When was Jesus begotten?

[2ducklow]

Why? Don't you understand that we are begotten of the flesh and the spirit?

You don't seem to get my point. Now you are contradicting yourself and the scriptures you cited. You are saying spirit begat flesh, when the scriptures say spirit begets spirit. This is not scriptural. Mary was a virgin and the scriptures say Joseph knew her not until she conceived and birthed her son. So what physical male seed did God supposedly use? Not according to scripture. Scripture please? You are saying God's Spirit created a sperm inside of Mary? No, I don't "get it."
Why? Do you not believe that we are begotten as sons and daughters through Jesus Christ? through covenant? If by covenant then it is by the oath. It is a simple spiritual birth or begottenness. You have just gotten yourself all turned around because you refuse to believe Jesus was begotten as the Son in spirit. You want to reinterpret the plain words of Acts 13, Hebrews and Psalms to fit your model. I reinterpret my model to fit scripture - that is part of the growing process.
]Can't be. It never came to pass according to the scriptures which themselves indicate that it came to pass when Jesus was raised the first time. I have challenged you to show that there was any figure of speech like this at the time, and you have failed to do so or even attempt to do so as far as I can see. Hebrews 5 makes it quite clear that it is not a figure of speech. Indeed it is quite central to the gospel and is a matter of the oracles of God.
I wish you well 2ducklow...

Bowing out are you? OK. . you seem incapable of understanding what I'm saying, and I admit some of what you say just doesn't compute with me.

but here's one point I'll make, since to straighten you out on all of your false perceptions of what I was saying would take lots of work.

the spirit of God didn't make mary pregnant, it was the new human male seed flesh that God used to begat Jesus with that made mary pregnant.

Scripture please?

no problem.

jer. 31.22 22 How long wilt thou go about , O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

the new thing God created was new human male seed that enabled a woman (Mary) to compass (go around) a man (to conceive.)

And this verse is considered a messianic prophecy by others besides me. it is a difficult verse for scholars because of their JEsus is God doctrines.

A woman shall compass a man - גבר תסובב נקבה nekebah tesobeb gaber, "A weak woman shall compass or circumvent a strong man." This place has given much trouble to Biblical critics. By many Christian writers it is considered a prophecy of the miraculous conception of the holy virgin; but as I am sure no such meaning is in the words, nor in the context, so I am satisfied no such meaning can be fairly brought out of them.

http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/view.cgi?book=jer&chapter=031

the real problem with that verse for Christians is if they accept it as a prophecy of the miraculous conception, then they have to take "created a new thing" to refer to new human male seed that resulted in Jesus, thus sinking the Jesus is God doctrines. Without the Jesus is God doctrine, the meaning of jer. 31.22 is crystal clear.

(2) The word “created” implies a divine power put forth in the creation of a body in the Virgin‘s womb by the Holy Ghost for the second Adam, such as was exerted in creating the first Adam (Luke 1:35; Hebrews 10:5).

(3) The phrase, “a new thing,” something unprecedented; a man whose like had never existed before, at once God and man; a mother out of the ordinary course of nature, at once mother and virgin. An extraordinary mode of generation; one conceived by the Holy Ghost without man.

(5) The Hebrew for “woman” implies an individual, as the Virgin Mary, rather than a collection of persons

(7) The reference to the conception of the child Messiah accords with the mention of the massacre of “children” referred to in Jeremiah 31:15 (compare Matthew 2:17).

http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jfb/view.cgi?bk=23&ch=31
slam dunk.

So the jameson commentary says the thing created was a body, his opinion. But a body doesn't begat anything, a body doesn't fertilize a female egg. a new human male seed does. but that destroys the jesus is god doctrine, so he can't say that. the obvious meaning.

he also calls the new thing a man. man isn't a thing. but he has to say that cause it supports his Jesus is God doctrine. new human male seed is a thing. commentaters really have a hardtime with this verse. I found one who said it means a woman will turn into a man.. oh brother.

remiah 31:22 is difficult and dubious; some commentators emend, after Ewald and Duhm, into "A woman shall be turned into a man," i.e. "the weak shall be made strong"; the interpretation already given follows Driver.

http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/pfc/view.cgi?bk=23&ch=31

 

[RevelationTestament]

Context. Context. Read the rest of the verse quoted for what perfect means in the context of all of Hebrews 5.

The word perfect has two meanings:
1) without fault, as good as it is possible to be
2) complete

As Jesus died on the cross, he said "it is finished". This completed his purpose of being born. Hebrews 5:9 points this out using the word perfect. Obviously the Son of God has always been perfect/without fault, but with his death he became the author of salvation and completed his calling/commission to be the savior of the world.

Except the full context of the verses talks about Him learning obedience by the things He suffered - which means obedience to the law which is talking about righteousness vs sin rather than completing a work or job. I am left with the question of how you learn obedience through suffering unless that suffering is the result of sin? I suppose if one suffers in righteousness, one may be rewarded with the presence of God - "the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him."
Anyway the point is that Hebrews talks about Jesus with a number of verbs indicating change while people tend to think of God as immutable - He inherits a name, He is made higher than the angels, He is begotten as the Son, He is made perfect, He became the author of our salvation, etc What was He before He was begotten - is the question. Orthodoxy simply avoids that question by declaring He was somehow begotten before all ages or worlds or is eternally begotten so they can say He was always the Son even before "the beginning." Scripture simply doesn't support such an interpretation. It basically ignores scripture in favor of a new doctrine which is not based in scripture. Either God doesn't know how to use verbs or Hebrews, Acts, Psalms and Isaiah are wrong, or Orthodoxy is wrong.
Thank you for your input tho. It is food for thought.

 

[daq]

heb. 1.5 For unto which of the messengers said he at any time—My Son, art, thou, I, this day have begotten thee? and again—I, will become, his father, and, he, shall become my Son?

Note that it says "at any time", which would also include saying it to angels who weren't there (that's called an apostrophe). Note also that it says "I will become" So God begets JEsus , THEN becomes his Father. Not I am his father in eternity past, but I will become his father.

yea the figure of speech called apostrophe (speaking to someone or some thing that isn't there, such as " O death where is thy sting") is the only logical option.

oh I just saw something.

when did God say at any time, thou art my son, this day I hegat thee, AND I will become his Father, and he shall BECOME my son.

this shows that ps 2.7 is an apostrophe, because it is saying that the two passages occurred at the same time. when God said 'this day I have begotten thee, heb. 1.5, is equating ps. 2.7 "this day I have begotten thee' with "I will become his Father."


well I know nobodies gonna buy it, but it's so true.

Okay so now take it to the next step if you believe the two passage quoted in Hebrews 1:5 are meant to have been stated at the same time. Where does the second quote come from?

It is taken from 2 Samuel 7:14 and most all of the commentaries agree that this is the case but then go on to suggest that the entire passage originally concerned Solomon. However, I suggest that the passage was never intended to speak of Solomon but rather the prophesied Messiah King which was promised to David herein and is spoken of in the Psalms because of this promise. This passage concerns a night vision given to the prophet Nathan when the Word of YHWH came to him:

2 Samuel 7:4-17 KJV
4. And it came to pass that night, that the word of the Lord came unto Nathan, saying,
5. Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith the Lord, Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in?
6. Whereas I have not dwelt in any house since the time that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle.
7. In all the places wherein I have walked with all the children of Israel spake I a word with any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people Israel, saying, Why build ye not me an house of cedar?
8. Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel:
9. And I was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies out of thy sight, and have made thee a great name, like unto the name of the great men that are in the earth.
10. Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime,
11. And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the Lord telleth thee that he will make thee an house.
12. And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
13. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
14. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
15. But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
16. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.
17. According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David.

The full quote, which is partially quoted in Hebrews 1:5, says this:

"I will be his father, and he shall be my son [Hebrews 1:5]. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men".

There is therefore no way that this can be something spoken to Yeshua after the resurrection, and thus, another option is off the table. This shows also what RT has just stated, how that Yeshua underwent a learning-perfecting process, as put forth in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Okay so now take it to the next step if you believe the two passage quoted in Hebrews 1:5 are meant to have been stated at the same time. Where does the second quote come from?

It is taken from 2 Samuel 7:14 and most all of the commentaries agree that this is the case but then go on to suggest that the entire passage originally concerned Solomon. However, I suggest that the passage was never intended to speak of Solomon but rather the prophesied Messiah King which was promised to David herein and is spoken of in the Psalms because of this promise. This passage concerns a night vision given to the prophet Nathan when the Word of YHWH came to him:

2 Samuel 7:4-17 KJV
4. And it came to pass that night, that the word of the Lord came unto Nathan, saying,
5. Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith the Lord, Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in?
6. Whereas I have not dwelt in any house since the time that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle.
7. In all the places wherein I have walked with all the children of Israel spake I a word with any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people Israel, saying, Why build ye not me an house of cedar?
8. Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel:
9. And I was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies out of thy sight, and have made thee a great name, like unto the name of the great men that are in the earth.
10. Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime,
11. And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the Lord telleth thee that he will make thee an house.
12. And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
13. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
14. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
15. But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
16. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.
17. According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David.

The full quote, which is partially quoted in Hebrews 1:5, says this:

"I will be his father, and he shall be my son [Hebrews 1:5]. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men".

There is therefore no way that this can be something spoken to Yeshua after the resurrection, and thus, another option is off the table. This shows also what RT has just stated, how that Yeshua underwent a learning-perfecting process, as put forth in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Good input Daq. Thank you. I have never gone into this much detail regarding this particular verse.

Here is more food for thought on the subject of being risen again:
Isaiah 49:15 Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.
16 Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me.

Is this speaking literally? Is YHWH speaking to His people with engraven hands of the nail even before Christ came?
Is YHWH speaking as One? Behold the nail, Behold the hand?
Can both the Father and the Son literally say this as One?

John 5:19
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

 

[2ducklow]

Okay so now take it to the next step if you believe the two passage quoted in Hebrews 1:5 are meant to have been stated at the same time. Where does the second quote come from?

It is taken from 2 Samuel 7:14 and most all of the commentaries agree that this is the case but then go on to suggest that the entire passage originally concerned Solomon. However, I suggest that the passage was never intended to speak of Solomon but rather the prophesied Messiah King which was promised to David herein and is spoken of in the Psalms because of this promise. This passage concerns a night vision given to the prophet Nathan when the Word of YHWH came to him:

2 Samuel 7:4-17 KJV
4. And it came to pass that night, that the word of the Lord came unto Nathan, saying,
5. Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith the Lord, Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in?
6. Whereas I have not dwelt in any house since the time that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle.
7. In all the places wherein I have walked with all the children of Israel spake I a word with any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people Israel, saying, Why build ye not me an house of cedar?
8. Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel:
9. And I was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies out of thy sight, and have made thee a great name, like unto the name of the great men that are in the earth.
10. Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime,
11. And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the Lord telleth thee that he will make thee an house.
12. And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
13. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
14. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
15. But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
16. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.
17. According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David.

The full quote, which is partially quoted in Hebrews 1:5, says this:

"I will be his father, and he shall be my son [Hebrews 1:5]. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men".

There is therefore no way that this can be something spoken to Yeshua after the resurrection, and thus, another option is off the table. This shows also what RT has just stated, how that Yeshua underwent a learning-perfecting process, as put forth in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

I have no idea what you are getting at.

 

[lori milne]

Good input Daq. Thank you. I have never gone into this much detail regarding this particular verse. Here is more food for thought on the subject of being risen again: Isaiah 49:15 Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee. 16 Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me. Is this speaking literally? Is YHWH speaking to His people with engraven hands of the nail even before Christ came? Is YHWH speaking as One? Behold the nail, Behold the hand? Can both the Father and the Son literally say this as One? John 5:19 19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Amen!!

 

[lori milne]

I agree that the Son was always the Son. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. 1 John 4:9

Amen

 

[2ducklow]

Okay so now take it to the next step if you believe the two passage quoted in Hebrews 1:5 are meant to have been stated at the same time. Where does the second quote come from?

It is taken from 2 Samuel 7:14 and most all of the commentaries agree that this is the case but then go on to suggest that the entire passage originally concerned Solomon. However, I suggest that the passage was never intended to speak of Solomon but rather the prophesied Messiah King which was promised to David herein and is spoken of in the Psalms because of this promise. This passage concerns a night vision given to the prophet Nathan when the Word of YHWH came to him:

2 Samuel 7:4-17 KJV
4. And it came to pass that night, that the word of the Lord came unto Nathan, saying,
5. Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith the Lord, Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in?
6. Whereas I have not dwelt in any house since the time that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle.
7. In all the places wherein I have walked with all the children of Israel spake I a word with any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people Israel, saying, Why build ye not me an house of cedar?
8. Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel:
9. And I was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies out of thy sight, and have made thee a great name, like unto the name of the great men that are in the earth.
10. Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime,
11. And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the Lord telleth thee that he will make thee an house.
12. And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
13. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
14. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
15. But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
16. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.
17. According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David.

The full quote, which is partially quoted in Hebrews 1:5, says this:

"I will be his father, and he shall be my son [Hebrews 1:5]. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men".

There is therefore no way that this can be something spoken to Yeshua after the resurrection, and thus, another option is off the table. This shows also what RT has just stated, how that Yeshua underwent a learning-perfecting process, as put forth in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

ok I read it carefully and see what you're getting at. you're just agreeing with my conclusion that 'this day I have begotten thee" doesn't refer to begotten from the dead. I came to that same conclusion because no verse says the resurrection is being begotten from the dead. the two verses both say 'firstborn from the dead' but one of them is falsely translated as 'begotten from the dead' So the whole doctrine is based on a faulty translation.

So that leaves us with two possibilities. Either Jesus was begotten in Mary, as matthew 1.20 plainly states., or Jesus was begotten when ps. 2.7 was written. I choose that Jesus was begotten in Mary's womb. Which would be the normal use of the word begotten.

matthew 1.20 20 But, when, these things, he had pondered, lo! a messenger of the Lord, by dream, appeared to him, saying,—Joseph, son of David! do not fear to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for, that which, in her, hath been begotten, is of [the], Holy, Spirit.

To my way of thinking other verses referring to Jesus being begotten have to line up with matthew 1.20, otherwise you would have 2 different begottens referring to Jesus. Begotten by words, by an oath is just ridiculous to me. Plus it doesn't explain how an oath begats Jesus, apparently it is taken by it's advocates to mean some eternal Jesus poofed at some time as the messiah. Which just doesn't work for me.

I believe it is very dangerous to proclaim that Jesus was begotten in eternity past because believing that Jesus was begotten is essential to salvation.

john 3.16 For God, so loved, the world, that, his Only Begotten Son, he gave,—that, whosoever believeth on him, might not perish, but have life age-abiding.

people attack the greek word translated only begotten and try and claim it really means unique. bible translators change the greek word meaning begotten to conceived in matthew 1.20 to take away the fact that Jesus was begotten in Mary. It's a veiled attempt to make Jesus not a man, not a descendant of David, not a son of Mary and most importantly not really the son of God. People are trying hard to make Jesus only the son of God in a figurative sense, not literally.


they even change heb 1.6 which really says firstborn to first begotten.

KJV(i) 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Hebrews 1:6
1:6 3752όταν[3whenever 1161δε1and 3825πάλιν2again] 1521εισάγαγηhe should bring in 3588τονthe 4416πρωτότοκον first-born 1519ειςinto 3588τηνthe 3611οικουμένηνinhabitable world, 3004λέγειhe says, 2532καιAnd 4352προσκυνησάτωσανlet [4do obeisance to 1473αυτώ5him 3956παντες1all 32άγγελοι2angels 2316θεού3of God]

http://studybible.info/interlinear/Hebrews 1:6

God brought his first born into the world after he had been begotten in Mary. There's a wide spread effort in Christianity to claim Jesus wasn't bbegotten in Mary, and JEsus isn't literally the first begotten of God and Mary, and that Jesus wasn't begotten in Mary. It's an effort to rob people of their salvation per john 3.16.

ah here in a literal translation they got it right..

LITV(i) 6 And again, when He brought the First-born into the world, He said, "And let all the angels of God worship Him." LXX-Deut. 32:43, MT-No Equiv

which destroys the idea that Jesus was begotten in eternity past or whenever it was before Mary was born that you guys are advocating. heb. 1.5 says 'this day have I begotten thee, and heb. 1.6 says Jesus was born out of Mary. So that means 'this day" was 9 months before Mary gave birth.

 

[2ducklow]

you guys and lots of other people as well,are working hard to make us believe that Jesus isn't really the son of the living God.

god begat Jesus with new human male seed and Mary Conceived Jesus when her egg was fertilized by the seed God created, thus Jesus is literally the son of God. you guys are claiming Jesus is the son of God, but in reality your explanations portray Jesus as not being the son of God. It would be a small step for you to move to the position of saying that JEsus isn't the son of God, because that's what you are teaching defacto.

 

[2ducklow]

oh my, I looked up only begotten. it means literally only become. genomai (G1096) is translated mostly as 'become' and monos (G3441) means alone, left alone, remaining.

so. looking at john 3.16 in that light.

KJV(i) 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

God gave his only became son. would be a literal rendition. Interesting because john 1.14 uses the same word genomai to say.


John 1:14





KJV(i) 14 And the Word was made (genomai G1096) flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten (only G3441 and genomai (G1096) of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

the word became flesh, and became the only son of God and the only became of the Father.

I have to think on this some more.

same word in john 1.3

John 1:3
IGNT(i)
3 G3956 παντα ALL THINGS G1223 δι THROUGH G846 αυτου HIM G1096 (G5633)εγενετο CAME INTO BEING, G2532 και AND G5565 χωρις WITHOUT G846 αυτου HIM G1096 (G5633)εγενετο CAME INTO BEING G3761 ουδε NOT EVEN G1520 εν ONE "THING" G3739 ο WHICH G1096 (G5754)γεγονεν HAS COME INTO BEING

http://studybible.info/IGNT/John 1:3

Lots of becames (G1096 to wade through in john1. so all things became (egeneto G1096) through Jesus, JEsus is God's only became, Jesus is God's only became son..

so what I'm getting by looking at the literal meanings of genomai and monos in john 1 is this. the word became Jesus (flesh) because Jesus became the only son of God. and all things became through Jesus who became the only became son of God.

It's saying JEsus is the only one who became the son of God. Literally speaking.

 

[daq]

Good input Daq. Thank you. I have never gone into this much detail regarding this particular verse.

Here is more food for thought on the subject of being risen again:
Isaiah 49:15 Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.
16 Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me.

Is this speaking literally? Is YHWH speaking to His people with engraven hands of the nail even before Christ came?
Is YHWH speaking as One? Behold the nail, Behold the hand?
Can both the Father and the Son literally say this as One?

John 5:19
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Isaiah 49 speaks in allegorical terms of Zion-Yerushalaim of above who is "our mother", (that is, mother covenant, as per Galatians 4:22-31 and Isaiah 54 from which Paul quotes in that passage). His people are the hands and feet of God yet this passage you quote does not say "palms of my hands" but rather simply "my palms", (which word is kaph also used for bowls and spoons in the House). The same is used in Leviticus 23:40 for "palm branches of palm trees" used in building your little supernal sukkah, (in that passage it is "kapot tamariym", "palms of palm trees"). When we read of a multitude before the throne in Revelation 7:9 what do they have in their hands? They have palms in their hands and likewise those who become pillars in the temple of God are also likened to palms, (a palm tree, a cherubim, a palm tree, a cherubim). So then, one day six men will come by way of the higher gate, and the Seventh is the man clothed in linen having the inkhorn of a scribe at his side: that one inscribes the name of the holy city on all the spoons, bowls, vessels, and palms in the House; for he says, "He that overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Yerushalaim, which descends out of the heavens from my God, and mine own new name." Cornelius appears to have been the first example in the new covenant writings, (for six "men" went with Peter and they surely had slaughter weapons in their hands, for as Peter was told, "Anastas, Peter, slay and eat!").

ok I read it carefully and see what you're getting at. you're just agreeing with my conclusion that 'this day I have begotten thee" doesn't refer to begotten from the dead. I came to that same conclusion because no verse says the resurrection is being begotten from the dead. the two verses both say 'firstborn from the dead' but one of them is falsely translated as 'begotten from the dead' So the whole doctrine is based on a faulty translation.

So that leaves us with two possibilities. Either Jesus was begotten in Mary, as matthew 1.20 plainly states., or Jesus was begotten when ps. 2.7 was written. I choose that Jesus was begotten in Mary's womb. Which would be the normal use of the word begotten.

matthew 1.20 20 But, when, these things, he had pondered, lo! a messenger of the Lord, by dream, appeared to him, saying,—Joseph, son of David! do not fear to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for, that which, in her, hath been begotten, is of [the], Holy, Spirit.

To my way of thinking other verses referring to Jesus being begotten have to line up with matthew 1.20, otherwise you would have 2 different begottens referring to Jesus. Begotten by words, by an oath is just ridiculous to me. Plus it doesn't explain how an oath begats Jesus, apparently it is taken by it's advocates to mean some eternal Jesus poofed at some time as the messiah. Which just doesn't work for me.

I believe it is very dangerous to proclaim that Jesus was begotten in eternity past because believing that Jesus was begotten is essential to salvation.

john 3.16 For God, so loved, the world, that, his Only Begotten Son, he gave,—that, whosoever believeth on him, might not perish, but have life age-abiding.

people attack the greek word translated only begotten and try and claim it really means unique. bible translators change the greek word meaning begotten to conceived in matthew 1.20 to take away the fact that Jesus was begotten in Mary. It's a veiled attempt to make Jesus not a man, not a descendant of David, not a son of Mary and most importantly not really the son of God. People are trying hard to make Jesus only the son of God in a figurative sense, not literally.


they even change heb 1.6 which really says firstborn to first begotten.

KJV(i) 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.



Hebrews 1:6 - Apostolic Bible Polyglot Greek-English Interlinear

God brought his first born into the world after he had been begotten in Mary. There's a wide spread effort in Christianity to claim Jesus wasn't bbegotten in Mary, and JEsus isn't literally the first begotten of God and Mary, and that Jesus wasn't begotten in Mary. It's an effort to rob people of their salvation per john 3.16.

ah here in a literal translation they got it right..

LITV(i) 6 And again, when He brought the First-born into the world, He said, "And let all the angels of God worship Him." LXX-Deut. 32:43, MT-No Equiv

which destroys the idea that Jesus was begotten in eternity past or whenever it was before Mary was born that you guys are advocating. heb. 1.5 says 'this day have I begotten thee, and heb. 1.6 says Jesus was born out of Mary. So that means 'this day" was 9 months before Mary gave birth.

Yet you just said that both statements had to be made at the same time. How then do you explain the fact that half of the Psalm 2:7 statement is included in the immersion accounts?

Mark 1:10-11 KJV
10. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
11. And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, [Psalm 2:7] in whom I am well pleased.

Luke 32:22 KJV
22. And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; [Psalm 2:7] in thee I am well pleased.

And all of those links and arguments made previously prove by the words of the early church leaders that Luke 3:22 contained the full DECREE from Psalm 2:7. And in fact the FULL DECREE still remains in the reading of Codex Bezae (D). Now it seems all other options have been removed.

As for Hebrews 1:6 it quotes directly from the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 32:43 so the author does not even speak of what most seem to think. The firstborn prototokos in this passage is Yisrael, (Exodus 4:22 which is likewise prototokos in the Septuagint). Thus the author of Hebrews speaks of Deuteronomy 32 when the Father brings the firstborn, Yisrael, again into the habitable LAND, (oikoumene, Hebrews 1:6).

 

[daq]

"As for Hebrews 1:6 it quotes directly from the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 32:43"

I should have said "As for Hebrews 1:6, yes, it quotes directly from Deuteronomy. . ." which acknowledges your statement; however the forum software is not allowing me to edit my post without re-posting the entire reply, (it is giving me a blank page when I attempt to edit). Anyway here also is a transliteration from Codex Bezae in the Luke passage with links below to view the manuscript at the University of Cambridge Digital Library:

Luke 3:20-23 Codex Bezae (D) Transliteration
[20] prosetheken kai touto epi pasin eneklise ton Ioanen en fulake :
[21] egeneto de en to baptisthenai hapanta ton laon kai Iesou baptisthentos kai : kai proseuchomenou anoichthenai ton ouranon
[22] kai katabenai to pneuma to hagion somatiko eidei hos peristeran eis auton kai fonen ek tou ouranou genesthai : huios mou ei su , ego semeron gegenneka se :
[23] en de Iesous hos eton -λ- archomenos hos enomeizeto einai
huios Iosef
tou Iakob
tou Matthan
Christian Works : Codex Bezae
http://193.60.88.193/content/images/MS-NN-00002-00041-002-00044.jpg

And, again, these all attest this reading at the immersion of Yeshua:

The Luke 3:22 variant "ego semeron gegenneka se", (I, this day, have begotten thee") is attested by D, ita, b, c, d, ff2, l, r1, Justin, Origen, Diognetus, Gospel of the Ebionites, (Clement), Didascalia, Methodius, Juvencus, (Ambrosiaster), Hilary, Apostolic Constitutions, Faustinus, (Tyconius), Augustine.
http://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=601&journal=1&type=pdf

 

[2ducklow]

Yet you just said that both statements had to be made at the same time. How then do you explain the fact that half of the Psalm 2:7 statement is included in the immersion accounts?

Mark 1:10-11 KJV
10. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
11. And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, [Psalm 2:7] in whom I am well pleased.

Luke 32:22 KJV
22. And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; [Psalm 2:7] in thee I am well pleased.

And all of those links and arguments made previously prove by the words of the early church leaders that Luke 3:22 contained the full DECREE from Psalm 2:7. And in fact the FULL DECREE still remains in the reading of Codex Bezae (D). Now it seems all other options have been removed.

As for Hebrews 1:6 it quotes directly from the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 32:43 so the author does not even speak of what most seem to think. The firstborn prototokos in this passage is Yisrael, (Exodus 4:22 which is likewise prototokos in the Septuagint). Thus the author of Hebrews speaks of Deuteronomy 32 when the Father brings the firstborn, Yisrael, again into the habitable LAND, (oikoumene, Hebrews 1:6).

Perhaps this source will answer your question, it did for me. the manuscript evidence is much stronger for the traditional reading than for the variant reading.

Ehrman’s comments may give the misleading impression that apart from P4 all or the majority of the earliest Greek manuscript tradition supports the alternate rendering. However, it is important to note that Ehrman is not referring to textual witnesses but to patristic sources, i.e. quotations taken from the writings of the early Church fathers. Apart from codex Bezae (D), a manuscript known for its dubious readings, the textual witnesses uniformly support the reading found in the majority of English translations.

NT Greek textual critic Philip W. Comfort’s somewhat lengthy discussion of the textual data is worth quoting since it helps to put this in proper perspective:


TR WH NU su ei ho huios ho agapetos, en soi eudokesa.




“You are my Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

P4 aleph A B L W 070 33 MSS according to Augustine

KJV NKJV RSV ESV NASB NIV TNIV NEB REB NJBmg NAB NLT HCSB NET

variant huios mou ei su, ego semeron gegenneka se




“You are my Son; this day I have begotten you.”

D it Justin (Clement) Hilary MSS according to Augustine

RSVmg NRSVmg ESVmg NEBmg REBmg NJB NABmg NLTmg NETmg

The TR WH NU reading has the earliest and most diverse documentary support. The variant reading is later and more localized (in the west) – a true ‘Western’ reading. Augustine knew of both readings, although he made it clear that the variant reading was “not found in the more ancient manuscripts” (Cons. 2.14.).

Jesus - The Eternal or Adopted Son of God?

the manuscript evidence is stronger for the majority reading of "Thou art my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.
But if the variant reading is correct, the author I quoted offers this explanation.

13-21

The repeated references to Jesus and the Spirit suggest that by begetting Luke meant that it was only at this precise moment that God brought forth his Son in the power of the Holy Spirit to carry out his ministry. The next citation seems to affirm this explanation:


“And Peter opened his mouth and said: ‘Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. You know the word which he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace by Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), the word which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. And we are witnesses to all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree; but God raised him on the third day and made him manifest; not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that he is the one ordained by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness that every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.’” Acts 10:34-43

Peter proclaims that it was at the baptism that God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit and power to fulfill his Messianic role.

In light of these texts we are justified in understanding that the act of begetting in this specific context doesn’t refer to the time when Christ became God’s Son. Rather, this is Luke’s way of highlighting the moment that God chose for Jesus to begin his Messianic office in the power of the Holy Spirit.

http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/dirks/jesus_adoption.html

If you read more of the above article at the web site I posted you read his proof from scriptures that Jesus was begotten in Mary's womb,and he became the son of God at his birth. It's too lengthy for me to quote here. But I will say this, Matthew 1.20 says Jesus was begotten in Mary, and the variant reading of luke says Jesus was begotten at his baptism, so one would have to be literal and the other would have to be figurative if the variant reading is original.

 

[daq]

Perhaps this source will answer your question, it did for me. the manuscript evidence is much stronger for the traditional reading than for the variant reading.


Jesus - The Eternal or Adopted Son of God?

the manuscript evidence is stronger for the majority reading of "Thou art my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.
But if the variant reading is correct, the author I quoted offers this explanation.


Jesus - The Eternal or Adopted Son of God?

If you read more of the above article at the web site I posted you read his proof from scriptures that Jesus was begotten in Mary's womb,and he became the son of God at his birth. It's too lengthy for me to quote here. But I will say this, Matthew 1.20 says Jesus was begotten in Mary, and the variant reading of luke says Jesus was begotten at his baptism, so one would have to be literal and the other would have to be figurative if the variant reading is original.

To each his own I suppose but I cannot see any logic to what you suggest because of all the evidence we have already gone over. We have two places where the first portion of Psalm 2:7 is quoted as stated from the Father to Yeshua at his immersion, the quote of the entire decree in Acts 13:33, (which most others like to say concerns the day of the resurrection) and then we have the statements from Hebrews which appear highly unlikely to have been written concerning the time in the womb of Mary. Okay, just so I understand what you are saying, is the following what you intend?

The decree from Psalm 2:7 again:

Psalm 2:7 KJV
7. I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.

But neither of the two following passages reference Psalm 2:7 because it was already previously said to Yeshua in the womb of Mary?

Mark 1:10-11 KJV
10. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
11. And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Luke 32:22 KJV
22. And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

And Acts 13:33 also concerns the time when Yeshua was in the womb of Mary?

Acts 13:32-35 KJV
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.
34. And [But] as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.
35. Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

And Hebrews 1:5 speaks of the time Yeshua was in the womb of Mary?

Hebrews 1:5 KJV
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?

And when the author of Hebrews writes, in the passage below, that Messiah did not magnify or glorify himself to be made High Priest, but rather that the Father said to him those words; you say that it was in the womb of Mary that Messiah did not glorify himself to be made High Priest? But that the Father said those words to Yeshua in the womb of Mary, (confirming also the Melki-Tzedek High Priesthood?) despite what is written Gospel accounts that record part of the decree at his immersion and also despite what is written in Acts 13:33?

Hebrews 5:4-5 KJV
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.

How could Yeshua take such an honor to himself in the womb even if he so desired?

 

[RevelationTestament]

Isaiah 49 speaks in allegorical terms of Zion-Yerushalaim of above who is "our mother", (that is, mother covenant, as per Galatians 4:22-31 and Isaiah 54 from which Paul quotes in that passage). His people are the hands and feet of God yet this passage you quote does not say "palms of my hands" but rather simply "my palms", (which word is kaph also used for bowls and spoons in the House). The same is used in Leviticus 23:40 for "palm branches of palm trees" used in building your little supernal sukkah, (in that passage it is "kapot tamariym", "palms of palm trees").

actually, that is not so. the word in Leviticus is kap·pōṯ
כַּפֹּ֣ת which is normally translated into branches, but can refer to palm of the hands. or of the foot(sole).
tə·mā·rîm תְּמָרִ֔ים refers to the palm tree as a whole.
Isaiah uses a different plural word kap·pa·yim כַּפַּ֥יִם which is translated as hands everywhere else it is used in the Bible, and clearly means hands in its usage rather than referring to the tree.

When we read of a multitude before the throne in Revelation 7:9 what do they have in their hands? They have palms in their hands and likewise those who become pillars in the temple of God are also likened to palms, (a palm tree, a cherubim, a palm tree, a cherubim). So then, one day six men will come by way of the higher gate, and the Seventh is the man clothed in linen having the inkhorn of a scribe at his side: that one inscribes the name of the holy city on all the spoons, bowls, vessels, and palms in the House; for he says, "He that overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Yerushalaim, which descends out of the heavens from my God, and mine own new name." Cornelius appears to have been the first example in the new covenant writings, (for six "men" went with Peter and they surely had slaughter weapons in their hands, for as Peter was told, "Anastas, Peter, slay and eat!").

What you are seeing here is the order of of the temple of heaven. I believe you are referring to Ezekiel 9 which is not quite clear to me. It says:
2 And, behold, six men came from the way of the higher gate, which lieth toward the north, and every man a slaughter weapon in his hand; and one man among them was clothed with linen, with a writer’s inkhorn by his side: and they went in, and stood beside the brasen altar.
To me that seems to indicate the man with the inkhorn may be one of the 6 men which come from the upper gate, rather than a 7th man which you seem to surmise.

If these men were to relate to those with Peter as you surmise, however, which I do not believe, the man with the inkhorn cannot be the one you surmise making the promise in Revelation nor one of the seven trumpets of Revelation who do not spare for they have yet to sound. You may care to note that the lamb of Revelation 5 has seven eyes.

How ... do you explain the fact that half of the Psalm 2:7 statement is included in the immersion accounts?

Mark 1:10-11 KJV
10. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
11. And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, [Psalm 2:7] in whom I am well pleased.

Luke 32:22 KJV
22. And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; [Psalm 2:7] in thee I am well pleased.

And all of those links and arguments made previously prove by the words of the early church leaders that Luke 3:22 contained the full DECREE from Psalm 2:7. And in fact the FULL DECREE still remains in the reading of Codex Bezae (D). Now it seems all other options have been removed.

While you did not address this to me, I thank you for bringing this up, and I would like to address it.
When an alternate reading surfaces, which is different from the standard Greek or Peshitta gospels, I automatically raise a flag, and my scrutiny level goes up. When all the other available manuscripts dictate against an alternate reading, it would have to have extremely convincing evidence to support it. This alternate reading suggested for Luke 3:22, "Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee," is far from having convincing evidence to support it.
As you note this reading seemed to have its start with Justin Martyr who seemed fond of matching NT words to various parts of the Old Testament. It is interesting to note that Tatian then apparently picked up this alternate reading for his Diatessaron compilation of the 4 gospels which became popular in the heart of the young church in the Syrian Greek area. This could be the reason this alternate reading seemed to spread around to apparently be used by some of the other early writers you note. However, as the church grew, the Diatessaron was disapproved of by the leadership which made a concerted effort to make sure the 4 gospels became the standard for church use. Nevertheless, this alternate reading shows up in Latin or Roman Catholic versions of the scriptures. I believe this perfectly illustrates some of the problems which crept into the Catholic scriptures.
The plain truth is there simply is no credible scriptural manuscript evidence prior to the 5th century Codex Bezae to support this alternate reading. Every single prior Codex and Greek manuscript as well as the Peshitta says the Father spoke likewise: "Thou art my Son in whom I am well pleased" indicating that Jesus was already God's only begotten Son. I am not going to scrap these thousands of manuscripts because some 5th century scribe listens to some western commentators who could well have been influenced by the early popular Diatessaron. Further, even the Matthew and Mark in the Codex Bezae disagree with its Luke 3:22. Whoever transcribed the Codex also changed the genealogy in its Luke 3:24-38 to match Matthew's. So the Codex Bezae also differs from every other gospel of Luke in existence here too. This is simply too highly improbable to reasonably be accepted as accurate. I cannot accept such a reading when it is most probable that in trying to resolve Acts 13 Justin Martyr took a liberty or guess he shouldn't have, which then got picked up by the Diatessaron and the gospel of the Ebionites, and spread around. Those can hardly be considered authoritative sources upon which to scrap all the other thousands of earlier scripture manuscripts.

As for Hebrews 1:6 it quotes directly from the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 32:43 so the author does not even speak of what most seem to think. The firstborn prototokos in this passage is Yisrael, (Exodus 4:22 which is likewise prototokos in the Septuagint). Thus the author of Hebrews speaks of Deuteronomy 32 when the Father brings the firstborn, Yisrael, again into the habitable LAND, (oikoumene, Hebrews 1:6).

Um, no.
32:43 ευφράνθητε Be glad,
ουρανοί O heavens,
άμα together
αυτώ with him!
και and
προσκυνησάτωσαν do obeisance
αυτώ to him,
πάντες all
άγγελοι angels
θεού of God!

 

[2ducklow]

To each his own I suppose but I cannot see any logic to what you suggest because of all the evidence we have already gone over.

likewise I'm sure.

 

[daq]

Double Post

 

[daq]

Isaiah 49 speaks in allegorical terms of Zion-Yerushalaim of above who is "our mother", (that is, mother covenant, as per Galatians 4:22-31 and Isaiah 54 from which Paul quotes in that passage). His people are the hands and feet of God yet this passage you quote does not say "palms of my hands" but rather simply "my palms", (which word is kaph also used for bowls and spoons in the House). The same is used in Leviticus 23:40 for "palm branches of palm trees" used in building your little supernal sukkah, (in that passage it is "kapot tamariym", "palms of palm trees").

actually, that is not so. the word in Leviticus is kap·pōṯ
כַּפֹּ֣ת which is normally translated into branches, but can refer to palm of the hands. or of the foot(sole).
tə·mā·rîm תְּמָרִ֔ים refers to the palm tree as a whole.
Isaiah uses a different plural word kap·pa·yim כַּפַּ֥יִם which is translated as hands everywhere else it is used in the Bible, and clearly means hands in its usage rather than referring to the tree.

Those are simply different forms of the same word kaph:

Isaiah 49:16 KJV
49:16 Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me.

Strong's (BDB) Hebrew Definition for #03709
03709 // Pk // kaph // kaf //
from 03721 ; TWOT - 1022a; n f
AV - hand 128, spoon 24, sole 19, palm 5, hollow 3, handful 2, apiece 1, branches 1, breadth + 04096 1, clouds 1, misc 7; 192

1) palm, hand, sole, palm of the hand, hollow or flat of the hand
1a) palm, hollow or flat of the hand
1b) power
1c) sole (of the foot)
1d) hollow, objects, bending objects, bent objects
1d1) of thigh-joint
1d2) pan, vessel (as hollow)
1d3) hollow (of sling)
1d4) hand-shaped branches or fronds (of palm trees)
1d5) handles (as bent)
Strong's Hebrew Definition for # 03709

The same word is even used for the "sole" of the foot because of the cup underneath the arch of the foot. The same word is also used of the "hollow" of the thigh when the name of Yacob is changed to Yisrael in Genesis 32. Also the word for "hand", ("yad") is not in the Isaiah 49:16 text probably because, for one, the Father is non-corporeal Spirit and does not have a physical body, (which is one of the reasons he made us to be his temples or houses as already suggested).

As for Hebrews 1:6 it quotes directly from the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 32:43 so the author does not even speak of what most seem to think. The firstborn prototokos in this passage is Yisrael, (Exodus 4:22 which is likewise prototokos in the Septuagint). Thus the author of Hebrews speaks of Deuteronomy 32 when the Father brings the firstborn, Yisrael, again into the habitable LAND, (oikoumene, Hebrews 1:6).

Um, no.
32:43 ευφράνθητε Be glad,
ουρανοί O heavens,
άμα together
αυτώ with him!
και and
προσκυνησάτωσαν do obeisance
αυτώ to him,
πάντες all
άγγελοι angels
θεού of God!

Not sure what you mean by "Um, no", but the quote is verbatim from the Septuagint depending on which version one reads:

Deuteronomy 32:43 LXX-Septuagint
32:43 ευφρανθητε ουρανοι αμα αυτω και προσκυνησατωσαν αυτω παντες υιοι θεου ευφρανθητε εθνη μετα του λαου αυτου και ενισχυσατωσαν αυτω παντες αγγελοι θεου οτι το αιμα των υιων αυτου εκδικαται και εκδικησει και ανταποδωσει δικην τοις εχθροις και τοις μισουσιν ανταποδωσει και εκκαθαριει κυριος την γην του λαου αυτου
Online Greek OT (Septuagint/LXX) UTF8 Bible. Deuteronomy Chapter 32:1-52.

Deuteronomy 32:43 LXX-Septuagint
43 εὐφράνθητε, οὐρανοί, ἅμα αὐτῷ, καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ· εὐφράνθητε, ἔθνη μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐνισχυσάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες υἱοὶ Θεοῦ· ὅτι τὸ αἷμα τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ ἐκδικᾶται, καὶ ἐκδικήσει καὶ ἀνταποδώσει δίκην τοῖς ἐχθροῖς καὶ τοῖς μισοῦσιν ἀνταποδώσει, καὶ ἐκκαθαριεῖ Κύριος τὴν γῆν τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ.
1 Attend, O heaven, and I will speak; and let the earth hear the words out of m... DEUTERONOMY / ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟΝΟΜΙΟΝ32 - Bilingual Septuagint

Hebrews 1:6
ὅταν δὲ πάλιν εἰσαγάγῃ τὸν πρωτότοκον εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην, λέγει Καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ.
Hebrews 1:6 Greek Text Analysis

Septuagint versions:

1) "και προσκυνησατωσαν αυτω παντες υιοι θεου"
2) "καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ"

Hebrews 1:6 quote:

1) "Καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ"

Either way the author of Hebrews clearly speaks of the Deuteronomy 32 passage by the context from which he quotes. Thus the author cannot be speaking in the primary sense of the time when the Father brought "Messiah into the world", (as most generally assume to be the case) but rather the author clearly speaks of Yisrael, the prototokos-firstborn, (as stated to be, as a whole nation-people in Exodus 4:22, as previously stated). The word for habitable land is also "oikoumene" as previously stated and as anyone may see by looking up the definition. To render oikoumene as "world" or "universe" in this context, (as some translations do) is an error due to the misconception arrived at for not giving heed to the context which is clearly Deuteronomy 32 and no other. The context of Deuteronomy 32 is that Moshe is about to go up to Nebo and die, it is the final year in the wilderness, it is just before the Father brings Yisrael his firstborn again into the Land after the sojourn in Egypt and then the desert for forty years. This is plain as day for anyone willing to admit it in spite of preconceived doctrines. This is also the reason "palin", ("again") is in the Hebrews statement because it concerns the RETURN to the Promised Land. The context therefore determines for us what and where the author of Hebrews writes:

Exodus 4:22 LXX-Septuagint (Brenton Translation)
22 σὺ δὲ ἐρεῖς τῷ Φαραώ· τάδε λέγει Κύριος· υἱὸς πρωτότοκός μου ᾿Ισραήλ·
22 And thou shalt say to Pharao, These things saith the Lord, Israel [is] my first-born. [huios-son]
1 And Moses answered and said, If they believe me not, and do not hearken to my... EXODUS / ΕΞΟΔΟΣ4 - Bilingual Septuagint

Hebrews 1:6
6. But when again [palin] he leads in the prototokos-firstborn [Yisrael] into the oikoumenen-Land, he says, "And let all the messengers of Elohim do obeisance unto him." [Deuteronomy 32:43]

The angels or messengers were commanded to do obeisance unto Yisrael, (not "worship") and this is exactly what they do toward edification of the people throughout TaNaK. For the same reason Stephen says "the Torah was given by the disposition of angels-messengers", (Acts 7:53).

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

2ducklow, I must commend you for your persistence in this discussion. You have brought something to my attention that I never considered before, that the Bible makes distinction between conceived, begotten, and born.

Why? Don't you understand that we are begotten of the flesh and the spirit?

We are flesh and spirit. A most important point in this discussion. But how do we become flesh and spirit? Is being born the same as begotten? Why does scripture distinguish between being begotten, conceived and born? Nowhere does scripture say so simply as you quote we are begotten flesh and spirit.

So if we are flesh and spirit, I have five questions:
1) Why is there no marriage/procreation in heaven?
2) What are the Nephilim?
3) Who makes a soul?
4) When is a soul made?
5) If Jesus was man and God, how is he the same and different than us?

1) There is no procreation in heaven for simple mathematics. The number of souls to be in heaven is a fixed known number by God. If there was reproduction for eternity, there would be an infinite times infinite number of souls in heaven.

2) Since there is no procreation in heaven, Gen 6 describes the heavenly beings/angels joining with women on earth to create nephilim/giants. But what is the result of an angel and a woman? Is it flesh and spirit? I say no, only flesh.

3) Man kind has a very special likeness to God from the command to reproduce. We humans only see the flesh that is born, but we also create new spiritual beings/souls that will live forever. So just like God, somehow we also create from nothing new souls. This special power is only while we live on this earth. It is the most magical thing a man and woman can do in this age.

4) Why are Christians against abortion? Because we believe life begins at conception and this is when I believe a soul is made. There is some scripture that alludes to unborn souls in heaven. It is with a man's desire when he knows/joins a woman, that a new soul is created at conception. This is what scripture means when a man begets someone.

For example note the two accounts of the lineage of Jesus. Matthew uses begat when showing the lineage from Joseph. Luke traces the lineage from Mary using son/flesh going all the way back to Eve, to satisfy the first prophecy of Christ. Note, even the Matthew account switches from begat to born for the last generation where Jesus is involved.

16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.​

5) I just had this big discussion on how Jesus was not just like us. The staunch Trinitarians had a hard time with this. Jesus was like us in the flesh, but in the Spirit, he is God. The end result is Jesus was "something different". Hebrews says he was made lower when he took on flesh. Clearly he existed before being born Jesus. Since a man did not join with Mary, a new soul was not created. The soul of Jesus existed before being born in flesh from Mary.

the spirit of God didn't make mary pregnant, it was the new human male seed flesh that God used to begat Jesus with that made mary pregnant.

jer. 31.22 22 How long wilt thou go about , O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

the new thing God created was new human male seed that enabled a woman (Mary) to compass (go around) a man (to conceive.)

And this verse is considered a messianic prophecy by others besides me. it is a difficult verse for scholars because of their JEsus is God doctrines.

Thanks for pointing out this verse, although I disagree with your last commentary.

To it I add the first prophecy of a Savior. It reenforces Jer 31 saying he comes from woman, not man.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
​

But, I will clarify, Jesus was "a new thing"/different from us because he had flesh from Marry but a soul from heaven, not from a man. There are even scriptures in modern translations that refer to Jesus as something as opposed to someone. I have wondered about these verses before. The most perplexing was that Solomon was said by God to be the wisest man to ever live, past or future. Jesus said he was something greater than Solomon.

Matthew 12:42 The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.​

It makes sense to me now.

Jeremiah 31 Commentary - Adam Clarke Commentary

the real problem with that verse for Christians is if they accept it as a prophecy of the miraculous conception, then they have to take "created a new thing" to refer to new human male seed that resulted in Jesus, thus sinking the Jesus is God doctrines. Without the Jesus is God doctrine, the meaning of jer. 31.22 is crystal clear.


Jeremiah 31 Commentary - Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Bible Commentaries
slam dunk.

So the jameson commentary says the thing created was a body, his opinion. But a body doesn't begat anything, a body doesn't fertilize a female egg. a new human male seed does. but that destroys the jesus is god doctrine, so he can't say that. the obvious meaning.

he also calls the new thing a man. man isn't a thing. but he has to say that cause it supports his Jesus is God doctrine. new human male seed is a thing. commentaters really have a hardtime with this verse. I found one who said it means a woman will turn into a man.. oh brother.

I agree that Jesus was something different, but this commentary goes wrong when using the obscure to refute the obvious. The obvious is the Jesus was God and man, also that he existed before being made lower by taking on flesh. He himself said he was Son before King David was born.

Mat 22:42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.
43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

Heb 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
​

Now I ask is God the Father someone or a something? To say he is someone says he is human. That would be blasphemous. To say he is something means he is different than human. Normally we think that to be a lower position, but I say strictly following language, not true. It is just a thought held by man. So it seems most appropriate to call Jesus something when wishing to distinguish that he was more than just a man/flesh.


So in summary, begat means to create a soul. The soul of Jesus was not created any time in the 33 years he was on earth. Therefore he was not begat in that time. What happened at Jesus conception was just as Gen 6 describes the Nephilim. A spirit joined a woman and created flesh that was born. The unique in all humanity is that the spirit of Logos joined this flesh that came from Mary and the Holy Spirit. I could not say exactly what day this happened though.

I would further add that the Spirit of the Son of God/Logos was with the Father at creation. Psalm 2 references a day meaning it was after creation. To reconcile these two things, I take Psalm 2 to be an oath made in heaven before the angels and later revealed to David by the Holy Spirit. Later on the oath was reaffirmed by God the Father on two noted occasions, Jesus' baptism and his transfiguration.

Note that if God said it two times he could have said it three or more times. Obviously the first time would be when the oath was actually made. This the one that was revealed to David.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Those are simply different forms of the same word kaph:

While I appreciate your scholarly approach to the scriptures, I find I often do not agree with you - but that is rather common actually. I agree that Kappot has the same root, but there are over a dozen words with that root. That doesn't make them all have the same meaning. The point of using different suffixes and prefixes is to change the meaning. While I may be a babe in the Hebrew language, I do note that kappayim is used for hands everywhere it is used in the Bible. For instance:
Lamentations 3:41
HEB: לְבָבֵ֙נוּ֙ אֶל־ כַּפָּ֔יִם אֶל־ אֵ֖ל
NAS: up our heart and hands Toward

To try to say this means palm tree here is untenable. As I previously pointed out the palm tree as a whole is yet another word.
You haven't convinced me yet. It appears that you simply want to stick to your interpretation because of a preconceived notion you have about God:

Also the word for "hand", ("yad") is not in the Isaiah 49:16 text probably because, for one, the Father is non-corporeal Spirit and does not have a physical body, (which is one of the reasons he made us to be his temples or houses as already suggested).

I believe there is as much or more textual evidence to show El Elyon has the physical form of a man as there is to show He doesn't. Even His name YHWH dictates He has a physical form: behold the nail, behold the hand.

Not sure what you mean by "Um, no", but the quote is verbatim from the Septuagint depending on which version one reads:

Deuteronomy 32:43 LXX-Septuagint
32:43 ευφρανθητε ουρανοι αμα αυτω και προσκυνησατωσαν αυτω παντες υιοι θεου ευφρανθητε εθνη μετα του λαου αυτου και ενισχυσατωσαν αυτω παντες αγγελοι θεου οτι το αιμα των υιων αυτου εκδικαται και εκδικησει και ανταποδωσει δικην τοις εχθροις και τοις μισουσιν ανταποδωσει και εκκαθαριει κυριος την γην του λαου αυτου
Online Greek OT (Septuagint/LXX) UTF8 Bible. Deuteronomy Chapter 32:1-52.
Hebrews 1:6
ὅταν δὲ πάλιν εἰσαγάγῃ τὸν πρωτότοκον εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην, λέγει Καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ.
Hebrews 1:6 Greek Text Analysis

Ok. The 6 word phrase is the same, but the sentence is not. That phrase could apply to the Savior or even the Father. To build a whole theology around it something I can't do when other parts of Hebrews 1 makes it clear that Hebrews 1 is speaking of Yeshua.
ie: 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;

Sorry but Israel did not purge our sins.

Also, you should know that I discount the septuagint against the masoretic text unless there is other textual evidence to support it. Whoever translated it seemed to take some liberties to support certain theological viewpoints. Being that it was translated at a time when YHWH had stopped speaking to His people, I find it somewhat suspect. However, it can be a valuable tool when corroborated by the Targums, Qum'ran scrolls etc.