POLL: The Deity of Christ

[oldhermit]

Paul prayed:

Ephesians chapter 1 verses 15 thru 23

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

God only knows how many times I've prayed the same for myself and others. If I truly have any understanding of these things, then to God be the glory. I've merely availed myself of that which is available to me by God's Spirit and I strongly encourage everybody else to do the same. In cases where God's Word and orthodoxy are at odd, may orthodoxy be damned. Jesus was not eternally begotten. Again, such is a self-refuting lie.

I wonder if the reason people insist upon the concept of 'eternally begotten' is because they equate this with the idea of eternal sonship?

 

[purgedconscience]

I wonder if the reason people insist upon the concept of 'eternally begotten' is because they equate this with the idea of eternal sonship?

In my estimation, that is precisely why they insist upon the same. In other words, if somebody believes in God the Son or that Jesus was always the Son of God, then they're immediately confronted with the problem of how could God eternally have a Son? Hence, this eternally begotten, self-refuting nonsense. I personally don't believe that Jesus was always the Son of God and I'm definitely opposed to the terminology of God the Son. Do I believe that Jesus was always God? Absolutely. Always the Son of God? I highly, highly doubt it. I personally lean very strongly in the direction of Incarnational Sonship or that Jesus became the Son of God at the time of His incarnation. Either way, Psalm 2:7 and all of the references to the same in the New Testament definitely point to the distinct day in linear history when Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. Not because I say so, but because the Bible says so and I hopefully just presented a good representation of the same by the grace of God.

 

[oldhermit]

In my estimation, that is precisely why they insist upon the same. In other words, if somebody believes in God the Son or that Jesus was always the Son of God, then they're immediately confronted with the problem of how could God eternally have a Son? Hence, this eternally begotten, self-refuting nonsense. I personally don't believe that Jesus was always the Son of God and I'm definitely opposed to the terminology of God the Son. Do I believe that Jesus was always God? Absolutely. Always the Son of God? I highly, highly doubt it. I personally lean very strongly in the direction of Incarnational Sonship or that Jesus became the Son of God at the time of His incarnation. Either way, Psalm 2:7 and all of the references to the same in the New Testament definitely point to the distinct day in linear history when Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. Not because I say so, but because the Bible says so and I hopefully just presented a good representation of the same by the grace of God.

I think this depends on how we understand the use of υἱὸν as opposed to τέκνα or νήπιος.

 

[purgedconscience]

I think this depends on how we understand the use of υἱὸν as opposed to τέκνα or νήπιος.

That's all Greek to me. haha. Could you please give me the English equivalents of the words that you mentioned so that I can know what you're saying? Right now, you're pretty much a barbarian to me. haha. Thank you.

 

[oldhermit]

That's all Greek to me. haha. Could you please give me the English equivalents of the words that you mentioned so that I can know what you're saying? Right now, you're pretty much a barbarian to me. haha. Thank you.

LOl. νήπιος () and παιδίον () both refer to an infant or a child irrespective of age. Metaphorically it refers to one who is unlearned or unenlightened. Even when Jesus was a child he was never referred to as thenapios or paidion - child of God.

τέκνον (teknon) refers to one who is a child as one who is a descendent. Jesus is never referred to as a descendent of God.

υἱὸν (huion) can imply descendancy as in one who is an offspring but more appropriately it emphasizes likeness of character, nature, form or behavior. It also signifies one who has the legal right to the Father's inheritance.We can see examples of υἱὸν used to define the nature, actions, form, or character of a person such as Mark 3:17 where Jesus calls James and John “sons - υἱοὶ - of thunder;” Not because they were literally the offsprings of a natural phenomenon but, because of their violent and explosive nature. In Matthew 23:15, Jesus calls the Pharisees the υἱοὶ of hell because their character reflected the nature of darkness. Since we have so many passages that represent Jesus as eternal we know that υἱὸν cannot then refer to descendancy because as God he has none. Only as a man do we see him as with a linage as a descentant of the human race. Jesus, who is the υἱὸν θεοῦ – Son of God, is so because he bears the same nature, form, and and moral character of God. Christians are also called υἱοί Θεοῦ - sons of God for the same reason. As Christians we take on the character and nature of God. We are also called the τέκνα - children of God because we are his children by adoption, a term that is never used in scripture to refer to Christ. Jesus is NEVER called the child of God, always the υἱὸν - the one who bears the image of God. This is Phil 2 and Heb 1.

 

[flob]

I personally don't believe that Jesus was always the Son of God and I'm definitely opposed to the terminology of God the Son. Do I believe that Jesus was always God? Absolutely. Always the Son of God? I highly, highly doubt it. I personally lean very strongly in the direction of Incarnational Sonship or that Jesus became the Son of God at the time of His incarnation.

Would you say Christ was always the Son of God?

Either way, Psalm 2:7 and all of the references to the same in the New Testament definitely point to the distinct day in linear history when Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. Not because I say so, but because the Bible says so and I hopefully just presented a good representation of the same by the grace of God.

Is it fair to say then that Christ had at least 2 births?

 

[purgedconscience]

LOl. νήπιος () and παιδίον () both refer to an infant or a child irrespective of age. Metaphorically it refers to one who is unlearned or unenlightened. Even when Jesus was a child he was never referred to as thenapios or paidion - child of God.

τέκνον (teknon) refers to one who is a child as one who is a descendent. Jesus is never referred to as a descendent of God.

υἱὸν (huion) can imply descendancy as in one who is an offspring but more appropriately it emphasizes likeness of character, nature, form or behavior. It also signifies one who has the legal right to the Father's inheritance.We can see examples of υἱὸν used to define the nature, actions, form, or character of a person such as Mark 3:17 where Jesus calls James and John “sons - υἱοὶ - of thunder;” Not because they were literally the offsprings of a natural phenomenon but, because of their violent and explosive nature. In Matthew 23:15, Jesus calls the Pharisees the υἱοὶ of hell because their character reflected the nature of darkness. Since we have so many passages that represent Jesus as eternal we know that υἱὸν cannot then refer to descendancy because as God he has none. Only as a man do we see him as with a linage as a descentant of the human race. Jesus, who is the υἱὸν θεοῦ – Son of God, is so because he bears the same nature, form, and and moral character of God. Christians are also called υἱοί Θεοῦ - sons of God for the same reason. As Christians we take on the character and nature of God. We are also called the τέκνα - children of God because we are his children by adoption, a term that is never used in scripture to refer to Christ. Jesus is NEVER called the child of God, always the υἱὸν - the one who bears the image of God. This is Phil 2 and Heb 1.

Thank you for that explanation. I'll have to look into what you said in my own time of study. The only word that you mentioned, in passing, that I've ever studied would be adoption and I think that I have a pretty firm grasp on how that is used in scripture.

 

[oldhermit]

Thank you for that explanation. I'll have to look into what you said in my own time of study. The only word that you mentioned, in passing, that I've ever studied would be adoption and I think that I have a pretty firm grasp on how that is used in scripture.

Just for a point of clarification I noticed that for some reason some of the anglicized terms did not post and a couple of words ran together. Here is how that first paragraph should read.

νήπιος (napios) and παιδίον (paidion) both refer to an infant or a child irrespective of age. Metaphorically it refers to one who is unlearned or unenlightened. Even when Jesus was a child he was never referred to as the napios or paidion - child of God.

 

[purgedconscience]

I personally don't believe that Jesus was always the Son of God and I'm definitely opposed to the terminology of God the Son. Do I believe that Jesus was always God? Absolutely. Always the Son of God? I highly, highly doubt it. I personally lean very strongly in the direction of Incarnational Sonship or that Jesus became the Son of God at the time of His incarnation.

Would you say Christ was always the Son of God?

I just stated that I don't personally believe that Jesus was always the Son of God, but I really should have said that I don't believe that the Word, which is what Jesus was seemingly known as before His incarnation, was always the Son of God, but I definitely believe that the Word was always God. I believe that in the foreknowledge of the Godhead or the Trinity it had been predetermined that the Word would become flesh and come to this earth as a man and become both the Son of God and the Son of man, but I don't personally believe that He always was the Son of God nor do I believe that He was always the Son of man. The prophesied Son of man, yes, but the Son of man from eternity past? No, unless someone is only talking about in the foreknowledge or predetermination of the Godhead.

It might be best if we define some terms in relation to this discussion and that's all that it is at my end:

A discussion.

In other words, I'm not being dogmatic in what I'm about to address. I'm simply offering up some musings of my own on the Bible Discussion Forum that we might actually discuss the Bible and our respective understandings of the same.

That said, I don't even necessarily believe that the Word was always the Christ or the Messiah. Before anybody stones me to death, please allow me to explain what I mean by that. In other words, although He's always existed as God from eternity past, He took on the role of Christ or Messiah at His incarnation. Prior to that time, although I believe that He was fully God, I don't necessarily believe that He was always the Messiah. The One prophesied to become the Messiah, definitely, but not necessarily the Messiah until the time of His incarnation arrived. Do you see the distinction between the two? In other words, He was foreordained before the foundation of the world to be the sacrificial Lamb of God, but such became a reality in real time during His incarnation.

I'm also not so sure that Jesus was always known as Jesus. Again, I believe that He was always God from eternity past, but I'm not so sure that He was always known by the name of Jesus which means Jehovah is salvation. He's referred to as the Word or Logos initially and Jesus may have been the name which was given to Him in relation to His incarnation and the mission which He was sent to accomplish as the Messiah Who came to save us from our sins. Again, I believe that it had been determined before the foundation of the world that He would be given such a name and I believe that Joshua in the Old Testament foreshadows Jesus in certain ways with one of them being a commonality in relation to their names, but I don't necessarily believe that Jesus was known by the name of Jesus prior to His incarnation. Again, do you see the distinction that I'm trying to make in relation to foreknowledge or predetermination and the actual fulfillment of the same?

Either way, Psalm 2:7 and all of the references to the same in the New Testament definitely point to the distinct day in linear history when Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. Not because I say so, but because the Bible says so and I hopefully just presented a good representation of the same by the grace of God.

Is it fair to say then that Christ had at least 2 births?

Here's what I believe in light of the distinctions that I tried to make above:

I believe that the Word had zero births and that He existed from everlasting to everlasting.

I believe that the Word Whom we now refer to as Jesus in hindsight had a birth during His incarnation approximately 2,000 years ago when the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, John 1:14 and I fully believe in the virgin birth or that there was no natural father involved in Jesus' conception.

I believe that after His crucifixion Jesus was begotten or raised from the dead and that He is now seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven and that He will remain there until the time of His second coming. I'm guessing that you're asking me if I believe then that Christ had two births:

One at His incarnation.
Another at His resurrection from the dead.

I don't know that I would call what transpired at His resurrection a second birth. This is where we need to be careful because certain sects, for example, some within the Word of Faith, WOF, movement believe and teach that Jesus was born again in hell or something to that effect. Again, I'm not sure that I would call His resurrection from the dead a second birth, but rather a resurrection from the dead. In my mind, there is a distinction between the two terms.

 

[purgedconscience]

Just for a point of clarification I noticed that for some reason some of the anglicized terms did not post and a couple of words ran together. Here is how that first paragraph should read.

νήπιος (napios) and παιδίον (paidion) both refer to an infant or a child irrespective of age. Metaphorically it refers to one who is unlearned or unenlightened. Even when Jesus was a child he was never referred to as the napios or paidion - child of God.

Thanks for the clarification and I definitely will look more into the usages of the different words which you mentioned in my own time of private study. Right now, I'm discussing a little, but I'm hoping to look into that in the not too distant future. Possibly as early as tomorrow morning, Lord willing.

 

[oldhermit]

Thanks for the clarification and I definitely will look more into the usages of the different words which you mentioned in my own time of private study. Right now, I'm discussing a little, but I'm hoping to look into that in the not too distant future. Possibly as early as tomorrow morning, Lord willing.

Yea, I just figured it would help if you knew what you were looking up.

 

[flob]

I don't believe that the Word, which is what Jesus was seemingly known as before His incarnation, was always the Son of God, but I definitely believe that the Word was always God. I believe that in the foreknowledge of the Godhead or the Trinity it had been predetermined that the Word would become flesh and come to this earth as a man and become both the Son of God and the Son of man, but I don't personally believe that He always was the Son of God nor do I believe that He was always the Son of man. The prophesied Son of man, yes, but the Son of man from eternity past? No, unless someone is only talking about in the foreknowledge or predetermination of the Godhead...I'm not being dogmatic

Thank you for not being dogmatic on this.
What do you feel the beginning, in Jn 1:1, is?
And (maybe you already tried to answer this somewhere), do you think the title Father is eternal?
And, if you have the time dear sir, do you have a reason to dislike or be troubled, either within the Bible, or out, by the notion of the eternal Son of God? I mean, to the point of it being dogmatically 'out of the question' to you?

do you see the distinction that I'm trying to make in relation to foreknowledge or predetermination and the actual fulfillment of the same?

yes

 

[Elin]

It has nothing to do with three year olds, as Jesus stating the truth had been revealed to little children had nothing to do with three year olds. But tell me, is it possible un you view for the holy spirit to enlighten a ten year old to understand romans?

What do you think Scripture's answer is to that?
That is also my answer.

BTW

The law God desires a person to keep remains,

Jesus made clear what laws God desires his people to keep in Mt 22:37-39, which covers all the law of God (Mt 22:40).

it is placed on the heart and written in the mind of the convert-
not just two commands are placed within the christian.

Sorry, that (Jer 31:31-32) is a the promise of the new covenant, and it is the new covenant (Lk 22:20) law (Mt 22:37-39), that is the law written on the mind and in the heart (Mt 22:40).

That law is fulfilled by love. The law remains, the penalty for breaking it is removed.

The law of Christ, which is the law of God (1Co 9:21) remains (Mt 22:37-40; Ro 13:8, 9, 10),
for which there is no condemnation for failure to keep it perfectly.

Hence: Do we nullify the law by this faith? Not at all, rather we uphold the law Rom3:31

Yes, in the new covenant, we uphold the law, setting it on its right basis,
subject to the law of grace, and not as a means of righteousness/justification as in the old covenant.
In the new covenant, God's law for holy living is Mt 22:37-40.

 

[Elin]

Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to everyone who believeth Rom 10:4

Christ is the goal (end) of the law.

Christ is not the end of the law full stop, but unto righteousness.

Neither.

Therefore Jesus died to pay the penalty of your sin, he did not die to do away with the law.

You need to rightly divide the word

That would be Mt 22:37-40; Ro 13:8, 9, 10; 1Co 9:21; Gal 6:2; Jas 2:8.

 

[senzi]

Christ is the goal (end) of the law.


Neither.


That would be Mt 22:37-40; Ro 13:8, 9, 10; 1Co 9:21; Gal 6:2; Jas 2:8.

I am afraid your knowledge of this subject is rather limited elin. I could put much scripture before you but to no avail, you could not admit your error sadly. A christian is conscious of their sin. That can only happen through the law rom 3:20.
Under the new covenant the law is written on your mind and placed on your heart
The Nt church would have disagreed with you plainly. They gave specific laws to follow and differentiated between jew and gentile in this regard.
But sadly I must leave it there. It would be too much for you to admit to error on this methinks

 

[purgedconscience]

Thank you for not being dogmatic on this.

You're welcome.

What do you feel the beginning, in Jn 1:1, is?

Do you know what? As many times as I've read the Bible, I've never really asked myself that question nor studied it out. My initial thoughts are that it's referring to the beginning of the creation because that is how it is used elsewhere by Jesus Himself and also because that which is eternal really has no beginning. In other words, it seems as if it has to be the beginning of that which actually has a beginning and God has none.

And (maybe you already tried to answer this somewhere), do you think the title Father is eternal?

Again, with as many times as I've read the Bible, I've never really considered that either. Once more, my initial response, in line with some of my previously stated beliefs, would be that I cannot see how God could have always been the Father in real time. By that I mean to say that before the creation of the world I don't see how He was a Father unless Jesus truly was eternally begotten in the manner in which multitudes believe that He was, but I'm not listed among that number. Again, it is a self-refuting concept in that that which is eternal can never be generated or begotten in the manner in which some wrongly, in my estimation, use that term in relation to Christ. That said, again, in the foreknowledge and predetermination of God I can easily allow for the title of Father in that angels are called sons of God, Adam was initially called the son of God, Christ became the Son of God and Christians are called sons and daughters of God. Was God however eternally a Father? I'd have to say no at this point in time. What do you think?

And, if you have the time dear sir, do you have a reason to dislike or be troubled, either within the Bible, or out, by the notion of the eternal Son of God? I mean, to the point of it being dogmatically 'out of the question' to you?

For reasons which I've already stated and in light of a whole host of scriptures which have yet to be addressed here, I'd have to say that at this point in time Jesus eternally being the Son of God is pretty much out of the question. Don't get me wrong. I'll listen to opposing viewpoints, but they'd better be backed up by in context scriptures. As far as being either disliked or troubled, anything that I believe to be contrary to scripture is disliked by me and troubling to me in general.

 

[senzi]

Scripture states Christ died for our sins. It does not state he died to annul the law. Therefore Christ died to pay the penalty of our transgressions of the law, but the law we are required to keep remains intact on our hearts and minds. Therefore Christ is the end of the law UNTO RIGHTEOUSNESS not full stop. We know from rom 10:4 that when Paul states we are not under the law-we die to the law, he means a law of righteousness with the penalty of sin removed from us
Paul also states:
The power of sin is the law 1cor15:56

Does the true power of sin remain for the christian?
For sin shall not be your master for you are not under law(a law of righteousness) but under grace(through faith in Christ)

Under grace the penalty of sin is removed for the christian, under law it is not.
So what us the true power of sin?
A child could work it out, but someone relying on the academic mind to learn?

 

[flob]

what a kind thoughtful open response.
I'm thinking of the phrase Eternal Father in Isaiah 9:6.
And I'm out the door to go swimming in the lake, so I apologize for
not 'bombarding' you initially.
So then you have heard the phrase: Always a Father, Always a Son?
On the part of Athanasius and others to combat the heresy of Arius:
that Christ (the Son, the Word) is not God. Not the only, true, one God.
But rather some lesser, inferior, nonequal, character.
Hence also Eternally Begotten. Meaning, that in terms of the Triune,
The Father Son Relationship is Eternal. Without beginning. And, unlike
human births, for example, not a one time occurrence.
This maybe, maybe, Lord help me, as I take my kind leave of you for the while:
is also in the Lord's phrase that He Is. (He Is the I Am). The Son of God is Eternally
the I Am, and one with the I Am, as the I Am's Outflow. In particular.
He said I Am Resurrection. I Am the Resurrection
thanks for your further thought, and time

 

[purgedconscience]

what a kind thoughtful open response.
I'm thinking of the phrase Eternal Father in Isaiah 9:6.

I kind of figured that you were. Here's the verse:

Isaiah chapter 9 verse 6

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Ironically, this verse is one of the primary texts used by those who believe in Incarnational Sonship to support the same. In other words, unto us a child is born and unto a son is given. When? At His incarnation and not before.

Regarding the everlasting Father part, is Jesus really the everlasting Father? I mean, the text is referring to the Messiah or to the Christ and Jesus repeatedly referred to God as His Father during His incarnation. How then is Jesus the everlasting Father? Well, it seems to me that the simple answer is found in that Jesus never did or spoke anything without first hearing it from or seeing it in His Father, so He could rightly tell Philip that if he had seen Him, then He had seen the Father. In other words, if you had a son who never did or said anything apart from you and I asked him to show me you, then he could rightly say, Hey, if you've seen me, you've seen my father because I and my father are one as in united in everything that we do and speak.

That said, there is much controversy regarding the usages of such words as everlasting and eternal in scripture and their underlying Hebrew and Greek meanings. Everlasting and eternal don't always mean just that. For example, the same word which is translated in Isaiah chapter 9 verse 6 as everlasting is translated as for ever and ever in Psalm 45 verse 6:

Psalm 45 verses 6 and 7

Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

This verse is attributed to Jesus in Hebrews chapter 1 verses 8 and 9:

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Here are my questions for you:

When did God the Father become Jesus' God because that is the context here in that God is called the Messiah's God or thy God?

From eternity past or at Christ's incarnation?

To me, the answer must be at Christ's incarnation, so how then can this for ever and ever literally mean eternal or everlasting in that it has a starting point in time?

Also, when did God the Father anoint Jesus with the oil of gladness?

Prior to His incarnation when He was already fully God Himself or at, during or after His incarnation?

Christ means anointed, right?

Again, when did Jesus become the Christ?

In eternity past or at His incarnation?

Do you understand my questions?

In my present understanding, the context of Hebrews chapter 1 seems to be speaking of the time of Christ's resurrection from the dead when He was anointed with the oil of gladness above His fellows. In other words, the immediate context, some of which I covered in a previous response to Elin, is that of Him obtaining by inheritance a more excellent name than the angels. To me, this seems to coincide with Him being anointed above His fellows or above all. If such is the case, then, again, for ever and ever or everlasting doesn't necessarily mean what we think that it means in our own mindsets. There are several things which were said to be everlasting in scripture which not only had beginning points, but ending points as well. Parts of the Old Covenant would be one primary example of that.

And I'm out the door to go swimming in the lake, so I apologize for
not 'bombarding' you initially.
So then you have heard the phrase: Always a Father, Always a Son?
On the part of Athanasius and others to combat the heresy of Arius:
that Christ (the Son, the Word) is not God. Not the only, true, one God.
But rather some lesser, inferior, nonequal, character.
Hence also Eternally Begotten. Meaning, that in terms of the Triune,
The Father Son Relationship is Eternal. Without beginning. And, unlike
human births, for example, not a one time occurrence.
This maybe, maybe, Lord help me, as I take my kind leave of you for the while:
is also in the Lord's phrase that He Is. (He Is the I Am). The Son of God is Eternally
the I Am, and one with the I Am, as the I Am's Outflow. In particular.
He said I Am Resurrection. I Am the Resurrection
thanks for your further thought, and time

Like I said, I believe that the Word was always God, but not necessarily that the Word was always the Christ or the Messiah. In the foreknowledge and predetermination of the Godhead, yes, but in real time, no.

Enjoy your time at the lake. I've got to see to some things for a bit myself.

 

[Elin]

Hi Elin.

The entire second Psalm is both prophetic and linear in that it progresses from one stage to another in a sequential series of steps in relation to its fulfillment. . .Let's begin:

Psalm 2 verses 1 thru 3

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

This first prophecy was fulfilled at a specific point in time and the Bible tells us exactly when that was:

Prophecy is often multi-level, not always referring to the same event.

Acts chapter 4 verses 23 thru 28

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

When David penned the second Psalm under Divine inspiration, he foresaw, by the Spirit, the specific time in history when Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and the people of Israel would gather together against both the LORD, God the Father, and His anointed or His Christ, Jesus Christ, to bring to pass the fulfillment of what he had prophesied or to bring to pass the fulfillment of that which God's hand and counsel had before determined to be done and this was fulfilled in direct relation to Christ's crucifixion as we just finished reading.

I'm not convinced the prophets always understood the full significance of their prophecies (1Pe 1:10-11) as you assume David did here.

This prophetic, linear Psalm continues:

Psalm 2 verses 4 thru 6

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

David, still under Divine inspiration, now begins to prophetically describe God's response to the ragings, vain imaginings and counsels of those who have plotted together against both Him and His Christ in relation to Christ's crucifixion. God derisively laughs at such vain imaginings and speaks unto the participants in His wrath and sore displeasure which is more fully explained later on in this Psalm and tells them, Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. In other words, God tells them that although they have banded together and crucified Christ, Christ will yet be God's appointed King upon His holy hill of Zion.
How can this be? How can the crucified Christ yet be God's appointed King Who will rule upon His holy hill of Zion? Well,
the answer is given unto us in the very next verse:

Psalm 2 verse 7

I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

I don't see this as an answer to a question.
I see this as a declaration (irrevocable decree) regarding his King of v. 6,
as begotten of God (in the everlasting now--today--of eternity) and proved with power by the resurrection (Ro 1:4).

So not seeing it as an answer to a question, my understanding of v. 7 does not go in the same direction as your understanding.

It would be helpful if you could give some NT examples of gennao being used to mean "to raise up."

Here, we are all privileged to listen in on a conversation between both Jesus Christ and God the Father. Yes, Jesus is the I Who is declaring the decree which the LORD, God the Father, has said unto me or Him. What then is the decree? It is this:

Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

In other words, the crucified Christ is yet going to be God's appointed King upon His holy hill of Zion because God prophetically declared that Jesus Christ would be begotten or raised from the dead in a linear sequence of events after Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and the people of Israel had plotted together in vain in relation to His crucifixion. As has already been shown to you by more than one person here, the Apostle Paul told us exactly at what point in time this precise prophecy and promise was fulfilled:

Acts chapter 13 verses 26 thru 37

Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.
For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.
And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.
And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
But God raised him from the dead:
And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.
And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
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.

My understanding does not go in the same direction as your understanding because I do not see v. 7 as the answer to a question.

I see the question of what "begotten" is referring to here as settled by Paul in Ro 1:4:
"Jesus was declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead."
I do not think Paul is using "today" in the sense of linear time, but is simply quoting the decree
which is proven by the power of Jesus' resurrection.

The promise made to the Fathers is fulfilled in the resurrection--all nations will be blessed--

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.
Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:
But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.

In his discourse, the Apostle Paul began by explaining how that they which dwell at Jerusalem and their rulers or how that the Gentiles and the children of Israel whom we read about earlier fulfilled what had been written of Christ in relation to His crucifixion when they desired of Pilate that He should be slain. This didn't fulfil all that had been written in relation to Christ however and Paul continued on to explain how that
the promise which God had made unto the fathers in relation to Christ's resurrection from the dead was fulfilled in a linear sequence of events

The promise made to the fathers was not a promise of Christ's resurrection,
it was the promise of Ge 12:3, of the Messiah, through whom all the nations would be blessed.

You have changed the meaning of the promise.

even as Paul described himself in what we just read, on the literal day when Christ was begotten or on the literal day when Christ was raised from the dead when God did not allow His Holy One to see corruption.

The prophetic, linear second Psalm continues:

Psalm 2 verse 8

Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

We're still priviliged here to be listening in on a conversation between God the Father and Jesus His Son in which the Father tells Jesus to ask of Him and He shall give Jesus the heathen or the nations for His inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for His possession. When did Jesus come to the place in linear, sequential history or time where He could rightly be told of such an inheritance? Again, the scriptures provide for us the answer to this question:

Hebrews chapter 1 verses 1 thru 5

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
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;
Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
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?

Jesus was appointed heir of all things by the Father at a specific point in time in linear history and we just read at what point in time that was. It was when Jesus by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than the angels and that, again, was on the literal day in linear history when God the Father said unto Jesus, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee or on the day when Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. Again, here is when Christ obtained a more excellent name than the angels:

Philippians chapter 2 verses 5 thru 11

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

Jesus, although possibly not always known by that name in eternity past, is God from eternity past.

God the Son is God from eternity past.
Jesus the man, God the Son in the flesh, is not from eternity past, and did not exist until his conception in time.

Yes, He has always been in the form of God, but at a specific point and time in linear history, at His Incarnation, specifically, the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, John chapter 1 verse 14, and this is precisely what Paul was referring to here. When Jesus made himself of no reputation and took upon Himself the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men, He actually made Himself a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death as is described for us in Hebrews chapter 2 verse 9. In other words, although He was always God from eternity past and although He is actually the Person of the Triune Godhead Who created the angels, at a specific point in time in linear history or at His Incarnation, Jesus humbled Himself and came to this earth and was found in fashion as a man or was found in a condition that was below that of the angels

Jesus the man did not exist in eternity past, God the Son did.

and it wasn't until the time that Jesus was raised from the dead or until the day that He was begotten that He received by inheritance a more excellent name than they with the they being the angels. We need to understand the significance of the following:

I Timothy chapter 2 verses 5 and 6

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Our mediator is THE MAN Christ Jesus. Again, as I sought to explain to you once before, at a specific time in linear history, there was a change made in relation to the priesthood and that change was made on the day in which Jesus was begotten or on the day in which Christ was raised from the dead:

Hebrews chapter 5 verses 1 thru 6

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

Why did the writer of this epistle to the Hebrews link Psalm 2:7, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee to the time when Christ's everlasting Priesthood began? He did so because, again, our mediator is THE MAN Christ Jesus and although Jesus always existed as God He didn't always exist as a MAN. No, again, the Word was made flesh at a specific point in time in linear history somewhere approximately 2,000 years ago at the time of Christ's Incarnation and He could not have possibly begun His eternal Priesthood as THE MAN Christ Jesus prior to this point in time in linear history. For this precise reason, the writer of this epistle directly linked Psalm 2:7 and its fulfillment to the time when the priesthood changed or to the time when the Levitical priesthood was replaced with the everlasting Priesthood of THE MAN Christ Jesus. Do you understand what I'm saying? I hope that you do.

I understand what you are saying. . .the issue is agreement.

Again, it was at this point in time in linear history that THE MAN Christ Jesus obtained by inheritance a more excellent name than the angels:

Ephesians chapter 1 verses 15 thru 23

And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to usward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Yes, it wasn't until the the time that God raised Him from the dead that THE MAN Christ Jesus was raised far above all principality and power and might and dominion AND EVERY NAME THAT IS NAMED or until this time that THE MAN Christ Jesus obtained by inheritance a name more excellent than the angels. Peter reiterated the same truth when he wrote:

I Peter chapter 3 verses 21 and 22

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

Again, at the time of the resurrection of Jesus Christ or on the day in linear history

Yes, everything regarding Jesus of Nazareth was fulfilled in linear time.

when THE MAN Christ Jesus was begotten, angels and authorities and powers were made subject unto Him in that He obtained by inheritance a more excellent name than they. Again, the same are now subject not only to the Word Who has always been God, but instead unto what we commonly call the God-Man and the Man part didn't go into effect until a specific point in time in linear history when THE MAN Christ Jesus became our mediator or when THE MAN Christ Jesus began His Priesthood and that specific point in time in linear history was the day in which Jesus was begotten or at the specific point in time in linear history when Jesus Christ was raised from the dead and this is precisely why Psalm 2:7 was cited by the New Testament writer in relation to the same.

Well, I can see your reasoning. . .very well done. . .thanks so much.

But I'm not there yet. . .if I will ever be.
You changed the meaning of the promise to the fathers in Ge 12:3.

So do you have other NT examples of gennao being used to mean "to raise up" to support your use of the word in this way?