“And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘You are My Son; today I have begotten You.’ As for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’ Therefore He also says in another Psalm, ‘You will not allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.’” Acts 13:32-35
Trinitarians are the worst offenders when it comes to their so called exegesis of inspired texts because they read what they want to read rather than carefully considering the whole context of each particular passage. Trinitarian authors and apologists claim that the word “begotten” means Christ’s resurrection because they isolate Acts 13:33 from its full context in verses thirty four and thirty five. When we look at the whole context of Acts 13:32-35, we notice that Paul first identified Jesus as the prophesied Son of God before addressing the “fact” of his resurrection. To claim that the word “born” in Hebrew (yawlad in Psalm 2:7) actually means resurrection is preposterous. Trinitarians purposefully ignore the full context of Paul's sermon to the Jews at Pisidian Antioch because their doctrine does not harmonize with the scriptural data.
In Acts 13:32-35, Paul explained the resurrection of Christ's body by first identifying Jesus as the begotten Son spoken of in Psalm 2:7 who would be raised from the dead. Then Paul addressed Christ’s resurrection after he said, “as for the fact that he raised him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay,” by citing Psalm 16:10 – “You will not allow Your holy one to undergo decay.”
Trinitarians ignore the full context of Acts 13:32-35 because they have no other way to circumvent the natural reading of the text in Psalm 2:7 which shows that Christ was born [begotten] on a specific day. Since Trinitarians cannot accept the fact that the Son of God had his beginning by his virgin begetting, they must twist the scriptures to say something completely different from the words of inspired scripture. Thus they assert that Christ’s begetting in Psalms 2:7 must be redefined to mean Christ’s resurrection even though the words “begotten” and “resurrection” mean two completely different things.