1. How does the act of begetting get reconciled with a unitarian view?
2. Because otherwise it's talking about some random morning.
3. You haven't proven it.
4. The Son was a concept and then a person? Does that make it sound less absurd?
5. Angels aren't begotten. In fact, look at Hebrews 1:
"in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs."
And then the rest of the chapter:
6. Jesus is clearly above the angels, and creation is attributed to Him.
1. It fits PERFECTLY with a unitarian view, begetting necessarily means one is begetting a sepernate being which is later than the one that begets him.
2. It's using poetic language .... it's not reffering to a specific thing, it's a poem.
3. Yes I have, again Jesus uses the SAME language of the apostles being one with each other, being one with him and being one with God, so it's obviously not a metaphysical statement, there is simply NO way.
4. No, The word was Gods will, NOT a person, not the son, and that will, that logos, became manifest in flesh in the person of Jesus the Son .... when a father talks about his son and before he was born he was a twinkle in his eye, it's obviously not literally, not is he saying this "twinkle" is a person.
5. Again SO WHAT, we are talking about the use of the word THEOS, that word can refer to angels and other beings, if you want to debate about begetting fine, but that has nothing to do with John 1:1 which clearly refers to 2 beings.
6. Look at that verse carefully.
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 his Father,
and he will be my Son”?
6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him.”
7 Of the angels he says,
“He makes his angels winds,
and his servants flames of fire.”
8 But of the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, is[c] forever and ever,
and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your[d] kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
10 And,
“In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11 they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like clothing;
12 like a cloak you will roll them up,
and like clothing[e] they will be changed.
But you are the same,
and your years will never end.”
13 But to which of the angels has he ever said,
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?
14 Are not all angels[f] spirits in the divine service, sent to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?
Who's talking in verse 8 and 9? God?
He says "of the angels God says" .... then "But of the Son he says ...." Thats the end of God speaking.
Then you have a new argument, "in the begining, lord ...."But to which of the angels"
Virst 8 and 9 go together and first 10 to 13 go together.
No re-read it .... Vrs 10 is talking about God the father ... how do we know? because in verse 13 the "he" is refering to the "lord" talked about in verse 10 ..... OR if you insist that Verse that the "lord" of verse 10 is refering to Jesus then it must be Jesus talking in verse 13 ... which is rediculous.
So no Creation IS NOT attributed to Jesus, it's attributed to God the father, and that God the father who who founded the earth and heavens said to Jesus "Sit at my hand ..."
Read Hebrews as it was written in it's full context, don't try and sneak in your theology when it isn't there.