Home Debates Trinity Debate – John 17:3 Page 43

Trinity Debate – John 17:3

Subject:  John 17:3 disproves the Trinity Doctrine
Date: Mar. 18 2007
Debaters: t8  & Is 1: 18

t8

We are all familiar with the Trinity doctrine and many here do not believe in it but think it is a false doctrine and even perhaps part of the great falling away prophesied in scripture.

As part of a challenge from Is 1:18 (a member here, not the scripture) I will be posting 12 scriptures over the coming weeks (perhaps months) to show how the Trinity doctrine contradicts scripture and therefore proving it to be a false doctrine.

The first scripture I would like to bring out into the light is John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

This scripture clearly talks about the only true God and in addition to that, Jesus Christ who (that true God) has sent.

Trying to fit this scripture into a Trinity template seems impossible in that Jesus Christ is NOT being referred to as the True God in this scripture. So if Jesus is also God (as Trinitarians say) then that leaves us with John 17:3 saying that Jesus is a false God, (if we also say that there are no other gods except false ones), as the ONLY TRUE GOD is reserved for the one who sent him.

Now a possible rebuttal from a Trinitarian could be that Jesus is not the only True God here because it is referring to him as a man as Trinitarians say that Jesus is both God and Man. But if this argument is made by Is 1:18, then he is admitting that Jesus is not always the only True God and therefore the Trinity is not always a Trinity as would be concluded when reading John 17:3. Such a rebuttal is ridiculous if we consider that God changes not and that God is not a man that he should lie.

Secondly, the Trinity doctrine breaks this scripture if we think of God as a Trinity in that it would read as “the only true ‘Trinity’ and Jesus Christ whom the ‘Trinity’ has sent.

We know that such a notion makes no sense so the word ‘God’ must of course be referring to the Father as hundreds of other similar verses do and to further support this, we know that the Father sent his son into this world.

If a Trinitarian argued that the only true God i.e., that The Father, Son, Spirit decided among themselves that the Jesus part of the Trinity would come to earth, then that would be reading way too much into what the scripture actually says and you would end up connecting dots that cannot justifiably be connected. It would be unreasonable to teach this angle because it actually doesn’t say such a thing. Such a rebuttal is pure assumption and quite ridiculous because the text itself is quite simple and clear. i.e., that the ONLY TRUE GOD (one true God) sent another (his son) into the world. It truly is no more complicated than that.

Such a rebuttal also requires that one start with the Trinity doctrine first and then force the scripture to fit it, rather than the scripture teaching us what it is saying. In other words it is similar to the way you get vinegar from a sponge. In order to do that, you must first soak the sponge in vinegar.

I conclude with an important point regarding John 17:3 that is often overlooked. The fact that we can know the one true God and the one he sent is of paramount importance because we are told that this is “eternal life” and therefore it would be reckless to try and change its simple and straight forward meaning.

My final note is to watch that Is 1:18’s rebuttal is focussed around John 17:3. I wouldn’t put it past him to create a diversion and start talking about the possibility or non-possibility of other gods. But the point in hand here is that John 17:3 says that the only true God sent Jesus, so let us see how he opposes this.



Is 1:18

Nice opening post t8. You have raised some interesting points. Thank you, by the way, for agreeing to debate me, I appreciate the opportunity and hope that it can be as amicable as is possible and conducted in good faith. With that in mind let me start by complimenting you. One of the things I do respect about you is that your theology, as much as I disagree with it, is your own, and I know that the material I will be reading over the next few weeks will be of your own making. Okay, enough of this sycophancy…..

:D

My rebuttal will be subdivided into three main sections:

1. The logical dilemma of the reading a Unitaritarian “statement of exclusion” into John 17:3
2. Some contextual issues
3. My interpretation of John 17:3

I’m going to try to keep my posts short and succinct, as I know people rarely read long posts through and sometimes the key messages can get lost in extraneous detail.

Section 1. The logical dilemma of the reading a Unitaritarian “statement of exclusion” into John 17:3

Let me start this section by stating what Yeshua doesn’t say in John 17:3:

He doesn’t say:

This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, a god, whom You have sent.

or this:

This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ a lower class of being, whom You have sent.

and He definitely didn’t say this:

This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ , an untrue God.

So, on the face of it, this verse, in and of itself, is NOT a true refutation of the trinity doctrine. Why? Because clearly a contra-distinction in ontology between the Father and Himself was not being drawn by Yeshua. There is not mention of “what” Yeshua is in the verse. He simply describes Himself with his Earthly name, followed by the mention of His being sent. So because there is no mention of a contrast in ontology in the verse, I dispute that it’s an exclusionist statement at all….and let’s not lose sight of this – “eternal” life is “knowing” The Father and the Son. If Yeshua was contrasting His very being with the Father, highlighting the disparity and His own inferiority, wouldn’t His equating of the importance of relationship of believers with the Fatherand Himself in the context of salvation be more than a little presumptuous, audacious, even blasphemous? If His implication was that eternal life is predicated on having a relationship with the One true God and a lesser being, then wasn’t Yeshua, in effect, endorsing a breach of the first commandment?

But let’s imagine, just for a moment, that that is indeed what Yeshua meant to affirm – that the Father is the true God, to the preclusion of Himself. Does this precept fit harmoniously within the framework of scripture? Or even within the framework of your personal Christology t8?

I say no. There is a dilemma invoked by this precept that should not be ignored.

There is no doubt that the word “God” (Gr. theos) is applied to Yeshua in the NT (notably: John 1:1, 20:28, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Hebrews 1:8…). Although obfuscatory tactics are often employed to diminish the impact of these statements.  You yourself might have in the past argued that the writer, in using “theos”, intended to denote something other than “divinity” in many of them, like an allusion to His “authority” for instance. I, of course, disagree with this as the context of the passages make it plain that ontological statements were being made, but for the sake of argument and brevity I’ll take just one example – John 1:1:-

This following quotation comes from your own writings (emphasis mine):

 

Quote
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was god.This verse mentions God as a person, except for the last word ‘god’ which is talking about the nature of God. i.e., In the beginning was the Divinity and the Word was with the Divinity and the word was divine. The verse says that the Word existed with God as another identity and he had the nature of that God.

From here

So here we have an unequivocal statement by you, t8, asserting that the word “theos” in John 1:1c is in fact a reference to His very nature. The word choices in your statement (“divine” and “nature”) were emphatically ontological ones, in that they spoke of the very essence of His being. What you actually expressed was – the reason He was called “God” by John was a function of His divine nature! But there is only one divine being t8, YHWH. There is no other God, and none even like YHWH….. 

Isaiah 46:9
Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.

So herein lies a quandry….was YHWH telling the truth when He stated “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me“? I say yes. He is in a metaphysical category by Himself, an utterly unique being.

BTW, the semantic argument in which you attempted to delineate “nature” and “identity” is really just smoke and mirrors IMO. These are not in mutually exclusive categories, one cannot meaningfully co-exist without the other in the context of ontology (the nature of ‘beings’). All humans have human nature – and they are human in identity. If they do not have human nature (i.e. are not a human being) then they cannot be considered to be human at all. It is our nature that defines our being and identity. If Yeshua had/has divine nature, as you propose was described in John 1:1, then He was “God” in identity…..or do we have two divine beings existing “in the beginning” but only one of them was divine in identity?  How implausible.

Anyway, here is your dilemma t8.

On one hand you hold up John 17:3 as a proof text, emphatically affirming that it shows that the Father of Yeshua is “the only true God” (The Greek word for “true” (Gr. alethinos) carries the meaning “real” or “genuine.”) – to the exclusion of the Son. But on the other you concede that Yeshua is called “God” in scriptureand acknowledge that the word “theos” was used by John in reference to His very nature. Can you see the dilemma? If not, here it is. You can’t have it both ways t8. If the Son is called “God” in an ontological sense (which is exactly what you expressed in you writing “who is Jesus” and subsequently in MB posts), but there isonly One ”true” God – then Yeshua is, by default, a false god.. Looked at objectively, no other conclusion is acceptable.

To say otherwise is to acknowledge that John 1:1 teaches that two Gods inhabited the timeless environ of “the beginning” (i.e. before the advent of time itself), co-existing eternally (The Logos “was”[Gr. En – imperfect of eimi – denotes continuous action of the Logos existing in the past] in the beginning) in relationship (The Logos was “with” [pros] God), and that 1 Corinthians 8:6 teaches a True and false god in fact created “all things”. Which aside from being overt polytheism is also clearly ludicrous. Did a false god lay the foundation of the Earth? Were the Heavens the work of false god’s hands? (Hebrews 1:10). How about the prospect of honouring a false god “even as” (i.e. in exactly the same way as) we honour the True one (John 5:23) at the judgement? It’s untenable for a monotheistic Christian, who interprets John 17:3 the way you do, to even contemplate these things, and yet these are the tangible implications and outworkings of such a position.

I would also say, in finishing this section, that if we apply the same inductive logic you used with John 17:3 to prove that the Father alone is the One true God, YHWH, to the exclusion of Yeshua, then to be consistent, should we also accept that Yeshua is excluded from being considered a “Saviour” by Isaiah 43:11; 45:21; Hosea 13:4 and Jude 25?  And does Zechariah 14:9 exclude Yeshua from being considered a King? And on the flip side of the coin, since Yeshua is ascribed the titles “Only Master” (Jude 4, 2 Peter 2:1) and “Only Lord” (Jude 4, Ephesians 4:4, 1 Corinthians 8:4,6), is the Father excluded from being these things to us?

You can’t maintain that the principal exists in this verse, but not others where the word “only” is used in reference to an individual person. That’s inconsistent. If you read unipersonality into the John 17:3 text and apply the same principle of exclusion to other biblical passages, then what results is a whole complex of problematic biblical dilemmas…….

Section 2. Some contextual issues.

Here is the first 10 verses of the Chapter in John, please note the emphasised parts of the text:

John 17:1-10
1Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, 
2even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. 
3″This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 
4″I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. 
5″Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
6″I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. 
7″Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You; 
8for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me. 
9″I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours; 
10and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them.

I assert that some of the highlighted statements above are utterly incompatible with the notion of a monarchial monotheism statement of exclusion in vs 3, while at least one would be genuinely absurd. 

 

  • In verse 1 Yeshua appeals to the Father to “glorify” Him. How temerarious and brazen would this be if Yeshua be speaking as a lower class of being to the infinite God?
  • In verse 5 we read that Yeshua, alluding to His pre-existent past, again appeals to the Father to “glorify” Him – but adds “with the “glory” (Gr. Doxa – dignity, glory (-ious), honour, praise, worship) which I had with You before the world was”. However, in Isaiah 42:8 YHWH said He would not give his glory to another. Now that is an exclusionist statement. What is a lesser being doing sharing “doxa” with the One true God? This puts you in an interesting paradox t8.
    Quote
    With thine own self (para seautw). “By the side of thyself.” Jesus prays for full restoration to the pre-incarnate glory and fellowship (cf. John 1:1) enjoyed before the Incarnation (John 1:14). This is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and conscious existence at the Father’s side (para soi, with thee) “which I had” (h eixon, imperfect active of exw, I used to have, with attraction of case of hn to h because of doch), “before the world was” (pro tou ton kosmon einai), “before the being as to the world” – Robertson’s Word Pictures (NT)
  • In verse 10 we  truly have an absurd proclamation if Yeshua is not the true God. He said “and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine”. Would this not be the very epitome of redundancy if this verse was speaking of a finite being addressing the only SUPREME being, the Creator of everything?!?…..Couldn’t we liken this sentiment that Yeshua makes to say someone from the untouchable caste in India (the poorest of the poor) rocking up to Bill Gates and saying “everything I have is yours”?!?! I think it is the same, yet as an analogy falls infinitely short of the mark in impact. I mean what really can a lesser and finite being offer Him that He doesn;y already have?  I think that if Yeshua is not the true God then He has uttered what is perhaps the most ridiculous statement in history.So, I hope you can see that there are some contextual considerations in the John 17:3 prayer that should be taken into account when interpreting vs 3. Moreover, you should not read any verse in isolation from the rest of scripture. If the suspected meaning of the any verse does violence to the harmony of the all of the rest of biblical data relating to a particular topic, then this verse should be reevaluated – not all the others. That’s sound hermeneutics.

 

Section 3. My interpretation of John 17:3.

I think we both should endeavor to always provide our interpretation of the verses that are submitted to us. Just explaining why the other’s view is wrong isn’t really going to aid in progressing the discussion very far.

My interpretation is this: The overarching context of the seventeenth chapter of John is Yeshua submissively praying as a man to His Father. Yeshua was born a man under the Law (Galatians 4:4), and in that respect, was subject to all of it. His Father was also His God, and had He not been the Law would have been violated by Him, and Yeshua would not have been “without blemish”. So the statement He made in John 17:3 reflected this, and of course He was right – the Father is the only true God. But “eternal” life was predicated on “knowing” the Father and Son.

1 John 1:2-3
2and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—
3what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

So in summary, what we are dealing with here is good evidence for the Father’s divinity and the Son’s humanity. But what we don’t have in John 17:3 is good evidence for the non-deity of the Son. If you argue that it is then would Yeshua calling someone “a true man” disprove His own humanity? No. Yet this is the essence of the argument you are using t8. The verse does not make an ontological contra-distinction between the two persons of the Father and Son, as the Son’s “being” is not even mentioned. Furthermore, given that you have previously acknowledged that the reason John ascribed the title “God” to the logos (in John 1:1) was due to His divine nature (in other words He was “God” in an ontological sense) the default position for your Yeshua is false God – if Yeshua made a statement of exclusion in John 17:3. If the Father is the only true God, all others are, by default, false ones. Then all kinds of problematic contradictions arise in scripture:

  • Were the apostles self declared “bond servants” to the One true God, as well as a false one (Acts 16:7, Romans 1:1, Titus, James 1:1)?
  • Did two beings, the True God and a false one, eternally co-exist in intimate fellowship “in the beginning” (John 1:1b)?
  • Did the True God along with a false one bring “all things” into existence (1 Corinthians 8:6)?
  • Is a false god really “in” the only True one (John 10:38; 14:10,11; 17:21)?
  • Should we honour a false God “even as” we honour the Only True God as Judge (John 5:23)?
  • Did the True God give a false one “all authority…..on Heaven and Earth” (Matthew 28:18)?The list goes on….

 

If there is a verse that teaches YHWH’s unipersonity, John 17:3 is not that verse. The false god implication bears no resemblance to the Yeshua described in the  New Testament scriptures. In the NT the Logos existed (Gr. huparcho – continuous state of existence) in the form (Gr. morphe –nature, essential attributes as shown in the form) of God (Phil 2:6) and “was God” (John 1:1c), “He” then became flesh and dwelt among us  (John 1:14), yet in Him the fullness of deity (Gr. theotes – the state of being God) dwelt bodily form…..Yeshua is the exact representation of His Father’s “hypostasis” (essence/substance) – Hebrews 1:3 (cf. 2 Cr 4:4)….not a false God t8, a genuine One.

Thus ends my first rebuttal, I’ll post my first proof text in three days.

Blessings

Discussion

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 20 posts - 841 through 860 (of 945 total)
123…424344…464748
  • Author
    Posts
  • August 5, 2007 at 10:13 am#63216
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    Rom 16:17  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
    Rom 16:18  For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.     :O

    August 5, 2007 at 10:24 am#63218
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (Cult Buster @ Aug. 05 2007,05:13)
    Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
    Rom 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.     :O


    Hey CB,

    Did the Roman believers learn the doctrine of Trinity? Show me.

    August 7, 2007 at 9:04 am#63385
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Cult Buster @ Aug. 05 2007,22:11)
    That's very sweet t8.

    However, this one verse alone has you stumped.

    Isa 9:6 For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be on His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.


    Tell me this CultB.

    If Jesus being the mighty el, means that he is YHWH, then is he also the Heavenly Father if he is the everlasting father?

    You never argue that he is also the Heavenly Father. Yet your argument to equate mighty el with YHWH, should also equate Heavenly Father with everlasting father.

    So you are not consistent.

    The conclusion:

    You listen to that which tickles your ears and ignore the rest.

    Of course I am not arguing that Yeshua is the Heavenly Father, far from it. I am only commenting on your promotion of certain doctrines and ignorance of all else that contradicts it. Even your own wisdom when applied elsewhere creates conclusions that you do not agree with. So your response is to ignore such.

    But if your wisdom were from above, it would be lovely and it would agree with the truth in all that it was applied to.

    Unfortunately your wisdom is inconsistent.

    That is why I say that people should be wary of your leaven.

    Jesus is the son of God and the Messiah. This is the foundation of the true Church and this foundation is what you attack every time you preach another foundation, namely the Trinity doctrine.

    But you or hell will not prevail against this truth.

    Jesus Christ is the son of God and the Messiah. He is not part of a Trinity or Babylonian God.

    Repent.

    August 7, 2007 at 4:11 pm#63406
    Worshipping Jesus
    Participant

    Quote (t8 @ Aug. 07 2007,21:04)

    Quote (Cult Buster @ Aug. 05 2007,22:11)
    That's very sweet t8.

    However, this one verse alone has you stumped.

    Isa 9:6  For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be on His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.


    Tell me this CultB.

    If Jesus being the mighty el, means that he is YHWH, then is he also the Heavenly Father if he is the everlasting father?

    You never argue that he is also the Heavenly Father. Yet your argument to equate mighty el with YHWH, should also equate Heavenly Father with everlasting father.

    So you are not consistent.

    The conclusion:

    You listen to that which tickles your ears and ignore the rest.

    Of course I am not arguing that Yeshua is the Heavenly Father, far from it. I am only commenting on your promotion of certain doctrines and ignorance of all else that contradicts it. Even your own wisdom when applied elsewhere creates conclusions that you do not agree with. So your response is to ignore such.

    But if your wisdom were from above, it would be lovely and it would agree with the truth in all that it was applied to.

    Unfortunately your wisdom is inconsistent.

    That is why I say that people should be wary of your leaven.

    Jesus is the son of God and the Messiah. This is the foundation of the true Church and this foundation is what you attack every time you preach another foundation, namely the Trinity doctrine.

    But you or hell will not prevail against this truth.

    Jesus Christ is the son of God and the Messiah. He is not part of a Trinity or Babylonian God.

    Repent.


    t8

    What are you saying?

    That Isaiah 9:6 does not apply to Yeshua?

    So he has not been given the name “Everlasting father”?

    Whats the word you used? Ignorance, Inconsistant.

    If you say that Jesus is not an “Everlasting Father” then you have to be consistant t8.

    So he has a name “Prince of Peace” but, he is not the “Prince of Peace”?

    So he has a name “Wonderful” but, he is not “Wonderful”?

    So he has a name “Counsellor” but, he is not “Counsellor”?

    Abraham was the Father of Nations.

    There is a greater here.

    No he is not “The Father” but neverteless he is an “Everlasting Father”, Isa 9:6 says so.

    If Abraham and Paul are Fathers, what makes you think Jesus can not be a Father when all things were created by him and for him?

    (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

    1 Cor 4:15
    For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

    Let me see what are the words you used…

    Ignorance, ignore, not consistant, contradicts, inconsistant, weary of your leaven…

    Oh yes and “Repent”.  :O

    August 7, 2007 at 5:24 pm#63415
    Mr. Steve
    Participant

    Dear WJ and CB;

    Both of you appear to be in the same camp so I will submit this to both of you. CB you've stated in many posts that Christ is Jehovah. In fairness to WJ, I don't recall you making such a claim. Here goes. God appeared to Moses and said he was the same God that appeared to Abraham, identifying himself as Jehovah and the Almighty. Gabriel appeared to Mary and said her child would be the Son of the Highest. Peter in Acts 2 said that God approved Christ and raised him from the dead and identified God as the same God which David served. Stephen in Acts 7 said that the same God that appeared to Abraham in Ur of the Chaldees raised Christ from the dead. Paul the apostle made the same claims in Acts 13. All of the apostles in Acts simply refer to God as God, but make reference to Moses, Abraham, David, and that the God of the fathers raised up Christ from the dead. So how is it that you believe that Jesus is Jehovah the God of the fathers. Perhaps a better question would be, are you serving another Jehovah? Where do the apostles make any implication in their preaching that Christ was Jehovah God? Remember, if you claim he is Jehovah you are making the claim that he is also the Almighty, the Most High and of course, the Heavenly Father of Himself. Why don't the apostle state God raised up Christ from the seed of Abraham? Why don't the apostles make the grand conclusion that you do in your preaching that God became a man? All references to Christ is that he is the Son of God. Ye do greatly error not knowing the scriptures. Finally, for CB only, if you want to just continue the cut and paste responses, I'll take into consideration that making an actual interpretation based on intelligent thoughts is new to you.

    August 8, 2007 at 1:17 am#63478
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 07 2007,11:11)

    Quote (t8 @ Aug. 07 2007,21:04)

    Quote (Cult Buster @ Aug. 05 2007,22:11)
    That's very sweet t8.

    However, this one verse alone has you stumped.

    Isa 9:6 For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be on His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.


    Tell me this CultB.

    If Jesus being the mighty el, means that he is YHWH, then is he also the Heavenly Father if he is the everlasting father?

    You never argue that he is also the Heavenly Father. Yet your argument to equate mighty el with YHWH, should also equate Heavenly Father with everlasting father.

    So you are not consistent.

    The conclusion:

    You listen to that which tickles your ears and ignore the rest.

    Of course I am not arguing that Yeshua is the Heavenly Father, far from it. I am only commenting on your promotion of certain doctrines and ignorance of all else that contradicts it. Even your own wisdom when applied elsewhere creates conclusions that you do not agree with. So your response is to ignore such.

    But if your wisdom were from above, it would be lovely and it would agree with the truth in all that it was applied to.

    Unfortunately your wisdom is inconsistent.

    That is why I say that people should be wary of your leaven.

    Jesus is the son of God and the Messiah. This is the foundation of the true Church and this foundation is what you attack every time you preach another foundation, namely the Trinity doctrine.

    But you or hell will not prevail against this truth.

    Jesus Christ is the son of God and the Messiah. He is not part of a Trinity or Babylonian God.

    Repent.


    t8

    What are you saying?

    That Isaiah 9:6 does not apply to Yeshua?

    So he has not been given the name “Everlasting father”?

    Whats the word you used? Ignorance, Inconsistant.

    If you say that Jesus is not an “Everlasting Father” then you have to be consistant t8.

    So he has a name “Prince of Peace” but, he is not the “Prince of Peace”?

    So he has a name “Wonderful” but, he is not “Wonderful”?

    So he has a name “Counsellor” but, he is not “Counsellor”?

    Abraham was the Father of Nations.

    There is a greater here.

    No he is not “The Father” but neverteless he is an “Everlasting Father”, Isa 9:6 says so.

    If Abraham and Paul are Fathers, what makes you think Jesus can not be a Father when all things were created by him and for him?

    (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

    1 Cor 4:15
    For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

    Let me see what are the words you used…

    Ignorance, ignore, not consistant, contradicts, inconsistant, weary of your leaven…

    Oh yes and “Repent”. :O


    Hey WJ,

    I think I may have asked this of CB before t8 did. The reason I bring up “Eternal Father” is because of the phrase “name shall be called”. A name does not signify you are that being. My name is Kevin, but I am a human. Will I retain my name, Kevin, in heaven (sorry it rhymes)? But my name does not make me who I am. So the fact that “Eternal Father” is in this verse along with the others I think signifies that Yeshua is not these things, but that he is related to these things in some way.

    On a side note, here are some verses with the “names” in them. This does not mean i support them as a belief, but that they exist.

    Jdg 13:18 But the angel of the LORD said to him, “Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?”

    Act 5:31 “He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

    Eph 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,

    Now I don't have anything that matches “Eternal Father” or “Mighty God” but the two may be able to be put together to signify the relationship that was soon to be seen. That is, the one who is prophesied here would have as Father the Mighty God. After all, we don't see many references to “The Father” being used in the OT.

    Of course, this is just speculation because I have not good scripture to support it.

    August 8, 2007 at 5:37 pm#63567
    Mr. Steve
    Participant

    T8;

    Amen. I've asked CB to try to give an analysis or interpretation along with his cutting and pasting. I have no idea where is coming from. But now I can at least see why he doesn't try arguing in his own words.

    Mr. Steve

    August 8, 2007 at 5:42 pm#63568
    Mr. Steve
    Participant

    CB;

    All of the names that Christ is called in Isaiah 9:6 were given to him by his Father. Christ said the Father has given to him all things to him and was nothing in himself alone. Do you know why it's just that easy? Because its the truth. Maybe someday you will read the gospel of John and find out for yourself.

    August 8, 2007 at 7:50 pm#63577
    kejonn
    Participant

    Steve,

    CB really stands for “Cluster Bomb”. That is, he just “cluster bombs” us with verses and then expects as to suddenly start believing as he does. Hey, I have a Bible too.

    August 8, 2007 at 8:58 pm#63581
    Mr. Steve
    Participant

    Kejonn;

    Good one! The scriptures say, How can they hear without a preacher? Someone must interpret before they preach. Maybe CB's translation reads, How can they hear without a manuscript?

    August 9, 2007 at 2:50 pm#63623
    Worshipping Jesus
    Participant

    Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 08 2007,13:17)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 07 2007,11:11)

    Quote (t8 @ Aug. 07 2007,21:04)

    Quote (Cult Buster @ Aug. 05 2007,22:11)
    That's very sweet t8.

    However, this one verse alone has you stumped.

    Isa 9:6  For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be on His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.


    Tell me this CultB.

    If Jesus being the mighty el, means that he is YHWH, then is he also the Heavenly Father if he is the everlasting father?

    You never argue that he is also the Heavenly Father. Yet your argument to equate mighty el with YHWH, should also equate Heavenly Father with everlasting father.

    So you are not consistent.

    The conclusion:

    You listen to that which tickles your ears and ignore the rest.

    Of course I am not arguing that Yeshua is the Heavenly Father, far from it. I am only commenting on your promotion of certain doctrines and ignorance of all else that contradicts it. Even your own wisdom when applied elsewhere creates conclusions that you do not agree with. So your response is to ignore such.

    But if your wisdom were from above, it would be lovely and it would agree with the truth in all that it was applied to.

    Unfortunately your wisdom is inconsistent.

    That is why I say that people should be wary of your leaven.

    Jesus is the son of God and the Messiah. This is the foundation of the true Church and this foundation is what you attack every time you preach another foundation, namely the Trinity doctrine.

    But you or hell will not prevail against this truth.

    Jesus Christ is the son of God and the Messiah. He is not part of a Trinity or Babylonian God.

    Repent.


    t8

    What are you saying?

    That Isaiah 9:6 does not apply to Yeshua?

    So he has not been given the name “Everlasting father”?

    Whats the word you used? Ignorance, Inconsistant.

    If you say that Jesus is not an “Everlasting Father” then you have to be consistant t8.

    So he has a name “Prince of Peace” but, he is not the “Prince of Peace”?

    So he has a name “Wonderful” but, he is not “Wonderful”?

    So he has a name “Counsellor” but, he is not “Counsellor”?

    Abraham was the Father of Nations.

    There is a greater here.

    No he is not “The Father” but neverteless he is an “Everlasting Father”, Isa 9:6 says so.

    If Abraham and Paul are Fathers, what makes you think Jesus can not be a Father when all things were created by him and for him?

    (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

    1 Cor 4:15
    For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

    Let me see what are the words you used…

    Ignorance, ignore, not consistant, contradicts, inconsistant, weary of your leaven…

    Oh yes and “Repent”.  :O


    Hey WJ,

    I think I may have asked this of CB before t8 did. The reason I bring up “Eternal Father” is because of the phrase “name shall be called”. A name does not signify you are that being. My name is Kevin, but I am a human. Will I retain my name, Kevin, in heaven (sorry it rhymes)? But my name does not make me who I am. So the fact that “Eternal Father” is in this verse along with the others I think signifies that Yeshua is not these things, but that he is related to these things in some way.

    On a side note, here are some verses with the “names” in them. This does not mean i support them as a belief, but that they exist.

    Jdg 13:18  But the angel of the LORD said to him, “Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?”

    Act 5:31  “He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

    Eph 2:14  For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,

    Now I don't have anything that matches “Eternal Father” or “Mighty God” but the two may be able to be put together to signify the relationship that was soon to be seen. That is, the one who is prophesied here would have as Father the Mighty God. After all, we don't see many references to “The Father” being used in the OT.

    Of course, this is just speculation because I have not good scripture to support it.


    kejonn

    I dont have much time but thought I would at least respond to your desperate attempt to make Isa 9:6 say something that it does not.

    So what are you saying…

    Is Jesus the “Prince of Peace” or not?

    Is Jesus “Wonderful” or not?

    Is Jesus “Councelor” or not?

    Is Jesus “Everlasting Father” or not?

    If he is then he is the might God!

    Jdg 13:18 makes no sense in relation to Isa 9:6.

    Acts 5:31 says he “IS” the Prince.

    Eph 2:14 says he “IS” our peace.

    The above supports that Yeshua is…

  • Wonderful
  • Councelor
  • The mighty God
  • The everlasting Father
  • The Prince of Peace

    You said…

    Quote

    That is, the one who is prophesied here would have as Father the Mighty God. After all, we don't see many references to “The Father” being used in the OT. Of course, this is just speculation because I have not good scripture to support it.

    You are right kejonn it is speculation!

    Its amazing to me how Trinitarians are accused of taking scripture out of context and or making them say what they want, but what is this.

    Isa 9:6 is an unambiguous prophecy of Yeshua and not the Father.

    Truly he is the “mighty God” or he is none of the rest!

    :O

August 9, 2007 at 4:24 pm#63626
IM4Truth
Participant

WJ I have to say something real quick, I too have to go, but if what you are saying is true the scriptures contradicts because of what it says in
Ephesians 4:4-6
There is one body, one Spirit, just as you were called in on hope of your calling;
one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
ONE GOD AND FATHER OF ALL WHO IS ABOVE ALL AND IN US ALL.
Peace Mrs.

August 9, 2007 at 5:03 pm#63628
kejonn
Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 09 2007,09:50)
kejonn

I dont have much time but thought I would at least respond to your desperate attempt to make Isa 9:6 say something that it does not.


No I'm not. I'm merely trying to relate it to other scripture. Show me where outside this verse that Yeshua is called “Mighty God”. The way prophecy is fulfilled is that it can be shown to have come true. Since Yeshua is never called “Mighty God” you already have unfulfilled pophecy thus far.

Quote
Is Jesus the “Prince of Peace” or not?


He is called a Prince in one place, and he is said to bring peace in other places, so combining the two, you can get “Prince of Peace”.

Quote
Is Jesus “Wonderful” or not?


Yes, he is. Yet, is he ever called wonderful outside of this verse? If not, another piece of unfulfilled prophecy.

Quote
Is Jesus “Councelor” or not?


Is he? Show me where in scripture this description is used of him outside of thos verse.

Quote
Is Jesus “Everlasting Father” or not?


Show me where he is called “father” much less “everlasting father” anywhere. In fact, Yeshua set the record straight for us

Mat 23:9   “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

Since Yeshua said this while on earth, he was referring to his Father in heaven.

Now, as I said, I was trying to relate Is 9:6 to other instances, but you saw at is a denial of Yeshua. Yet, not a single name was given to him in Is 9:6 according to scripture, unless you count the combination of verses to come up with “Prince of Peace”. That is not to say that we will not hear these things said of him sometime in the future, but scripture does not support this claim thus far. If you can show me where, I will thank you.

Yet, we can be fairly certain that the verse applies to Yeshua because of Is 9:7.

But lets' look at “Mighty God”. The phrase in Hebrew is “el gibbowr”. “Mighty” is fine, but according to blueletter.com, “gibbowr” can mean

1) god, god-like one, mighty one
 a) mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
 b) angels
 c) god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
 d) God, the one true God, Jehovah
2) mighty things in nature
3) strength, power

Not only that, one of the reasons you likely don't see this any part of this verse quoted in the NT is that most of the writers of the NT used the Septuagint and not the Masoretic. Lets see how the Septuagint has Isaiah 9:6

Is 9:6  For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.

Quite different wouldn't you say! No “Mighty God” at all, much less “Everlasting Father”.

Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls had some differences in this verse as well. From http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/31_selections.html

This verse also has a few differences from the Masoretic text. On the bottom line the underlined word to the right is אלגבור (elgibor). In the Masoretic text this is written as two words – אל גבור (el gibor). The word אל (el) means “God” and גבור (gibor) means “warrior”. Together these words mean “God is a warrior”. Because these two words are written as one in the Dead Sea Scroll it appears that these two words are a name – “elgibor”.

The two underlined words to the left of “elgibor” is אבי עד (aviy ad). The word אבי (aviy) means “father of..” and עד (ad) means “again” or “until”. This word is often used in the phrase לעלם ועד (l'olam v'ed). While this is usually translated as “forever and ever” it literally means “to eternity and again”. The word עד (ad/ed) never means “eternity”. These two words would best be translated as “father of Ad (a name)” as “father of again” or “father of until” makes no sense. In the Masoretic text these two words are written as one indicating a name – Aviyad.

The far left underlined phrase is שר השלום (sar hashalom). In the Masoretic text this phrase is written as שר שלום (sar shalom), the letter ה (ha) meaning “the” is missing. The word שר (sar) means “ruler” and שלום (shalom) means “peace” (or more literally whole or complete). The phrase in the Masoretic text would be translated as “ruler of peace” while in the Dead Sea Scroll it would be “ruler of the peace” or “ruler of the peaceful one”. It is likely the word השלום (hashalom) is again a name – Hashalom (Another name for “Jerusalem”?).

Realizing that this verse is identifying the name of child, it is likely that the final words of this passage would be translated as “Elgibor the father of Ad, ruler of Hashalom”.

Now none of this means a whole hill of beans, but it does show that there may have been some preservation issues. No computers or printing presses back then, just scribes.

So perhaps it will come to pass. Is 9:7 leads one to believe so. But in the meantime, not yet.

Quote
If he is then he is the might God.

Jdg 13:18 makes no sense in relation to Isa 9:6.


Huh?

Jdg 13:8   Then Manoah entreated the LORD and said, “O Lord, please let the man of God whom You have sent come to us again that he may teach us what to do for the boy who is to be born.”  

Quote
Acts 5:31 says he “IS” the Prince.

Eph 2:14 says he “IS” our peace.


Covered above.

Quote
The above supports that Yeshua is…

  • Wonderful
  • Councelor
  • The mighty God
  • The everlasting Father
  • The Prince of Peace


    • No, it doesn't.

    Quote
    You said…

    Quote

    That is, the one who is prophesied here would have as Father the Mighty God. After all, we don't see many references to “The Father” being used in the OT. Of course, this is just speculation because I have not good scripture to support it.

    You are right kejonn it is speculation!

    Its amazing to me how Trinitarians are accused of taking scripture out of context and or making them say what they want, but what is this.


    I said “speculation”. That means “maybe”. Sheesh.

    Quote
    Isa 9:6 is an unambiguous prophecy of Yeshua and not the Father.

    Truly he is the “mighty God” or he is none of the rest!


    And we have yet to see where he is any of the rest.

    August 9, 2007 at 7:44 pm#63638
    Mr. Steve
    Participant

    Dear WJ;

    Much of what I am going to state may sound funny but that is not my intention. Perhaps, the reason why it appears humorous is because it's so elementary. The gospel wasn't intended to be complex. Man has made the gospel confusing but it's not. It becomes confusing when man begins to interject into scripture that which is contrary to scripture.

    This should help you distinguish Christ the Son of God from his Father. To preface this post, always be sure your interpretation of who Jesus is does not contradict what Christ taught. That sounds like sarcasim but it's not. You'll see why when you read the following how many of the doctrines of God, including Jesus is the Almighty God, Jehovah, etc., are incorrect. I'm not sure why Christ made this so clear but there must have been a good reason. I'm beginning to see why. Who do men say I am?

    At a glance, no real harm is done if you claim that Christ is the Almighty God. It's believed by some that unless you believe that Christ is God then you are not saved. I don't know if that's your belief. Christ said you must believe that he is the Son of God to have eternal life, not that he was God. That is the essence of the gospel message. So never conclude from an ambiguous statement contrary to what Christ taught. So I make the following plea of truth.

    Christ was sent from God. Christ said he came down from heaven. So Christ was not only sent from God but was with God in heaven. Christ does not change. Therefore, he was in heaven with God as the Son of God.

    Jesus said many times, perhaps more than any other statement, that he was sent from his Father. There are significant truths to be understood from this statement. Particularly, the Father is greater than the Son, the Father chose not to go personally himself, but in spirit with his Son. Jesus said the Father was with him at all times, but he also said no man hath seen the Father at anytime but him, so the Father was with him spiritually, not in a glorified manner. Therefore, the Father remained in heaven and sent his Son to us.

    I contend Christ existed as the Son of God before coming to earth. Christ said he came not of his own will or of himself. In order to have a will you must exist. He also said it was the Father's will, not his, thereby, distinguishing his will from his Father's will, which also distinguishes Christ as a Son of God separate in identity from his Father. Christ does not change so he must have been the Son of God in heaven.

    John 6:46 says, No man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Christ stated several truths in a short statement. The Father is God, not Christ. Christ has seen the Father. Therefore, he is distinct in identity. He did not say he was the Father. Christ said that his Father was God.

    Christ also taught his Father was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The God of Abraham revealed himself as the Almighty. If you believe that Christ is the Almighty you are contradicting what Christ taught, even though unintentionally. Christ's Father is the Almighty. If you believe that Christ is the Almighty then you do not believe what Christ taught because he said repeatedly the Father sent him. His Father is the Almighty. Any other doctrine that purports otherwise teaches a mistaken identity doctrine of God and Christ. You are teaching that Christ wasn't sent by God, but that God himself was the same person as Christ, which also contradicts what Christ taught. If Jesus made any issue clear it was that he was distinct from his Father.

    When you look at all the names which were given to Christ the Son of God you have to see that the names were given to him. Who gave Christ his names? The Father. Correct, end of issue. Yes, even the names in Revelation.

    You contend you are not a modalist, who hold the belief that God just takes different forms at different times, but when you say Christ is the Almighty your doctrine is modalistic, it's not even trinitarian.

    I believe you desire to believe the truth, but you have to understand what it is first. I propose that you stay very close to the gospel of John and what Christ taught and then make your interpretation of other books like Revelation upon the truths of the gospel.

    Take care,

    Steven

    August 9, 2007 at 7:53 pm#63640
    IM4Truth
    Participant

    Steve AMEN AND AMEN Very good Post. Try to tell that to your grown children tho……..

    Peace Mrs.

    August 9, 2007 at 8:18 pm#63642
    Mr. Steve
    Participant

    IM4truth;

    Who would that be? Am I a Dad? Is that you Son?

    Steven

    August 9, 2007 at 9:39 pm#63647
    kejonn
    Participant

    Steve,

    MIM used to believe in the trinity. Her and her husband no longer do, but they have grown children who do. If I also recall correctly, MIM used to be members of a Catholic church.

    August 10, 2007 at 7:15 am#63683
    Worshipping Jesus
    Participant

    Kejonn

    You said…

    Quote

    Not only that, one of the reasons you likely don't see this any part of this verse quoted in the NT is that most of the writers of the NT used the Septuagint and not the Masoretic. Lets see how the Septuagint has Isaiah 9:6

    Yes kejonn but the writers of the NT also called Jesus God! :p

    There you go again. You oppose every major translation and 100s of scholars in order to support your theory that Isa 9:6 is not a prophetic scripture of Yeshuas and his natural birth.

    Not only do you appose the works of all the scholars but you have taken a stand against most commentators of the scriptures.

    First lets talk about the “Septuagint”.

    As you know the Septuagint is an english translation of the “koine Greek” translation of the Hebrew text.

    There is more than one English translation.

    For instance the 2001 translation – An American English Bible renders Isa 9:6…

    6 A child was born and a son was given to us, upon whose shoulders the kingship will come. His name will be called, Messenger of the Great Decree; The Wonderful Councilor; The Mighty God; The Great Authority; The Prince of Peace; and The Father of the Coming Age. Then I will bring peace to the prince and give him health.
    http://www.2001translation.com/

    Now look at some of the commentators…

    Mattew Henrys

    1. See him in his humiliation. The same that is the mighty God is a child born; the ancient of days becomes an infant of a span long; the everlasting Father is a Son given. Such was his condescension in taking our nature upon him; thus did he humble and empty himself, to exalt and fill us. He is born into our world. The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. He is given, freely given, to be all that to us which our case, in our fallen state, calls for. God so loved the world that he gave him. He is born to us, he is given to us, us men, and not to the angels that sinned. It is spoken with an air of triumph, and the angel seems to refer to these words in the notice he gives to the shepherds of the Messiah's having come (Luke ii. 11), Unto you is born, this day, a Saviour. Note, Christ's being born and given to us is the great foundation of our hopes, and fountain of our joys, in times of greatest grief and fear.
    2. See him in his exaltation. This child, this son, this Son of God, this Son of man, that is given to us, is in a capacity to do us a great deal of kindness; for he is invested with the highest honour and power, so that we cannot but be happy if he be our friend.
    (1.) See the dignity he is advanced to, and the name he has above every name. He shall be called (and therefore we are sure he is and shall be) Wonderful, Counsellor, &c. His people shall know him and worship him by these names; and, as one that fully answers them, they shall submit to him and depend upon him. [1.] He is wonderful, counsellor. Justly is he called wonderful, for he is both God and man. His love is the wonder of angels and glorified saints; in his birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension, he was wonderful. A constant series of wonders attended him, and, without controversy, great was the mystery of godliness concerning him.http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc4.Is.x.html
    John Wesley…
    Mighty God – This title can agree to no man but Christ, who was God as well as man, to whom the title of God or Jehovah is given, both in the Old and New Testament. And it is a true observation, that this Hebrew word El is never used in the singular number, of any creature, but only of the almighty God. The father – The father of eternity. Who, though as man he was then unborn, yet was and is from everlasting to everlasting.
    http://bible.crosswalk.com/Comment….ter=009

    The Adam Clarke Commentary
    Verse 6. The government shall be upon his shoulder
    That is, the ensign of government; the sceptre, the sword, the key, or the like, which was borne upon or hung from the shoulder. See Clarke on Isaiah 22:22.
    And his name shall be called
    El gibbor, the prevailing or conquering God.
    The everlasting Father-“The Father of the everlasting age”

    Or Abi ad, the Father of eternity. The Septuagint have μεγαληςβουληςαγγελος, “the Messenger of the Great Counsel.” But instead of Abi ad, a MS. of De Rossi has Abezer, the helping Father; **evidently the corruption of some Jew, who did not like such an evidence in favour of the Christian Messiah**.
    Prince of Peace
    sar shalom, the Prince of prosperity, the Giver of all blessings.
    A MS. of the thirteenth century in Kennicott's collection has a remarkable addition here. “He shall be a stumbling-block, ; the government is on his shoulder.” This reading is nowhere else acknowledged, as far as I know.
    http://www.studylight.org/com….#Isa9_6

    The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible
    and of counsel and might, rests: the mighty God;
    or “God the mighty One” F18; as some read the words with a comma; but if read together, the sense is the same; Christ is God    , truly and properly so; as appears from his name Jehovah, which is peculiar to the most High; from his nature and perfections, being the same with his Father's: from the works performed by him, as those of creation, providence, miracles, redemption, resurrection from the dead, &c.; and from the worship given him, which only belongs to God; also he is called our God, your God, their God, my God, by which epithets those that are not truly God are never called; he is said to be God manifest in the flesh; God over all, blessed for ever; the great God, the living God, the true God, and eternal life; and he is “the mighty One” as appears by the works he did, previous to his incarnation; as the creation of all things out of nothing; the upholding of all things by the word or his power;
    http://www.studylight.org/com….verse=6

    David Guzik's Commentaries
    on the Bible
    h. The Messiah is Mighty God: The God of all creation and glory, the LORD who reigns in heaven, the One worthy of our worship and praise.
    i. Can there be a more straightforward declaration of the deity of the Messiah? Yet some groups (such as Jehovah's Witnesses) try to make a distinction between Mighty God and Almighty God. Scripturally, there is no distinction, because both titles are used of Jesus and Yahweh specifically (Almighty is applied to Jesus in Revelation 1:8).
    ii. In Isaiah 10:21, the prophet uses the exact same phrase to refer to Yahweh: The remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the Mighty God. Therefore, this is a clear statement of absolute deity
    iii. “And indeed, if Christ had not been God, it would have been unlawful to glory in him; for it is written, Cursed be he that trusteth in man. (Jeremiah 17:5)” (Calvin)
    http://www.studylight.org/com….#Isa9_6

    Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
    name . . . called–His essential characteristics shall be.
         Wonderful–(See on Isa 8:18; Jud 1
    3:18, Margin; 1Ti 3:16).
         Counsellor– (Ps 16:7; Ro 11:33, 34; 1Co 1:24; Col 2:3).
         mighty God– (Isa 10:21; Ps 24:8; Tit 2:13) HORSLEY translates: “God the mighty man.” “Unto us . . . God” is equivalent to “Immanuel” (Isa 7:14).
         everlasting Father–This marks Him as “Wonderful,” that He is “a child,” yet the “everlasting Father” (Joh 10:30; 14:9). Earthly kings leave their people after a short reign; He will reign over and bless them for ever [HENGSTENBERG].
         Prince of Peace–(See on Isa 9:5; Ge 49:10; Shiloh, “The Tranquillizer”). Finally (Ho 2:18). Even already He is “our peace” (Lu 2:14; Eph 2:14).
    http://www.studylight.org/com….#Isa9_6

    Now lets look at the credible English Translations of Isa 9:6.

    NASB:
    For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (NASB ©1995)
    GWT:
    A child will be born for us. A son will be given to us. The government will rest on his shoulders. He will be named: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.(GOD'S WORD®)
    KJV:
    For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
    ASV:
    For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
    BBE:
    For to us a child has come, to us a son is given; and the government has been placed in his hands; and he has been named Wise Guide, Strong God, Father for ever, Prince of Peace.
    DBY:
    For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty ùGod, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.
    ERV:
    For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
    JPS:
    For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;
    WBS:
    For to us a child is born, to us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
    WEB:
    For to us a child is born. To us a son is given; and the government will be on his shoulders. His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
    YLT:
    For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.

    NKJV
    For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

    NLT
    For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder.And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

    ESV
    For to us a child is born ,to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon [fn4] his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

    NIV
    For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, [fn2] Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

    RSV
    For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

    HNV
    For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be on his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Shalom.

    Even the NWT translates it as such…

    NWT
    6 For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

    You see kejonn, the 100s of translators had access to tens of  thousands of works and ancient copys of the scriptures as well as the Septuagint yet the vast majority renders Isa 9:6 as you read it now in the AV. I believe the translators knew more than we.

    You being a Baptist for 20 years continue to cast shadows on the written scriptures that we have! :(

    Truly, Jesus is the “Mighty God”.

    :)

    August 10, 2007 at 11:41 am#63689
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 10 2007,02:15)
    Kejonn

    You said…

    Quote

    Not only that, one of the reasons you likely don't see this any part of this verse quoted in the NT is that most of the writers of the NT used the Septuagint and not the Masoretic. Lets see how the Septuagint has Isaiah 9:6

    Yes kejonn but the writers of the NT also called Jesus God! :p

    There you go again. You oppose every major translation and 100s of scholars in order to support your theory that Isa 9:6 is not a prophetic scripture of Yeshuas and his natural birth.


    Nope. When I do these things I merely show that there IS a potential difference. So it makes things questionable. And yes, he was called God by Thomas and perhaps in a few places (but many of them deny the proper use of good English to get there), but never “Mighty God”. And none of the others either unless you piece together verses to come up with the phrases.

    Quote
    Not only do you appose the works of all the scholars but you have taken a stand against most commentators of the scriptures.


    I read the comments on bible.cc. Almost all of it was implication and very apologetic sounding. I used to believe in Apologetics until I started paying attention. Now I see that the majority of Apologetics uses vague speech and heavy implication with strong eisegesis.

    Quote
    First lets talk about the “Septuagint”.

    As you know the Septuagint is an english translation of the “koine Greek” translation of the Hebrew text.

    There is more than one English translation.

    For instance the 2001 translation – An American English Bible renders Isa 9:6…

    6 A child was born and a son was given to us, upon whose shoulders the kingship will come. His name will be called, Messenger of the Great Decree; The Wonderful Councilor; The Mighty God; The Great Authority; The Prince of Peace; and The Father of the Coming Age. Then I will bring peace to the prince and give him health.
    http://www.2001translation.com/


    Thanks! I looked for awhile to find something else because I was troubled that the verse was so different. The Septuagint isn't usually that different. And “the Father of the Coming Age” makes much more sense that “Everlasting Father” although the Septuagint version makes the Masoretic one clearer.

    Quote
    Now look at some of the commentators…

    Mattew Henrys

    1. See him in his humiliation. The same that is the mighty God is a child born; the ancient of days becomes an infant of a span long; the everlasting Father is a Son given. Such was his condescension in taking our nature upon him; thus did he humble and empty himself, to exalt and fill us. He is born into our world. The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. He is given, freely given, to be all that to us which our case, in our fallen state, calls for. God so loved the world that he gave him. He is born to us, he is given to us, us men, and not to the angels that sinned. It is spoken with an air of triumph, and the angel seems to refer to these words in the notice he gives to the shepherds of the Messiah's having come (Luke ii. 11), Unto you is born, this day, a Saviour. Note, Christ's being born and given to us is the great foundation of our hopes, and fountain of our joys, in times of greatest grief and fear.
    2. See him in his exaltation. This child, this son, this Son of God, this Son of man, that is given to us, is in a capacity to do us a great deal of kindness; for he is invested with the highest honour and power, so that we cannot but be happy if he be our friend.
    (1.) See the dignity he is advanced to, and the name he has above every name. He shall be called (and therefore we are sure he is and shall be) Wonderful, Counsellor, &c. His people shall know him and worship him by these names; and, as one that fully answers them, they shall submit to him and depend upon him. [1.] He is wonderful, counsellor. Justly is he called wonderful, for he is both God and man. His love is the wonder of angels and glorified saints; in his birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension, he was wonderful. A constant series of wonders attended him, and, without controversy, great was the mystery of godliness concerning him.http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc4.Is.x.html

    Exactly what I said above. Implication and no strong solid evidence. Commentary is no good without strong evidence to support it. “Justly is he called wonderful, for he is both God and man”. Trinitarian statement. So I'm automatically supposed to support it? Bias. But it has no support just because he says “this is why he is called wonderful although he is never called such in scripture”.

    Quote

    John Wesley…
    Mighty God – This title can agree to no man but Christ, who was God as well as man, to whom the title of God or Jehovah is given, both in the Old and New Testament. And it is a true observation, that this Hebrew word El is never used in the singular number, of any creature, but only of the almighty God. The father – The father of eternity. Who, though as man he was then unborn, yet was and is from everlasting to everlasting.
    http://bible.crosswalk.com/Comment….ter=009


    Again, bias. Hercules was supposed to be the child of a god and man, but he was never called “fully god, fully man”. Of course Hercules is just a myth but I've yet to see one scripture that supports “fully God, fully Man”. One cannot be both if he is born of man. And if he is “fully God”, can we ever even hope to be “Christlike” knowing he had every advantage we will never have? Again, people shun Christianity for this because they believe in obtainable goals.

    Quote
    The Adam Clarke Commentary
    Verse 6. The government shall be upon his shoulder
    That is, the ensign of government; the sceptre, the sword, the key, or the like, which was borne upon or hung from the shoulder. See Clarke on Isaiah 22:22.
    And his name shall be called
    El gibbor, the prevailing or conquering God.
    The everlasting Father-“The Father of the everlasting age”


    Do you know that Martin Luther used the title “divine hero” in his translation? Why is his title any less applicable than what the above commentators try to read into
    the verse? And James Moffatt supported this title.

    Quote
    Or Abi ad, the Father of eternity. The Septuagint have μεγαληςβουληςαγγελος, “the Messenger of the Great Counsel.” But instead of Abi ad, a MS. of De Rossi has Abezer, the helping Father; **evidently the corruption of some Jew, who did not like such an evidence in favour of the Christian Messiah**.


    Speculation, and not proof. Just as what I supplied is speculation.

    Quote
    Prince of Peace
    sar shalom, the Prince of prosperity, the Giver of all blessings.
    A MS. of the thirteenth century in Kennicott's collection has a remarkable addition here. “He shall be a stumbling-block, ; the government is on his shoulder.” This reading is nowhere else acknowledged, as far as I know.
    http://www.studylight.org/com….#Isa9_6


    Why was this listed? To show that people have added or taken away from the various manuscripts? Sure, the KJV is full of such examples.

    Quote
    The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible
    and of counsel and might, rests: the mighty God;
    or “God the mighty One” F18; as some read the words with a comma; but if read together, the sense is the same; Christ is God    , truly and properly so; as appears from his name Jehovah, which is peculiar to the most High; from his nature and perfections, being the same with his Father's: from the works performed by him, as those of creation, providence, miracles, redemption, resurrection from the dead, &c.; and from the worship given him, which only belongs to God; also he is called our God, your God, their God, my God, by which epithets those that are not truly God are never called; he is said to be God manifest in the flesh; God over all, blessed for ever; the great God, the living God, the true God, and eternal life; and he is “the mighty One” as appears by the works he did, previous to his incarnation; as the creation of all things out of nothing; the upholding of all things by the word or his power;
    http://www.studylight.org/com….verse=6


    Again, bias as this guy says he is “Jehovah”. So who is the Father? Some unknown background character who shows up in the New Testament? That's what I dislike about the Trinity — it makes Yeshua out to be in the forefront and people stick the father in their back pocket. Strange how this goes against all that Yeshua taught.

    Quote
    David Guzik's Commentaries
    on the Bible
    h. The Messiah is Mighty God: The God of all creation and glory, the LORD who reigns in heaven, the One worthy of our worship and praise.
    i. Can there be a more straightforward declaration of the deity of the Messiah? Yet some groups (such as Jehovah's Witnesses) try to make a distinction between Mighty God and Almighty God. Scripturally, there is no distinction, because both titles are used of Jesus and Yahweh specifically (Almighty is applied to Jesus in Revelation 1:8).
    ii. In Isaiah 10:21, the prophet uses the exact same phrase to refer to Yahweh: The remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the Mighty God. Therefore, this is a clear statement of absolute deity
    iii. “And indeed, if Christ had not been God, it would have been unlawful to glory in him; for it is written, Cursed be he that trusteth in man. (Jeremiah 17:5)” (Calvin)
    http://www.studylight.org/com….#Isa9_6


    See above. The Father is not mentioned. Either this guy is a modalist or he too puts the Father in his back pocket. Are you not seeign the serious danger in the Trinity yet? Use to be Father now its all about His Son. Who will the true worshipers worship according to your God? See my tagline for clues. At least Yeshua had the proper perspective.

    Quote
    Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
    name . . . called–His essential characteristics shall be.
    Wonderful–(See on Isa 8:18; Jud 13:18, Margin; 1Ti 3:16).
    Counsellor– (Ps 16:7; Ro 11:33, 34; 1Co 1:24; Col 2:3).
    mighty God– (Isa 10:21; Ps 24:8; Tit 2:13) HORSLEY translates: “God the mighty man.” “Unto us . . . God” is equivalent to “Immanuel” (Isa 7:14).
    everlasting Father–This marks Him as “Wonderful,” that He is “a child,” yet the “everlasting Father” (Joh 10:30; 14:9). Earthly kings leave their people after a short reign; He will reign over and bless them for ever [HENGSTENBERG].
    Prince of Peace–(See on Isa 9:5; Ge 49:10; Shiloh, “The Tranquillizer”). Finally (Ho 2:18). Even already He is “our peace” (Lu 2:14; Eph 2:14).
    http://www.studylight.org/com….#Isa9_6


    The Tranquilizer? So is theis guy saying Yeshua is like a drug? I've heard some weird things before….you really should look more closely at what you post.

    Quote
    Now lets look at the credible English Translations of Isa 9:6.

    NASB:
    For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (NASB ©1995)
    GWT:
    A child will be born for us. A son will be given to us. The government will rest on his shoulders. He will be named: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.(GOD'S WORD®)
    KJV:
    For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
    ASV:
    For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
    BBE:
    For to us a child has come, to us a son is given; and the government has been placed in his hands; and he has been named Wise Guide, Strong God, Father for ever, Prince of Peace.
    DBY:
    For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty ùGod, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.
    ERV:
    For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
    JPS:
    For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name
    is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;
    WBS:
    For to us a child is born, to us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
    WEB:
    For to us a child is born. To us a son is given; and the government will be on his shoulders. His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
    YLT:
    For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.

    NKJV
    For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

    NLT
    For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder.And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

    ESV
    For to us a child is born ,to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon [fn4] his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

    NIV
    For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, [fn2] Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

    RSV
    For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

    HNV
    For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be on his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Shalom.

    Even the NWT translates it as such…

    NWT
    6 For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

    You see kejonn, the 100s of translators had access to tens of thousands of works and ancient copys of the scriptures as well as the Septuagint yet the vast majority renders Isa 9:6 as you read it now in the AV. I believe the translators knew more than we.


    Well, duh. As if I've never seen them. But beyond your biased commentators who are either modalists or they've forgotten there is a Father in heaven, I see no scriptural support. Commentators are not scripture, they are men who read their own meaning into scripture so they will feel good about their own beliefs.

    Quote
    You being a Baptist for 20 years continue to cast shadows on the written scriptures that we have! :(


    Nope, just the way people apply them AND I'm not dumb enough to believe that some corruption, whether intentional or not, has creeped in because of men. If you believe this has not happened you are living under a rock.

    Quote
    Truly, Jesus is the “Mighty God”.


    To you, yes he is. To me he is someone I can follow and pattern my life after because he didn't have every advantage over me. His whole life showed me what we could be if we would only do the Father's will. You know, the same Father that Yeshua so often honored? The one that the Trinitarians seem to have lost focus of? Again, compare your user name to what Yeshua said:

    Jhn 4:23 “But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
    Jhn 4:24 “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
    Hmmm, note the context. v23 says to worship the Father in spirit and truth. And then he repeats it with the word “God”. Hard to refute the words of Yeshua. Yet you cling to the words of people like Thomas over those of the one you worship. Makes absolutely no sense to me.

    Jhn 20:17 Jesus *said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.' “

    Words of the one you worship again. Yet you take Thomas' word over his.

    Mar 15:34 At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” which is translated, “MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?”

    In the throes of death, and yet Yeshua tells us who his God is. Why is he not yours?

    August 10, 2007 at 12:06 pm#63690
    kejonn
    Participant

    WJ,

    Thanks again for the other translation but you must not have researched that site much. I noted that the phase in Is 9:6 was italicized. Then I found this http://www.2001translation.com/The%20Greek%20Septuagint.htm

    We also find the Septuagint’s rendering of Genesis 2:8-15 (that there was no ‘Garden of Eden,’ but it was called the ‘Paradise of Delights,’ and it was located on ‘the east side of the Land of Edom’) far more likely (see the account and the linked Notes). And there are several other scriptures where we’ve found reasons to trust the Septuagint text… but then again, we’ve also found many obvious errors in the Greek text.

    The fact is; we are constantly finding obvious errors in both the Greek and Hebrew texts. Some are mis-written names, others are scribal notes that were included as text but shouldn’t have been; we have found portions or words that were copied from the wrong line, and we have found differences in chronology between the Hebrew and Greek texts. We can say this with surety because the errors are obvious. There is enough redundancy in the Bible, and we have two different texts to compare against each other (the Greek and the Masoretic), so where we find differences we are prompted to do research. And the good news is that none of the errors so far has affected doctrinal integrity.

    So it appears they use both the Masoretic and Septuagint for their translation of the OT. Not saying this is the case with Is 9:6 but the authors were not to clear.

  • Author
    Posts
    • Viewing 20 posts - 841 through 860 (of 945 total)
    123…424344…464748
    • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

     

    CREATE NEW TOPIC
    POPULAR TOPICS
    ACTIVE TOPICS
    SITE SEARCH
    SUPPORT US
    REGISTER

    Recent Replies

    ALL REPLIES →

    © 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

    Navigation

    © 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
     Log in with Facebook
    or

    Log in with your credentials

    or    

    Forgot your details?

     Log in with Facebook
    or

    Create Account