Heb 1:5: KJV 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?
Was that "day" in eternity-past after the "day" when the Father was not yet a "Father" and the Son not yet a "Son"?
Some religionist's creeds and doctrine contend that Acts 13:32 and Heb 1:5 proves that the "resurrection" was that "day" of this question. My question asked ONLY about a day in eternity past--one question at a time concerning one scripture at a time, as advised.
Notwithstanding, as also requested, to show that the previous Q&As did not answer my question, the day of Jesus being raised from the dead fails miserably to point to the Day of begetting. The day of begetting, in both Acts 13 and Heb 1 is only part of the of the fulfillment of the "promise which was made to the fathers of Israel." That subject matter is very distinctly spelled out in Acts 13:32-33, beginning with the physical birth of this ONE who had just recently been raised from the dead:
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 emphasis)
That fulfillment began with the "begetting" of Jesus as a flesh-and-blood Jewish man who lived His life under the Law without sin. Then, 33 years after being begotten as a man, took upon Himself the sin of the world through His death. After all these things, verses 34 and 35 speaks directly to the issue of His "resurrection" being so that He would not "see corruption."
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. (My emphasis)
So as to the subject matter of the "promise" (the giving to them the sure mercies of David), Peter goes on to compare David, who saw corruption, with Jesus, who was "raised again" and therefore saw no corruption.
Heb 1:5 also shows that Jesus was "made" better than the angels by His resurrection--inheritance--not "made" the Son, as clearly demanded by verses 3 and 4 setting out the subject matter--His inheritance by reason of His death and resurrection.:
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.
Verses 5 and 6 are adamantly tied to that subject matter by the words, "For", and, "And again", showing the point of the very day as being the day that Jesus was brought "into the world", NOT the day He was raised from the dead or taken up into Heaven:
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, And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
This reference to Jesus as being the "firstbegotten" rather than the "only begotten" is proof that the instant subject matter is primarily the resurrection", not the "begetting", but that the history of fulfillment of the promise began 33 years prior to the resurrection when He was begotten. That promise was explicitly repeated as a restatement again in Heb 9:28:
So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
So, what I am after here is not what the various doctrinal statements and creeds of men say that "this day" was, but rather what "day" in "eternity past" could possibly be the day Jesus was begotten. Surely, great men of God should be able to answer such a simple question if Jesus was the Son of God in eternity past as some answers were made before this restatement of the question. The doctrinal statements and various creeds cited have failed to answer that one simple question. Please believe me, I am not confused about meaning of the term, "day". Without a good scriptural showing about a "day" existing in "eternity past", I would be completely happy to admit that there is no such as a thing as a "day" in eternity past--prior to that very first evening and morning cited in Gen 1:5:
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (My emphasis)