9

Hebrews 1:5 (ESV):

5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son, today I have begotten you”?

Or again,

I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?

It's clear that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, a title that no other being, not even an angel, has ever shared. That said, Hebrews 1:5 seems to indicate that there is a temporal dimension to the sonship of Jesus. Jesus was begotten on a specific day, today. The same verse also quotes a passage in which God talks in the future tense: "I will be to him a father [...]".

Is Hebrews 1:5 suggesting that the sonship of Jesus is linked to time? Was there a specific point in time when Jesus became the only begotten Son of God, a specific "today" prior to which he wasn't?

5
  • Quite clearly, Peter the apostle relates this to the resurrection, Acts 13:33. 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.
    – Nigel J
    May 12 at 18:54
  • @NigelJ That theory might not be quite so clearly acceptable. If Christ died for our sins, was buried, and also rose again, ALL ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE--which He did--, wouldn't that "raising up again have been itself predictable ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE, including who raised him up--which it was--. No one, except the Father, according to Scripture--could raise him up. So your theory that the Son-ship was accomplished by Christ's resurrection fails miserably, EXCEPT you prove by scripture that God intended that meaning--which you haven't. May 13 at 0:23
  • 1
    It only refers to the incarnation. The Messiah became the son of God in the incarnate manifestation. Begotten is a wrong translation of monogenes. John uses the "born of God" in his epistles that really means begetting. γεννάω - gennaō - ghen-nah'-o From a variation of G1085; to procreate (properly of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively to regenerate: - bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring.
    – Michael16
    May 13 at 3:13
  • @BillPorter I have nowhere stated that 'Sonship was accomplished by Christ's resurrection'. The only begotten Son is ever in the bosom of the Father, irrespective of incarnation. The begetting of which David and Peter speak is the begetting from the dead by the glory of the Father. Christ is the prototokos when he cometh into the world. And he is the prototokos in resurrection.
    – Nigel J
    May 13 at 6:10
  • Your claim of the word, "ever" being in the bosom of the Father is terribly misleading by inferring that the plan of the plan of the Godhead to "make" the WORD flesh, thus becoming God's Son constitutes an eternally past Sonship, or at least beginning at some time other than the "day" that Jesus was begotten. That is like saying that David was already the son of Abraham at the time that Abraham had no children, by inferring that since David was in his loins, BAM, that made "future David" Abram's son. Faith in a promise doesn't make the promise history. It makes the promise "SURE" May 13 at 14:27
1

It is very tempting to start with the answer, the day, the only day that makes any sense in light of all the Scripture verses, is day 1

Psalm 2

“I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.” ‭‭Psalm‬ ‭2:7‬ ‭

Notice that the Son is retelling the decree which He witnessed the Father speaking to Him. This is a retelling, not a prophecy for the future. This is past tense and it’s in the psalms, long before His incarnation. It’s not the Lord “will tell”. That means He was already Son then.

He was fully aware of the decree. And He was part of that begetting. If He was born a human 4900 years later, what then was He begotten as on this occasion?

Creator

Paul in Hebrews shows us that the Son was the Creator through which all things were made

“but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭1:2‬ ‭

This last part, “through whom he created the world” sets a limitation. The limitation is, namely, that the Son had to have been begotten before the world was created. Otherwise the world was not made through the Son.

And we know that the world(eons/ages) were made on day one according to Genesis 1:1

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.” ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1:1-5‬ ‭

The ages started on day 1.

Jesus before Creation

“And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.” ‭‭John‬ ‭17:5, 24‬ ‭

According to the Scriptures ALL things were made through, Him and for Him

“For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.” ‭‭Colossians‬ ‭1:16‬ ‭

Absolutely all things were made through Him and for Him

“All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.” ‭‭John‬ ‭1:3‬ ‭

This is important to take into account that nothing existed outside of Him that is created. Because in order to understand which day, we must pinpoint when He first came into the picture. And the text says He had to have existed before anything was even created.

This is contrasted to angels who do not have the title of God or creator

“But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.”” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭1:8-12‬ ‭

We also understand from Jesus that prior to Creation He had a glory that he lacked after creation, a glory He wanted back.

Who was Jesus prior to incarnation?

“For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭1:5‬ ‭

He was the Angel of the Lord and God Himself

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” ‭‭John‬ ‭1:1‬ ‭

Notice how the OT makes this superimposed point

“And the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed.” ‭‭Exodus‬ ‭3:2‬ ‭

“When the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.”” ‭‭Exodus‬ ‭3:4‬ ‭

The Angel of the Lord was in the bush and two verses later the Angel is being referred to as God still in the bush.

What happened? How is it possible that God would be an Angel?

Kenosis

We already know that Jesus took on a human body and yet remained God, despite nullifying Voluntarily His divine attributes.

“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” ‭‭Philippians‬ ‭2:5-7‬ ‭

Piecing it together. Jesus took on a human body, but John 17 says He existed with God prior to Creation. So when did He take on the body of the Angel of the Lord?

“I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.” ‭‭Psalm‬ ‭2:7‬ ‭

When He was begotten on day one of Creation prior to creating anything and after He took off the glory He had prior to Creating everything.

(It’s worthy to note that Lucifer seeing the Angel of the Lord looked identical to himself, thought it worthy to grasp at equality with God, the visible God the OT, the Angel of the Lord. He said this much to Eve

“For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”” ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭3:5‬ ‭

Lucifer seemed persuaded that he too could be God if this archangel could be, why not also he? From the heart spoke Lucifer)

The exact day

Which day was this referring to? The first day of Creation, when Jesus was begotten and given a heavenly body.

————————————————

Bill Porter’s challenge

“Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭1:1‬ ‭

That is true, in the OT God spoke to the prophets and the prophets spoke to the people on God’s behalf. The prophets would receive the oracles and pass them onto the people.

“but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭1:2‬ ‭

But Bill Porter says God spoke through His Son, now that He incarnated. Firstly that last part is not in the text. That doesn’t make sense because if the Son only came to be begotten at incarnation, how did God create the world through the Son? He couldn’t have. According to Bill Porter and others, the Son was begotten at incarnation. Well how then did God create the world through the Son who didn’t exist yet? The text clearly says it was the Son, not the spirit of the Son, not the Word but the Son.

Stephen points out that an angel spoke to Moses

““Now when forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush.” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭7:30‬ ‭

He goes on to say

“This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers. He received living oracles to give to us.” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭7:38‬ ‭

Moses received oracle from the Angel but the OT says it was from God and God was on the mountain and God said you can only see my backside, and the people said they didn’t want to hear God speak to them any longer.

“For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭8:3‬ ‭

God didn’t say He sent the Word, He said He sent His SON. But if the Son was begotten after conception how could He send Him? Obviously the Son had to exist before being sent.

Additional remark

Why was it even necessary for the Son to take on a heavenly body? Why not remain a spirit?

God is spirit. The Son is spirit and the Son is God but the Son when He was begotten at the beginning of creation took on a heavenly body. Heavenly bodies are supernatural bodies. They interact with the natural world but are able to exceed the natural laws and are suited for the heavenly realm too.

In order to interact with the natural and the supernatural world God decided to use vessels or bodies. Had the Son remained a spirit His interaction would have been somewhat limited.

In order to speak as a human, you need a human body with functional organs and a mind that can coherently speak. If someone is just a spirit without either a heavenly or earthly body then it cannot interact with the physical world. Humans do not interact “naturally” with the supernatural. Humans have added limitations. Humans require a means of intercepting, deciphering spiritual information. If the information is written down, we can read it but having interactions with the spiritual is limited and requires a lot of self-denial as well as devoted dedication. The best way to do it is if God takes on a human body. It’s simplest. And He did do that. He then gave the begotten Son a human body, so that God didn’t need to speak to prophets who committed themselves to hearing and seeing God but now God could interact directly with humans on the natural/material level.

Hence

“Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,” ‭‭but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭1:1,2‬ ‭

The plan appears to have been from the beginning to take the Son and let Him be the visible God in Creation while the Father remained invisible. And the Father remained invisible throughout history partly by choice but partly because He didn’t take one a housing of His own.

The Father could, like with believing Christians make His residence in their human vessel. In the same way the Father was in the Son. But the Son was also in the Father (haven’t nailed how to articulate this exactly yet).

The design of Creation is incredibly sophisticated, strategically planned and thought out and on multiple levels, natural, supernatural/aka spiritual and God level.

It’s remarkable how deliberate everything was done. And how each level has its own laws and how the levels interact between each other.

2
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Steve Taylor
    May 13 at 7:48
  • 3
    @BillPorter - comments are for providing constructive critique and seeking clarifications on answers. Nihil appears to have been trying very hard to respond to you and satisfy the clarifications you have sought - your responses fall fairly firmly into the 'trolling' category. Please only ask a question if you are genuinely interested in trying to understand the answer.
    – Steve Taylor
    May 13 at 7:58
2

Today” is considered by some scholars and commentators to be a reference to what is called “the eternal generation of the Son.” The assertion behind this opinion is that “Today I have begotten you,” does not reflect upon Jesus’ humanity but upon his eternal existence. Origen (184–253), believed that “today” refers to that timeless ever-present, eternal day which Christ inhabits; and since time has no boundaries with God, it is thus always “today.”

Origen was correct in his assertion of the eternal nature of the Son. Unfortunately, he completely missed the point the Hebrew writing is making in verse five. This is not at all how the word “today” is used in the context of “begotten.” While Jesus is indeed the eternal self-existing One, without beginning and without end, this is not the point being made by the Hebrew writer. The context of verse five is not to establish the eternal existence of Jesus, but to declare through the psalmist, the enthronement of Zion's King. The writer is not talking about Jesus timeless, eternal existence, he is defining a specific point in linear time. Verse five is not presenting Jesus as God in eternity, but as man in time, in his mediatorial role.

A.W. Pink in his Exposition of Hebrews pp. 50-51 properly regards “today” as a fixed point in linear time, but then he completely misapplies the point of time by pointing to the virgin birth as the “today” in which Jesus was called begotten. He then appeals to Luke 2:11 which reads, “Unto you is born this day in the city of David a savior which is Christ the Lord.”

As in all cases, if we want to know the revealed meaning of “today” in this context, it behooves us to avoid speculation and allow scripture to interpret its own use of language.

In Acts 13:31-38, Paul addressed the Jewish officials in the synagogue of Antioch of Pisidia. Here, Paul demonstrated that Jesus is the divinely appointed King who is David's heir to the throne. Paul confirmed the fact that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead fulfilled the words of Psalms 2:7, “Today I have begotten you.” So, “today,” according to Paul's inspired interpretation, refers not to Jesus' eternal sonship as Origen suggested, nor to his incarnation as suggested by Pink. Paul explains that “today” refers to Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Notice what Paul says, “God has fulfilled this...IN THAT (This stresses the mode of fulfillment) he RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD (Not in that Jesus inhabits that ever-present, eternal day, and not in that Jesus was “born this day in the city of David,” but “IN THAT HE RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD!) as it also says in the second Psalm ‘Today, I have begotten you.'”

Since Paul confirms the resurrection as the “today” referred to by the psalmist, this renders mute all other arguments, interpretations, explanations, and speculations. Scripture has spoken.

“Today,” in the context of Hebrew chapter one, is the same as that in Acts 13, and points back to the three temporal indicators. “When he had made purification for sin,” when he was called “Begotten,” and “when he had sat down at the right hand....” After Jesus accomplished all these things by means of his death, burial, and resurrection, the declaration is made by the Father, “You are my Son; today, have I begotten you.”

What are the implications of “Begotten?”
I have been asked before concerning the differences between the two Greek words translated as “begotten” with reference to Jesus. These two words are μονογενοῦς and γεγέννηκά. For the average person, this explanation may not mean a great deal but, for the sake of those who may enjoy examining the original language, perhaps this will be helpful.

The fact is, there is no difference in the meaning of μονογενοῦς and γεγέννηκά. Both words are from the same root – γεννάω meaning to beget or to bring forth. Both words are commonly used with respect to the process of giving birth. But beyond the lexical definition, scripture seems to use these words in a very particular way.

In Acts 13:33-35, Paul uses the word γεγέννηκά in connection with the resurrection just as the Hebrew writer does in verse five. “God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, today I have begotten (γεγέννηκά) You.’ “

The way scripture employs the use of μονογενοῦς and γεγέννηκά with respect to Jesus seems to reflect difference aspects of relationship.

  1. Μονογενοῦς seems to be used with respect to the relationship between Jesus and the Father in connection with the incarnation. He is the one of a kind – the only one who comes from the Father. He is the “only begotten of the Father” in this respect.

  2. Γεγέννηκά, on the other hand, appears to reflect Jesus' relationship to the redemption of man. This is the word used in connection with Jesus' resurrection. He is the first in a new order of creatures who are called sons of God. This is the word used in God's declaration concerning Jesus’ resurrection, “You are My Son, today I have begotten You.”

2
  • Jesus was the Son of God at His physical birth. This was revealed to Peter BEFORE Jesus' resurrection. Believers are not sons of God at their physical birth. Believers, however also must become sons of God BEFORE their resurrection. Acts 13:33 DOES NOT show that Christ was not a Son until He was resurrected. It, rather, shows who accomplished it. Paul does not imply such a thing. Therefore, you have not shown proof. Jesus' being born as the Son of man is absolutely and directly linked to becoming the Son of God on a certain day, as are all sons of men, and especially as are all sons of God. May 13 at 0:47
  • 2
    I think I will simply allow the text to speak for itself.
    – oldhermit
    May 13 at 1:00
1

It is possible to understand Ps 2:7 in different ways:

  • A statement about David becoming the "Son of God" in the royal sense (we see this often such as 1 Sam 8:7, 8, 24:6, 2 Sam 19:21, 1 Chron 28:5, 2 Chron 9:8, 13:8, Ps 5:2, 44:4). That is the Davidic kings were to rule as deputies of the real king of Israel, God.
  • Recounting a past event about Jesus referring to the time when Jesus agreed to be Messiah and be (later) incarnated. 1 Peter 1:20
  • prophecy of a future event - the incarnation of Jesus in Bethlehem, Matt 1:18-24.

Now, it is obvious that all three possibilities could be true and I do not believe it is necessary to choose between them. It is clear that in a literal sense Ps 2 applied to David. However, that does not prevent Ps 2 being repurposed by divine inspiration by the author of Hebrews (Heb 1:5) as a Messianic Psalm.

6
  • How is it possible to "understand" opposing theories without proving up one of the "opposites"? Perhaps you may think you have resolved prophecy and fulfillment of that prophesy by claiming that you consider one to be the other, but that is just your opinion--and not good advice. The Spirit of understanding just will not allow that. May 13 at 1:49
  • Bill if you see how the NT quotes passages from the OT you’d say it was entirely out of context but they clearly understood how prophecies were to be discerned. Dottard makes some valid points. There is an immediate partial fulfillment but the prophecy was to be fully fulfilled in Christ. May 13 at 2:20
  • @NihilSineDeo I do not say any passage quoted from the OT is being used in the NT entirely out of context. Perhaps that is why he thinks you can understand two opposites to be true. I believe in the truthfulness of the Scriptures. May 13 at 2:32
  • How is it you say that it is clear that in a literal sense Psalm 2 applied to David. That is a cop out. NEVER. AT ANY TIME IN PAST HISTORY did God give the heathen for David's inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for David's possession. Moreover, which Son was the Psalmist speaking of? David's Son? David's Daddy's Son? That whole topic about just who the Lord's Annointed was was settled in Mat 22:45:**If David** (the speaker in Psalm 2 per Acts 4:23-31) then call him Lord, how is he his son? May 13 at 3:13
  • @BillPorter - that title of "son" is applied to David himself in 2 Sam 7:14, as quoted above on several occasions.
    – Dottard
    May 13 at 6:04
0

Answering from a Biblical Unitarian perspective.

The day in question is indicated in Luke 1:31-35.

"Behold, you will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to give Him the name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David, 33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever. His kingdom will never end!” 34 “How can this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” 35 The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the Holy One to be born will be called the Son of God."

God literally begets (leads to the conception of) Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit. It happens at some point after Gabriel tells Mary this.

-1

There sure are some intriguing ideas in the answers.

Rather than get distracted, let's look at the immediate context for some direction.

God, having spoken long ago to our fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the ages, 3 who, being the radiance of His glory and the exact expression of His substance, and upholding all things by the power of His word, through having made the purification of sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become by so much superior to the angels, as much as He has inherited a name more excellent beyond theirs.5 For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are my Son; today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him for a Father, and He will be to Me for a Son”? 6 And again, when He brings the Firstborn into the world, He says: “And let all God’s angels worship Him.” Heb 1:1-6

  • God is the initial focus here, with Jesus the son, secondary.
  • God speaks His word through the prophets - this is clearly an OT reference being past tense.
  • This new age/these last days, not the OT anymore, He speaks through His son.
  • Jesus is appointed heir of all things. So he wasn't heir before - he needed to be appointed. Who appointed? God did.
  • here some go right off the rails and proclaim Jesus made the world or universe. This is an unfortunate wording which is better rendered 'ages' as in a few translations that have chosen to stick to the Greek. Providing world or even worse, universe, is an introduced bias. Shame on those that use this as a proof-text for Jesus Creator.
  • And it is not 'BY whom He made the ages', but 'through' or 'in'. Another attempt to alter the author's intent - God's intent.

Someone said in another answer, "Today" refers to...The first day of Creation, when Jesus was begotten and given a heavenly body.

Of course there is not a shred of biblical support for this idea. Jesus wasn't born until ~4BC, so he wasn't there for 'creation'!

Another answer. "Today” is considered by some scholars and commentators to be a reference to what is called “the eternal generation of the Son". Not a shred of biblical support for this idea either.

If there is a time element at all i.e. "Today", we must consider that something was different to what was before. That Jesus doesn't exist until ~4BC and that the Father gives Jesus life (twice - once physical life and once eternal life 1 Pet 3:18, Rom 6:9) means that they are not equal, not both the same 'substance', not the same in any way except being holy and without sin.

Thus "Today" could mean anytime something God did new with His son Jesus and the status of His son has changed again. Jesus is made heir - he wasn't before. He was made immortal, he wasn't before. Is given power and authority he didn't have before....

The context of Heb 1 is,

"in these last days has spoken to us in His Son"

This is very specific! It is NOT creation,

He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high

Again - NOT creation, but at his ascension and exaltation beyond all exaltations!

having become by so much superior to the angels

That narrows it down to a very specific time. Jesus is ascended, exalted, made immortal, given power and authority, and made judge over all, and is now waiting until God sends him back to earth to finish what he started and take control over life and death forever.

Jesus was always God's son. He was planned and prophesied to be since before Genesis, but revealed in this last age. By finishing the mission perfectly (without sin) he qualified to be the immortal son forever - presenting himself to Mary's God and his God, her Father and his Father after his 3 days and nights in the earth. He is now a different son than before and the subject of much rejoicing in heaven!

"Today you are my son!" What a marvellous time it must have been to be raised and seated next to God at last as the firstborn of all creation!

5
  • ”Of course there is not a shred of biblical support for this idea” it appears you didn’t read my response but you certainly have an opinion about it. I didn’t say Jesus, I said the Son and I didn’t say born I said begotten. And to quote the text again “but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭1:2‬ if the Son was begotten ~4bc how did God create the world with him? Did creation start ~4bc? Or was the Son around before Creation happened through him? No evidence yeah right May 18 at 4:35
  • where is the son prior to 4 BC? Only in prophecy. It isn't 'world' in the sense of Creation - just as it isn't 'universe'! But you need to say it like that to support the dogma.
    – steveowen
    May 18 at 5:50
  • Through the Son he made the ages. It’s the same thing. If the ages were made through the Son, and the Son came to be begotten ~4bc then the ages started at ~4bc? Or was the Son around before the ages for the ages to be made through him? It’s exactly the same argument. The Son had to exist before the ages for the ages to be made through him May 18 at 9:18
  • @Nihil :) really? you reject the context I have delivered, but persist with the stuff which has no biblical basis - the whole, 'Additional remark' content, and peppered thru the post is opinions of men who fabricate whole theologies to sustain the dogma. I'm very sorry you cannot yet see thru it to the truth of the plain and simple biblical revelation that awaits.
    – steveowen
    May 18 at 9:29
  • What are you upset about? I presented the argument showing that the ages were made through the Son (who happens to be Jesus ~4bc author doesn’t say Jesus but Son, psalm says Son). If you can explain how the Son only came to be ~4bc and yet the ages were made through him, you have my attention. So far I’ve been using the Scriptures to prove my points. Granted you think I’ve done so erroneously. So using the Scriptures show me the errors of my ways. Answer this plainly please How could the ages come to be made through the Son if the Son only came to be around 4bc? Did the ages start ~4bc? May 18 at 11:19

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.