John 1:1 and Jesus’ Sonship in Adoptionist thought

[soberxp]

Who is Ι̅Η ??

None of the following is related to the Bible.
According to the records, in 1882, the American dentist John Newbrough published a book titled "Oahspe: A New Bible" (commonly referred to as "Oahspe" for short).

Ihin (A person born from the union of angels and early humans.) A person who can communicate with God.

Is that the pronunciation of your word?
Ihin

I don't know if this man copied the Bible or was inspired in some way.

I just thought it was strange.

 

[dak]

None of the following is related to the Bible.
According to the records, in 1882, the American dentist John Newbrough published a book titled "Oahspe: A New Bible" (commonly referred to as "Oahspe" for short).

Ihin (A person born from the union of angels and early humans.) A person who can communicate with God.

Is that the pronunciation of your word?
Ihin

I don't know if this man copied the Bible or was inspired in some way.

I just thought it was strange.

That is not it. This nomen sacrum is two Greek letters combined, the Iota, (Ι), and the Eta, (Η), with an overstrike to form the sacred name Ι̅Η, (nomen sacrum is Latin for sacred name and is not my invention, nomina sacra is simply the plural, sacred names).

If you return to the source text for the quote in Matthew 12:17-21 what do you find in the text?

Matthew 12:14-21
14 But the Pharisees went out, and took counsel against him, how they might destroy him.
15 And Ι̅Η perceiving it withdrew from that place: and many followed him, and he healed them all.
16 And charged them that they should not make him known:
17 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the Prophet, saying,
18 Behold, my servant whom I have chosen; My beloved in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my Spirit upon him, And he shall declare judgment to the Gentiles. [Isa 42:1 LXX]
19 He shall not strive, nor cry aloud; neither shall anyone hear his voice in the streets. [Isa 42:2]
20 A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, until he send forth judgment unto victory. [Isa 42:3-4]
21 And in his name shall the Gentiles hope. [Isa 42:4]

Isaiah 42:1-4 LXX
1 Jacob is my servant, I will help him: Israel is my chosen, my soul has accepted him; I have put my Spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgement to the Gentiles.
2 He shall not cry, nor lift up his voice, nor shall his voice be heard without.
3 A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench; but he shall bring forth judgement unto truth.
4 He shall shine forth, and shall not be discouraged, until he has set judgement upon the earth: and in his name shall the Gentiles hope.

The name Yisrael is called a theophoric name by some because it has El attached on the end as a suffix. But what happens if we separate the suffix and capitalize the word El from the end of the name? What do we get?

The Greek transliteration of Yisrael is Ισραηλ, but if we separate the word for El, and read it in upper case, we see the nomen sacrum Ι̅Η within the name:

Ισρα·Ηλ

Moreover we have a Luke passage where the Father says that Ι̅Η is His Chosen One:

Luke 9:35
35 And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is My Son, My Chosen: hear him.

Who therefore is correct? the RCC interpretation of the nomen sacrum Ι̅Η? or the Prophet Yeshayah, (Isa 42:1-4), and Matthew who quotes that passage from the Prophet? Therefore I said, be taught of Elohim, not of man and the traditions of men.

 

[soberxp]

IotaEta sounds as "you dead"............or "you dad"

 

[dak]

Applied in Heb 1:5 to Christ when he was glorified to be made a high priest; so "today" = resurrection, not birth. Cp also Heb 5:5; Rom 1:3,4; Isa 55:3; Act 13:33,34.

Hebrews 1:5 says nothing about the resurrection, and in fact quotes a second passage found in the scripture, strongly implying that the Psa 2:7 quote is supposed to also be in the scripture, in the Gospel accounts, where the Father indeed spoke that decree to the Meshiah-Anointed One. The author of Hebrews is offering evidence that in his day could be checked and verified: not some ethereal guess that it might have been spoken to the Meshiah after the resurrection, which no one can confirm. You are not the first to dream up this fantasy and you surely won't be the last. It isn't my problem that your beloved mother church deleted the decree from the Gospel accounts to support a perverted understanding of the eternal Son doctrine by making the Son into a God-Man. The second passage proves that this text is speaking the the Meshiah as a man.

Hebrews 1:5 ASV
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee? [Psa 2:7] and again, I will be to him a Father, And he shall be to me a Son? [2 Sam 7:14a]

2 Sam 7:14-15 KJV
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.

“Yahweh said to Me, ‘You are My Son; today I have become Your Father.’”

"Today I have become Your Father"??? Why do you need to pervert this too?

This statement is applied in various ways throughout the New Testament, particularly in connection with the resurrection of the Lord Jesus (see Acts 13:33; Romans 1:4). This fits well with the context of verse 6, which points to his death.

I see, you perverted it to force-fit it into your doctrine.

However, there is also an immediate, historical application to Hezekiah in Jerusalem. The same phrase “this day” (or “today”) appears in Isaiah 37:3, where Hezekiah laments that “the children have come to the birth, but there is no strength to bring them forth.” Yahweh, unlike Hezekiah, had the strength to bring it about.

At that time, the righteous remnant, the initial fulfillment of the “suffering servant” prophecies could have been brought forth after the destruction of Jerusalem’s enemies. If Hezekiah had “asked” (see. Ps. 2:8), he could have inherited the Gentiles. Instead, he entered into covenants with them, embracing their gods. As a result, the full potential of the promise was not realized, and the psalm found its ultimate fulfillment in the Lord Jesus.

Pure speculation.

Although there is no recorded moment in the Gospels when God explicitly spoke these words to Jesus, Hebrews 1:5 affirms that He did. This likely reflects a deeply personal and sacred exchange between Father and Son on the morning of the resurrection, a moment too intimate to have been recorded historically.

Yes, there were and are recorded moments in the Gospels when and where the Father spoke the words of the Psa 2:7 decree to the Meshiah-Chosen One. Codex Bezae still contains the full quote in Luke 3:22 and the patristic writings of your mother church fathers utterly expose themselves by their own testimonies in their own arguments.

Hebrew Matthew - Baptismal Account

Hebrew Matthew - Baptismal Account

www.jesuswordsonly.org

 

[Hiddenthings]

Hebrews 1:5 says nothing about the resurrection, and in fact quotes a second passage found in the scripture, strongly implying that the Psa 2:7 quote is supposed to also be in the scripture, in the Gospel accounts, where the Father indeed spoke that decree to the Meshiah-Anointed One. The author of Hebrews is offering evidence that in his day could be checked and verified: not some ethereal guess that it might have been spoken to the Meshiah after the resurrection, which no one can confirm. You are not the first to dream up this fantasy and you surely won't be the last. It isn't my problem that your beloved mother church deleted the decree from the Gospel accounts to support a perverted understanding of the eternal Son doctrine by making the Son into a God-Man. The second passage proves that this text is speaking the the Meshiah as a man.

Hebrews 1:5 ASV
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee? [Psa 2:7] and again, I will be to him a Father, And he shall be to me a Son? [2 Sam 7:14a]

2 Sam 7:14-15 KJV
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.

The context is undeniable dak.

and so when he had accomplished cleansing for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high Heb 1:3.

Without the resurrection, what do you really have?

You have no foundation without Christ becoming the Son of God with Power.

Romans 1 makes this absolutely clear, and I know you know this. Christ could not even ascend to heaven without God granting him life, eternal nature.

The promise and fulfillment of 2 Samuel 7 was not about a Son who was already in heaven, but one who would come from David’s seed. I mean, you have acknowledged this in your own words!

Once again, you avoid dealing with the issue of inheritance, because you know full well that an “eternal Son” in heaven who already holds all blessings, name, throne, eternal life, and reward, cannot receive what he already possesses.

Your doctrine turns the entire thing into a façade.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Here’s the issue, @dak:

For you, there is no discernible difference between your pre-existent Christ and the glorified Christ described in Romans 1:1–4.

Likewise, the words of Christ in Revelation 1:18 lose all their weight and meaning if Christ pre-existed:

“I was dead, but look, now I am alive—forever and ever—and I hold the keys of death and of Hades!” (Revelation 1:18)

The reason Christ is “the one who lives” is because, through His obedience unto death, He was granted LIFE—eternal nature. That’s precisely why the declaration that He now lives forever carries real value and meaning.

If Christ truly pre-existed as you claim, then He could not have died, because God’s eternal children are immortal, eternal beings.

Can you explain how a pre-existent Son could truly be dead? I suppose to make that work, you’d have to believe he wasn’t actually dead at all, but simply drifted back to heaven in some kind of ethereal spirit form.

It's a mess dak - you know it and your resistance to discuss the inheritance which you hope to take part is rather telling.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Here is the foundation of the Gospel @dak just in case you have forgotten it through the many years of your learning knowledge.

1:1 From Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God. 1:2 This gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 1:3 concerning his Son who was a descendant of David with reference to the flesh, 1:4 who was appointed the Son-of-God-in-power according to the Holy Spirit by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord. Ro 1:1–4.

Explain how Jesus was appointed the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness BY the resurrection from the dead—Jesus Christ our Lord.

You claim the resurrection is not the means by which Christ became the Son of God with power.

But in doing so, you directly contradict the Apostles’ teaching, both here and throughout the entire Acts of the Apostles, that the resurrection is the absolute foundational tenet of the Gospel and its power.

The cost of holding your doctrine is too great dak!

 

[dak]

The context is undeniable dak.

and so when he had accomplished cleansing for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high Heb 1:3.

Nope, you're wrong, I have no problem with the opening context because , as I said, it speaks of the Anointed One, a man.

Hebrews 1:1
1 πολυμερως και πολυτροπως παλαι ο θεος λαλησας τοις πατρασιν εν τοις προφηταις επ εσχατου των ημερων τουτων ελαλησεν ημιν εν υιω

εν υιω ~ in a Son

Do you understand how words are made emphatic in Greek? The definite article is attached, (and there is no indefinite article in Greek). If son here does not have the article, and it does not, it is a lie to insert the article in English in such a critical statement, or, as many also do, to insert "his" to make it say "his Son". As I said previously: the more strictly literal we get with the original text the more false doctrines get exposed, as well as the fact that translators have now become interpreters.

Without the resurrection, what do you really have?

Why would I not have the resurrection?
That's a false insinuation: I have never said that the Meshiah was not resurrected.

You have no foundation without Christ becoming the Son of God with Power.

Again, the definite article problem on your part:

Romans 1:4
4 του ορισθεντος υιου θεου εν δυναμει κατα πνευμα αγιωσυνης εξ αναστασεως νεκρων ιησου χριστου του κυριου ημων

υιου θεου ~ completely anarthrous ~ a son of Elohim

Romans 1 makes this absolutely clear, and I know you know this. Christ could not even ascend to heaven without God granting him life, eternal nature.

I have never said otherwise concerning the Meshiah, a man, you are barking up the wrong tree.

The promise and fulfillment of 2 Samuel 7 was not about a Son who was already in heaven, but one who would come from David’s seed. I mean, you have acknowledged this in your own words!

Yes, exactly.

Once again, you avoid dealing with the issue of inheritance, because you know full well that an “eternal Son” in heaven who already holds all blessings, name, throne, eternal life, and reward, cannot receive what he already possesses.

Tell that to the Eldest Son in the prodigal son narrative. However, I was not speaking of him, but of course, for the umpteenth time, I was speaking of the Meshiah, a man. You are not able to tell the difference between when I speak of the Meshiah, a man, as compared to when I speak of the eternal Son who is ever in the bosom of the Father? Why is that so difficult for you?

Your doctrine turns the entire thing into a façade.

You still do not even understand the doctrine.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Tell that to the Eldest Son in the prodigal son narrative. However, I was not speaking of him, but of course, for the umpteenth time, I was speaking of the Meshiah, a man. You are not able to tell the difference between when I speak of the Meshiah, a man, as compared to when I speak of the eternal Son who is ever in the bosom of the Father? Why is that so difficult for you?

That’s your problem, you cannot show the eternal Son from the Word.

What do you believe was resurrected? An eternal Son?

You don’t truly understand what you claim to believe.

holding to your articles will not help you here - you believe an eternal being was resurrected.

 

[dak]

Here’s the issue, @dak:

For you, there is no discernible difference between your pre-existent Christ and the glorified Christ described in Romans 1:1–4.

Likewise, the words of Christ in Revelation 1:18 lose all their weight and meaning if Christ pre-existed:

“I was dead, but look, now I am alive—forever and ever—and I hold the keys of death and of Hades!” (Revelation 1:18)

The reason Christ is “the one who lives” is because, through His obedience unto death, He was granted LIFE—eternal nature. That’s precisely why the declaration that He now lives forever carries real value and meaning.

If Christ truly pre-existed as you claim, then He could not have died, because God’s eternal children are immortal, eternal beings.

Can you explain how a pre-existent Son could truly be dead? I suppose to make that work, you’d have to believe he wasn’t actually dead at all, but simply drifted back to heaven in some kind of ethereal spirit form.

It's a mess dak - you know it and your resistance to discuss the inheritance which you hope to take part is rather telling.

Nope, the dating of the Apocalypse by modern scholars, (circa 95-96AD), is based almost completely on the fabricated RCC story about "Antipas the martyr". The Apocalypse was also originally written in Hebrew and completed in the days leading up to the beheading of Yohanne. The "book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" commences with Gen 5, immediately following the raising up of the adam with the King of Righteousness and calling his name Adam, (Gen 1:26-28, Gen 5:1-2, Isa 45:13 LXX, Rev 13:8).

 

[dak]

Here is the foundation of the Gospel @dak just in case you have forgotten it through the many years of your learning knowledge.

1:1 From Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God. 1:2 This gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 1:3 concerning his Son who was a descendant of David with reference to the flesh, 1:4 who was appointed the Son-of-God-in-power according to the Holy Spirit by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord. Ro 1:1–4.

Explain how Jesus was appointed the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness BY the resurrection from the dead—Jesus Christ our Lord.

You claim the resurrection is not the means by which Christ became the Son of God with power.

But in doing so, you directly contradict the Apostles’ teaching, both here and throughout the entire Acts of the Apostles, that the resurrection is the absolute foundational tenet of the Gospel and its power.

The cost of holding your doctrine is too great dak!

Nope, I did not claim what you say I claimed: my claim was that the Psa 2:7 decree was spoken to the Meshiah in the Matthew and Luke Gospel accounts. That is unacceptable for you because you desperately need Rom 1:4 to confirm your theory about the Psa 2:7 decree having been spoken to the Meshiah after he was resurrected.

Hebrews 5:4-5 refutes your theory even more so:

Hebrews 5:4-5 ASV
4 And no man taketh the honor unto himself, but when he is called of God, even as was Aaron.
5 So Christ also glorified not himself to be made a high priest, but he that spake unto him, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee:

You are calling the author of Hebrews a liar and also claiming that the decree was never fulfilled while the Meshiah was alive: and all of this nonsense is so you can maintain your paradigm.

 

[dak]

That’s your problem, you cannot show the eternal Son from the Word.

John 1:1-5, Hebrews 7:1-3, for starters.

What do you believe was resurrected? An eternal Son?

The Meshiah, a man, and the Spirit that was in him raised him from the dead, Rom 8:11.

You don’t truly understand what you claim to believe.

Lol.

holding to your articles will not help you here -

They are not my articles: that's simply the Greek text of the Apostolic writings.

you believe an eternal being was resurrected.

And where have I said that? Quote the post or please stop lying.

It seems to me that you may not even believe in the eternal Son: is this correct?
If so, please explain who or what you believe the Logos to be in John 1:1-4.
(The little bit you wrote on the first page seems to support what I say here.)

 

[Hiddenthings]

John 1:1-5, Hebrews 7:1-3, for starters.

And where have I said that? Quote the post or please stop lying.

It seems to me that you may not even believe in the eternal Son: is this correct?
If so, please explain who or what you believe the Logos to be in John 1:1-4.
(The little bit you wrote on the first page seems to support what I say here.)

As previously stated, you believe that the eternal Son was resurrected—a fallacy of the highest order. You rely on John 1:1–4, yet cannot explain how an eternal being could die and be resurrected. This is why you are unable to accept the truths of Psalm 2:7 and Romans 1:4.

It shows that your understanding of death and life is flawed, Revelation 1:18 becomes merely a façade, and by your own belief, you strip it of its true power.

So, when the Apostle said that “death” had dominion over Jesus, you must reconcile how an eternal Son could be held by death and how death operated in his flesh nature.

In the end, you are no different from the Roman Catholic Church, which relies on the concept of the hypostasis to resolve this issue.

Good luck trying to prove the unprovable, Dak.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Your eternal son theory also cuts across Hebrews 5:1 as how can Jesus pre-exist AND be a descendent of David AND be a High Priest taken from among men?

@dak what you need from Scripture to prove your eternal son theory cannot be found in the Word of God no matter how you twist it - articles won't help you dak!

It’s also worth noting your continued reluctance to address the topic of inheritance.

You and I both know that one cannot inherit what one already possesses. Christ’s existence either began as ours did, or it did not. If it did not, then there can be no inheritance, no bestowed name, and no exalted position granted as a reward for faith. In that case, you’re left believing in a divine puppet show, with God merely pulling the strings.

You would be forced to agree the Gospels power is no power at all. No real death and no real resurrection from (out of) death.

Your Gospel has no power!

 

[Hiddenthings]

The Meshiah, a man, and the Spirit that was in him raised him from the dead, Rom 8:11.

Even here your understanding is misplaced.

The Spirit (or Logos) is the power by which Jesus was raised from the dead, and every apostle and early believer understood this without any reservation.

Acts 2:24
“Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.”

Acts 2:32
“This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.”

Acts 3:15
“And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.”

Acts 3:26
“Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.”

Acts 4:10
“Be it known unto you all... that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.”

Acts 5:30
“The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.”

Acts 10:40
“Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly.”

Acts 13:30
“But God raised him from the dead.”

Acts 13:33
“God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again (given immortality); as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.”

(This is a problem passage for you dak!)

Acts 13:34
“And 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.”

Acts 13:37
“But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.”

Acts 17:31
“Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.”

All the key verses affirm that Christ became High Priest when he was raised to immortality and entered the Heavenly Sanctuary. He had to fully and truly die in order to be raised.

Only then can Romans 1:1-4 be truly understood.

The Son of God was raised in power and with power to become the Son of God in nature, having already revealed his Father’s character through his life and death.

 

[dak]

As previously stated, you believe that the eternal Son was resurrected—a fallacy of the highest order.

As previously stated: no, I don't.

You rely on John 1:1–4, yet cannot explain how an eternal being could die and be resurrected. This is why you are unable to accept the truths of Psalm 2:7 and Romans 1:4.

Again, the decree of Psalm 2:7 was spoken to the Meshiah, a man, born of a woman, of the seed of David according to the flesh. I believe the scripture, all of it: what I do not believe are your fantasy doctrines such as that the Father thought it was too intimate to actually speak the decree of Psa 2:7 to the Meshiah out in the open, and supposedly decided to wait until after the resurrection to say it secretly, where no one could prove what the author of Hebrews plainly states, making the author of Hebrews a liar according to your theory.

It shows that your understanding of death and life is flawed, Revelation 1:18 becomes merely a façade, and by your own belief, you strip it of its true power.

So, when the Apostle said that “death” had dominion over Jesus, you must reconcile how an eternal Son could be held by death and how death operated in his flesh nature.

In the end, you are no different from the Roman Catholic Church, which relies on the concept of the hypostasis to resolve this issue.

Good luck trying to prove the unprovable, Dak.

Narcissistic rambling of an incoherent mind.

 

[dak]

Your eternal son theory also cuts across Hebrews 5:1 as how can Jesus pre-exist AND be a descendent of David AND be a High Priest taken from among men?

@dak what you need from Scripture to prove your eternal son theory cannot be found in the Word of God no matter how you twist it - articles won't help you dak!

It’s also worth noting your continued reluctance to address the topic of inheritance.

You and I both know that one cannot inherit what one already possesses. Christ’s existence either began as ours did, or it did not. If it did not, then there can be no inheritance, no bestowed name, and no exalted position granted as a reward for faith. In that case, you’re left believing in a divine puppet show, with God merely pulling the strings.

You would be forced to agree the Gospels power is no power at all. No real death and no real resurrection from (out of) death.

Your Gospel has no power!

I also note you keep spewing lies and am now getting bored with it again.

 

[Hiddenthings]

As previously stated: no, I don't.



Again, the decree of Psalm 2:7 was spoken to the Meshiah, a man, born of a woman, of the seed of David according to the flesh. I believe the scripture, all of it: what I do not believe are your fantasy doctrines such as that the Father thought it was too intimate to actually speak the decree of Psa 2:7 to the Meshiah out in the open, and supposedly decided to wait until after the resurrection to say it secretly, where no one could prove what the author of Hebrews plainly states, making the author of Hebrews a liar according to your theory.

You're struggling dak.

Explain how your eternal son was born of a woman and died.

Was he really born?
Did he really die?

You cannot separate the Son of God from the Son of Man - impossible!

 

[Hiddenthings]

I also note you keep spewing lies and am now getting bored with it again.

Your boredom is just a mask for your inability to explain how your eternal Son received a name and position, an inheritance.

Let me do you a favour to help you in your struggles here:

Hebrews 1:1–4 concludes with the statement:

“Having become as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.”

How can your eternal Son, who you claim was always in the bosom of the Father become anything other than what he has always been?

You say he was eternally superior and already possessed a name and position higher than the angels.

So why does the Apostle emphasize that he became superior and inherited a name etc, if these things were already his from eternity?

We both know why you are avoiding this subject - that's plain to see and the issue is not my persistent questioning but the question themselves.

What is become "boring" is your avoidance.

 

[dak]

Even here your understanding is misplaced.

The Spirit (or Logos) is the power by which Jesus was raised from the dead, and every apostle and early believer understood this without any reservation.

That's why I keep trying to explain to you that the Logos is the one-of-a-kind Son.
When are you going to actually read and understand what I am writing?

Acts 2:24
“Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.”

Acts 2:32
“This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.”

Acts 3:15
“And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.”

Acts 3:26
“Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.”

Acts 4:10
“Be it known unto you all... that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.”

Acts 5:30
“The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.”

Acts 10:40
“Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly.”

Acts 13:30
“But God raised him from the dead.”

Acts 13:33
“God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again (given immortality); as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.”

Of course, because the Logos is Elohim, the Word of the Father: so the Father raised up the Meshiah because the Spirit of the Father, His Logos, was upon and within the Meshiah from the time of his immersion. My understanding of these things is complete: you simply aren't listening.

(This is a problem passage for you dak!)

Acts 13:34
“And 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.”

No, it isn't a problem, it's the same as above: the Meshiah was and is a man, and now of course a resurrected man.

Acts 13:37
“But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.”

Acts 17:31
“Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.”

All the key verses affirm that Christ became High Priest when he was raised to immortality and entered the Heavenly Sanctuary. He had to fully and truly die in order to be raised.

Only then can Romans 1:1-4 be truly understood.

The Son of God was raised in power and with power to become the Son of God in nature, having already revealed his Father’s character through his life and death.

Just more ranting using the scripture against me when I already have expounded these things from the scripture. Just because you do not agree with my understanding of the same scriptures doesn't mean you need to lie about the things I have already said and confessed about those scriptures.

We are really still at square one in this exchange: you neither understand nor believe what the author of Hebrews states about the Psa 2:7 decree, and are therefore force to come up with a fantasy doctrine concerning it, so as to brush it under the rug in favor of your preconceived dogmas.