But the indicative would declare something Jesus viewed or stated as so without question, ‘Abraham came to be, existed, was produced, generated’.
So Aorist, indicative, middle voice.
“Incidentally, the same source argues (quite interestingly I must say) from Psalm 2:7 that Jesus is not the YHWH of Exodus 3:14:”
It's a good point but i didn't follow his argument any further. A Catholic might argue the same thing but for quite different reasons.
That seems to be unavoidable in just about any translation, at least to some extent. The nature of the language pretty much dictates that.
So Aorist, indicative, middle voice
The mood is infinitive, cyc.
A Catholic might argue the same thing but for quite different reasons.
I lost you there. Why? Acts 13:33; also Heb 1:5, 5:5 has it; also it is found in a Markan variant used at Jesus' baptism. This was the basis for the Adoptionists to argue that Jesus became divine and was an ordinary human prior to that. Catholic theology would reject that, arguing that the Word was eternally begotten of the Father.
Of course a cursory reading of the entire Psalm 2 makes it clear that it has nothing to do with Jesus.