s only begotten Son until the day in which he was raised from the dead because that is the day in which he was truly begotten.
Where in the world do you get this from??

Jesus was born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit. That proves His Sonship immediately. Not after resurrection.

And, of course, you have no verses that support your claim. btw, none of the rest of your long post proved your claim.

All dashed to pieces by the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Jesus even said He was God's Son.

John 10:36 - what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

I suggest more study before posting such error.
 

Live4Him3

Jesus is Lord
May 19, 2022
1,383
640
113
I suggest more study before posting such error.
Oh, the irony.

I never said that Jesus wasn't God's Son before his resurrection.

Instead, I rightly said that Jesus didn't become God's "only begotten Son" until the time that he was raised from the dead, and I provided scriptures which back my assertion.

You?

Just a lot of noise without a single verse to support your own erroneous claim that Jesus became God's "only begotten Son" at his birth.

And so it goes...
 

Live4Him3

Jesus is Lord
May 19, 2022
1,383
640
113
I suggest more study before posting such error.
I almost forgot to tell you something...

Repent, you wicked antichristian heretic.

Yes, you're an antichrist in that the garbage that you're espousing flies in direct contrast to what Jesus himself said about the "day" in which he was truly "begotten".

Not only that, but Jesus was reiterating what God the Father said to him, so you stand in direct opposition to God the Father as well.

Does this concern you?

It ought to.

Now, go and repent, heretic, or gird up your loins as you prepare to answer for your heresy on the day of God's judgment.

Galatians chapter 5

[19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
[20] Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
[21] Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,691
113
You understand me correctly.

Jesus most definitely was NOT God’s only begotten Son prior to becoming a human being.

That is correct.

Jesus didn’t become God’s only begotten Son until the day in which he was raised from the dead because that is the day in which he was truly begotten.

Please consider the following…

If anybody knows when Jesus truly became God’s only begotten Son, then it is God the Father and Jesus the only begotten Son.

Whether you’re presently aware of it or not, we are privileged to learn of a conversation between God the Father and Jesus his Son in our Bibles in which we’re not only told precisely on what day Jesus was truly begotten, but in which Christ himself tells us on which day he was truly begotten.

I am referring to the following:

“I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; THIS DAY have I begotten thee.” (Psalm 2:7)

In this post, which will be rather long, I will first cover this verse of scripture in its original context within the second psalm itself, and then I will cover how it is interpreted the three different times that it is cited in relation to Jesus in the New Testament. In all four instances, as I’ll now document from rightly-divided scripture, Jesus was clearly “begotten” on the “day” in which he was raised from the dead.

Turning to the second psalm, we read:

Psalm 2

[1] Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
[2] The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
[3] Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

The first 3 verses of this prophetic Messianic psalm foretold of the time when the Gentiles (“the heathen”), the people of Israel (“the people”), Herod (“the kings of the earth”) and Pilate (“the rulers”) took counsel together against the LORD and against his anointed (or “against his Christ”, as we’ll see momentarily) or of the time when they all conspired together to crucify Jesus Christ.

This is by no means my own “private interpretation” (II Pet. 1:20).

Instead, it is the plain teaching of scripture.

In relation to the same, we read:

Acts chapter 4

[23] And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them.
[24] And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:
[25] Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?
[26] The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
[27] For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
[28] For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

Although we’re not told here exactly who “the heathen” (Psalm 2:1, Acts 4:25) or “the Gentiles” (Acts 4:27) were who, along with Herod, Pilate, and the people of Israel, “were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ”, we are told elsewhere that “the Gentiles” were the Roman soldiers.

In relation to the same, we read:

Matthew chapter 20

[17] And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and said unto them,
[18] Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,
[19] And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.

Of course, “the Gentiles” who mocked, scourged, and crucified Jesus were the Roman soldiers.

God’s response to this conspiracy?

Psalm 2

[4] He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
[5] Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
[6] Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

God laughs, derides them, speaks unto them in his wrath, and vexes them in his sore displeasure.

What, exactly, does he speak?

He tells them that this same Jesus whom they have crucified will yet be his king upon his holy hill of Zion or that Christ, at his second coming, will yet rule over this earth from the throne of David in Zion or Jerusalem as is prophesied in several different places elsewhere in the Bible.

One such place where this is prophesied would be the following:

Luke chapter 1

[26] And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
[27] To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
[28] And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
[29] And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
[30] And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
[31] And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
[32] He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
[33] And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

How can someone who has been crucified and is dead yet be king?

We’re given the answer to this question in the very next verse.

We read:

Psalm 2

[7] I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; THIS DAY have I begotten thee.

Here, we are privileged to learn of a conversation between God the Father and his Son, Jesus, as is declared by Jesus himself.

Here is who is speaking of whom.

[7] I (Jesus) will declare the decree: the LORD (God the Father) hath said unto me (Jesus) Thou (Jesus) art my (God the Father’s) Son; THIS DAY have I (God the Father) begotten thee (Jesus). – Parentheses mine.

To answer the question that I asked earlier, the way that someone who is dead (Jesus) can yet be king is if God raises him from the dead, and this is exactly what this verse of scripture is talking about.

Yes, God the Father told Jesus his Son that on “THIS DAY”, the day in which Christ was raised from the dead, he would be “begotten”.

Again, this is not my “private interpretation” (II Pet. 1:20) or something that I’m seeking to force upon this passage of scripture, but, instead, it is the plain teaching of scripture.

Turning to the first of three places in the New Testament where Psalm 2:7 is cited, we read:

Acts chapter 13

[26] Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.
[27] For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.
[28] And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.
[29] And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
[30] But God raised him from the dead:
[31] And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.
[32] And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
[33] God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY have I begotten thee.

Did you get that?

The promise which God made in Psalm 2:7, he has fulfilled “in that he hath raised up Jesus again; AS IT IS ALSO WRITTEN IN THE SECOND PSALM, THOU ART MY SON, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE.”

Again, Jesus was “begotten” on “THIS DAY” or on the day in which he was raised from the dead.

(Continued in my next post)
John 3:16
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

John 3:16,17 identifies God’s actions using the past tense. In order to be consistent with what you said, does it mean God didn’t love the world before Jesus was resurrected? Because if Jesus wasn’t God’s only begotten Son until after resurrection then God wouldn’t have loved the world to have sent His only begotten Son into the world.

Furthermore, verse 16 calls Jesus God’s only begotten Son while verse 17 calls Jesus only His Son. Jesus didn’t suddenly cease being God’s only begotten Son when referred to as merely a Son.

Can you prove God didn’t love the world prior to the resurrection and incarnation of Jesus?