For those who still require proof

[Country boy]

Isaiah 9:6 reads: (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, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

It almost seems unfair to post this after antitrinitarians have already failed to refute the verses already shown to them. But we might as well let the evidence (or at this point, proof) pile up.

So who is this “child” spoken of in this verse? Is it not Jesus? If not, then who do you say he is? And if he is Jesus, how can you make the case that he is not God, when the verse clearly says that he will be called “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father” (which, when translated literally, means “Father of eternity.”)

What argument will you use? Will you say that the verse only says he will “be called Mighty God” and that that doesn't necessarily mean that he IS God? The verse gives absolutely no indication that he will be called these things in error. Rather, it seems to be building up the image of this “child” by listing the titles that will be bestowed upon him. Surely the author intends to show the glory of this “child” rather than making him a fraud!

I eagerly await responses from my antitrinitarian friends.

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Country boy @ July 28 2009,04:01)

Isaiah 9:6 reads: (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, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” It almost seems unfair to post this after antitrinitarians have already failed to refute the verses already shown to them. But we might as well let the evidence (or at this point, proof) pile up. So who is this “child” spoken of in this verse? Is it not Jesus? If not, then who do you say he is? And if he is Jesus, how can you make the case that he is not God, when the verse clearly says that he will be called “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father” (which, when translated literally, means “Father of eternity.”) What argument will you use? Will you say that the verse only says he will “be called Mighty God” and that that doesn't necessarily mean that he IS God? The verse gives absolutely no indication that he will be called these things in error. Rather, it seems to be building up the image of this “child” by listing the titles that will be bestowed upon him. Surely the author intends to show the glory of this “child” rather than making him a fraud! I eagerly await responses from my antitrinitarian friends.

CB,
The anti-trinitarians will tell you that Jesus is called the “mighty” God and not the “almighty” God. This of course makes them polytheists because polytheism teaches a hierarchy of gods. And they forget that Jehovah is often referred to simply as “mighty” God.

thinker

[Cindy]

Quote (thethinker @ July 28 2009,04:13)

Quote (Country boy @ July 28 2009,04:01) Isaiah 9:6 reads: (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, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” It almost seems unfair to post this after antitrinitarians have already failed to refute the verses already shown to them. But we might as well let the evidence (or at this point, proof) pile up. So who is this “child” spoken of in this verse? Is it not Jesus? If not, then who do you say he is? And if he is Jesus, how can you make the case that he is not God, when the verse clearly says that he will be called “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father” (which, when translated literally, means “Father of eternity.”) What argument will you use? Will you say that the verse only says he will “be called Mighty God” and that that doesn't necessarily mean that he IS God? The verse gives absolutely no indication that he will be called these things in error. Rather, it seems to be building up the image of this “child” by listing the titles that will be bestowed upon him. Surely the author intends to show the glory of this “child” rather than making him a fraud! I eagerly await responses from my antitrinitarian friends. CB, The anti-trinitarians will tell you that Jesus is called the “mighty” God and not the “almighty” God. This of course makes them polytheists because polytheism teaches a hierarchy of gods. And they forget that Jehovah is often referred to simply as “mighty” God. thinker

If you want to believe in a trinity do so. But refrain yourself of criticing that do not believe. It seems you especially take all opportunity to rub it in.
I have a good question for you. If God is a trinity and the Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are 3in1 then WHO IS THE FATHER OF JESUS?
Peace and Love Irene

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Cindy @ July 27 2009,12:30)

Quote (thethinker @ July 28 2009,04:13) Quote (Country boy @ July 28 2009,04:01) Isaiah 9:6 reads: (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, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” It almost seems unfair to post this after antitrinitarians have already failed to refute the verses already shown to them. But we might as well let the evidence (or at this point, proof) pile up. So who is this “child” spoken of in this verse? Is it not Jesus? If not, then who do you say he is? And if he is Jesus, how can you make the case that he is not God, when the verse clearly says that he will be called “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father” (which, when translated literally, means “Father of eternity.”) What argument will you use? Will you say that the verse only says he will “be called Mighty God” and that that doesn't necessarily mean that he IS God? The verse gives absolutely no indication that he will be called these things in error. Rather, it seems to be building up the image of this “child” by listing the titles that will be bestowed upon him. Surely the author intends to show the glory of this “child” rather than making him a fraud! I eagerly await responses from my antitrinitarian friends. CB, The anti-trinitarians will tell you that Jesus is called the “mighty” God and not the “almighty” God. This of course makes them polytheists because polytheism teaches a hierarchy of gods. And they forget that Jehovah is often referred to simply as “mighty” God. thinker If you want to believe in a trinity do so.  But refrain yourself of criticing that do not believe.   It seems you especially take all opportunity to rub it in.   I have a good question for you.  If God is a trinity and the Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are 3in1 then WHO IS THE FATHER OF JESUS? Peace and Love Irene

Hi Irene

You mean like when you critisize Trinitarians even though it has nothing to do with the subject like you did here…

Quote (Cindy @ July 26 2009,18:39)

It is so easy to understand when you can see that the Word God is a tittle. God the Father who is above had another name Jehovah God. And of course Jesus who was the Word who became flesh. When you see it that way, there is no trinity.

WJ

[Country boy]

Quote (thethinker @ July 28 2009,04:13)

Quote (Country boy @ July 28 2009,04:01) Isaiah 9:6 reads: (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, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” It almost seems unfair to post this after antitrinitarians have already failed to refute the verses already shown to them. But we might as well let the evidence (or at this point, proof) pile up. So who is this “child” spoken of in this verse? Is it not Jesus? If not, then who do you say he is? And if he is Jesus, how can you make the case that he is not God, when the verse clearly says that he will be called “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father” (which, when translated literally, means “Father of eternity.”) What argument will you use? Will you say that the verse only says he will “be called Mighty God” and that that doesn't necessarily mean that he IS God? The verse gives absolutely no indication that he will be called these things in error. Rather, it seems to be building up the image of this “child” by listing the titles that will be bestowed upon him. Surely the author intends to show the glory of this “child” rather than making him a fraud! I eagerly await responses from my antitrinitarian friends. CB, The anti-trinitarians will tell you that Jesus is called the “mighty” God and not the “almighty” God. This of course makes them polytheists because polytheism teaches a hierarchy of gods. And they forget that Jehovah is often referred to simply as “mighty” God. thinker

So I am to understand that the term “Mighty God” does not refer to deity? Why use the word “God” then? And I would point out that the term “Everlasting Father” certainly seems to indicate deity as well.

p.s. it is a sad state of affairs when you must help them form their argument.

[Country boy]

Quote (Cindy @ July 28 2009,04:30)

Quote (thethinker @ July 28 2009,04:13) Quote (Country boy @ July 28 2009,04:01) Isaiah 9:6 reads: (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, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” It almost seems unfair to post this after antitrinitarians have already failed to refute the verses already shown to them. But we might as well let the evidence (or at this point, proof) pile up. So who is this “child” spoken of in this verse? Is it not Jesus? If not, then who do you say he is? And if he is Jesus, how can you make the case that he is not God, when the verse clearly says that he will be called “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father” (which, when translated literally, means “Father of eternity.”) What argument will you use? Will you say that the verse only says he will “be called Mighty God” and that that doesn't necessarily mean that he IS God? The verse gives absolutely no indication that he will be called these things in error. Rather, it seems to be building up the image of this “child” by listing the titles that will be bestowed upon him. Surely the author intends to show the glory of this “child” rather than making him a fraud! I eagerly await responses from my antitrinitarian friends. CB, The anti-trinitarians will tell you that Jesus is called the “mighty” God and not the “almighty” God. This of course makes them polytheists because polytheism teaches a hierarchy of gods. And they forget that Jehovah is often referred to simply as “mighty” God. thinker If you want to believe in a trinity do so.  But refrain yourself of criticing that do not believe.   It seems you especially take all opportunity to rub it in.   I have a good question for you.  If God is a trinity and the Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are 3in1 then WHO IS THE FATHER OF JESUS? Peace and Love Irene

This has nothing to do with what I want to believe. The question is “Was Jesus God or was he not?” And this verse very clearly indicates that he is. And this being the case, I think I am more than justified in attempting to bring glory to Jesus by proclaiming the truth about Him.

Now answer the question.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Country boy @ July 27 2009,13:05)

Quote (thethinker @ July 28 2009,04:13) Quote (Country boy @ July 28 2009,04:01) Isaiah 9:6 reads: (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, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” It almost seems unfair to post this after antitrinitarians have already failed to refute the verses already shown to them. But we might as well let the evidence (or at this point, proof) pile up. So who is this “child” spoken of in this verse? Is it not Jesus? If not, then who do you say he is? And if he is Jesus, how can you make the case that he is not God, when the verse clearly says that he will be called “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father” (which, when translated literally, means “Father of eternity.”) What argument will you use? Will you say that the verse only says he will “be called Mighty God” and that that doesn't necessarily mean that he IS God? The verse gives absolutely no indication that he will be called these things in error. Rather, it seems to be building up the image of this “child” by listing the titles that will be bestowed upon him. Surely the author intends to show the glory of this “child” rather than making him a fraud! I eagerly await responses from my antitrinitarian friends. CB, The anti-trinitarians will tell you that Jesus is called the “mighty” God and not the “almighty” God. This of course makes them polytheists because polytheism teaches a hierarchy of gods. And they forget that Jehovah is often referred to simply as “mighty” God. thinker So I am to understand that the term “Mighty God” does not refer to deity? Why use the word “God” then? And I would point out that the term “Everlasting Father” certainly seems to indicate deity as well. p.s. it is a sad state of affairs when you must help them form their argument.

Hi CB

I think you are misunderstanding Thinkers post!

WJ

[KangarooJack]

Irene said:

Quote

If you want to believe in a trinity do so.  But refrain yourself of criticing that do not believe.   It seems you especially take all opportunity to rub it in.   I have a good question for you.  If God is a trinity and the Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are 3in1 then WHO IS THE FATHER OF JESUS?

Irene,
What are you talking about? I was simply pointing out what anti-trinitarians typically say about the expression “mighty God” in reference to the child of Isaiah 9. Their explanation clearly implies polytheism. They say that there is “almighty” God and then there is Jesus who is the lesser “mighty” God. This is pure polytheism. The polytheists believe in a hierarchy of gods.

thinker

[KangarooJack]

CB said:

Quote

So I am to understand that the term “Mighty God” does not refer to deity? Why use the word “God” then? And I would point out that the term “Everlasting Father” certainly seems to indicate deity as well. p.s. it is a sad state of affairs when you must help them form their argument.

CB,
I was simply telling you how anti-trinitarians explain Isaiah 9:6. I have not “helped” them form their argument. They have been saying this for decades. You misunderstood my post.

thinker

[GeneBalthrop]

CB…………Just read what GOD said about Himself in Isiah, and what Jesus said about HIM, and if you have GOD guiding you mind you will see it clearly brother. No need to worry it will come clearly, just rely on what is written and ask GOD to guide your thinking. IMO

peace and love to you and yours…………………gene

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Country boy @ July 28 2009,04:01)

Isaiah 9:6 reads: (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, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” It almost seems unfair to post this after antitrinitarians have already failed to refute the verses already shown to them. But we might as well let the evidence (or at this point, proof) pile up. So who is this “child” spoken of in this verse? Is it not Jesus? If not, then who do you say he is? And if he is Jesus, how can you make the case that he is not God, when the verse clearly says that he will be called “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father” (which, when translated literally, means “Father of eternity.”) What argument will you use? Will you say that the verse only says he will “be called Mighty God” and that that doesn't necessarily mean that he IS God? The verse gives absolutely no indication that he will be called these things in error. Rather, it seems to be building up the image of this “child” by listing the titles that will be bestowed upon him. Surely the author intends to show the glory of this “child” rather than making him a fraud! I eagerly await responses from my antitrinitarian friends.

Is that your proof? Where is one place of scripture is Jesus call prince of peace or everlasting Father?

But now I will show you your flaw?

The correct context of this passage is that it describes events that had already taken place in Jewish history, namely, events concerning the birth of this child (believed to be Hezekiah, the son of King Ahaz), and a prophecy concerning his future as King of Judah. Hezekiah's role was to lift Judah from the degenerate conditions into which it had sunk, and he would lead the indestructible faithful “Remnant of Israel”. This passage speaks of the wonders performed by God for Hezekiah as King of Judah, and in it, the Prophet expresses his praise of God for sparing Hezekiah and his kingdom from demise at the hands of Sannheriv, who besieged Jerusalem.

2 Kings 20:19 (Young's Literal Translation)

19 And Hezekiah saith unto Isaiah, `Good [is] the word of Jehovah that thou hast spoken;' and he saith, `Is it not — if peace and truth are in my days?'

Isaiah 10:21-22

21 A remnant returneth — a remnant of Jacob, Unto the Mighty God.

22 For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, A remnant doth return of it, A consumption determined, Overflowing [with] righteousness.

2 Chronicles 32

32 And the rest of the matters of Hezekiah, and his kind acts, lo, they are written in the vision of Isaiah son of Amoz the prophet, on the book of the kings of Judah and Israel.

Now when has there been peace in the days of Jesus, there is not even peace today 2000 years after Jesus but Jesus did not come to bring peace:

Matthew 10:33-35 (King James Version)

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Had you studied your bible you would have known this

As far as using the word God, here is a psalmist who is calling another king “God”

Psalm 45
1 My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer.

2 Thou art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured into thy lips: therefore God hath blessed thee for ever.

3 Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty.

4 And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things.

5 Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; whereby the people fall under thee.

6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

8 All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad.

9 Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.

10 Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house;

11 So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him.

The psalmist even says worship him because that is common with a king

[NickHassan]

Hi BD,
You have no idea about the prophetic work of God and should best stay within your harsh lifeless teachings.

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 28 2009,07:26)

Hi BD, You have no idea about the prophetic work of God and should best stay within your harsh lifeless teachings.

Harsh?

[NickHassan]

Hi BD,
You should seek the love and freedom found in Jesus.
You cannot please God by your obedience to the rules of men.

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 28 2009,08:37)

Hi BD, You should seek the love and freedom found in Jesus. You cannot please God by your obedience to the rules of men.

But Jesus is a Man and I'm obedient to him.

Is Jesus not a man now?

Are you a member of the Catholic Church?

[Country boy]

Quote (bodhitharta @ July 28 2009,06:10)

Quote (Country boy @ July 28 2009,04:01) Isaiah 9:6 reads: (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, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” It almost seems unfair to post this after antitrinitarians have already failed to refute the verses already shown to them. But we might as well let the evidence (or at this point, proof) pile up. So who is this “child” spoken of in this verse? Is it not Jesus? If not, then who do you say he is? And if he is Jesus, how can you make the case that he is not God, when the verse clearly says that he will be called “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father” (which, when translated literally, means “Father of eternity.”) What argument will you use? Will you say that the verse only says he will “be called Mighty God” and that that doesn't necessarily mean that he IS God? The verse gives absolutely no indication that he will be called these things in error. Rather, it seems to be building up the image of this “child” by listing the titles that will be bestowed upon him. Surely the author intends to show the glory of this “child” rather than making him a fraud! I eagerly await responses from my antitrinitarian friends. Is that your proof? Where is one place of scripture is Jesus call prince of peace or everlasting Father? But now I will show you your flaw? The correct context of this passage is that it describes events that had already taken place in Jewish history, namely, events concerning the birth of this child (believed to be Hezekiah, the son of King Ahaz), and a prophecy concerning his future as King of Judah.  Hezekiah's role was to lift Judah from the degenerate conditions into which it had sunk, and he would lead the indestructible faithful “Remnant of Israel”.  This passage speaks of the wonders performed by God for Hezekiah as King of Judah, and in it, the Prophet expresses his praise of God for sparing Hezekiah and his kingdom from demise at the hands of Sannheriv, who besieged Jerusalem. 2 Kings 20:19 (Young's Literal Translation) 19 And Hezekiah saith unto Isaiah, `Good [is] the word of Jehovah that thou hast spoken;' and he saith, `Is it not — if peace and truth are in my days?' Isaiah 10:21-22 21 A remnant returneth — a remnant of Jacob, Unto the Mighty God. 22 For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, A remnant doth return of it, A consumption determined, Overflowing [with] righteousness. 2 Chronicles 32 32 And the rest of the matters of Hezekiah, and his kind acts, lo, they are written in the vision of Isaiah son of Amoz the prophet, on the book of the kings of Judah and Israel. Now when has there been peace in the days of Jesus, there is not even peace today 2000 years after Jesus but Jesus did not come to bring peace: Matthew 10:33-35 (King James Version) 34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Had you studied your bible you would have known this As far as using the word God, here is a psalmist who is calling another king “God” Psalm 45 1 My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer. 2 Thou art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured into thy lips: therefore God hath blessed thee for ever. 3 Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty. 4 And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things. 5 Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; whereby the people fall under thee. 6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. 7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 8 All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad. 9 Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir. 10 Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house; 11 So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him. The psalmist even says worship him because that is common with a king

So Hezekiah was “Almighty God?”

Seriously?

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Country boy @ Aug. 03 2009,14:09)

So Hezekiah was “Almighty God?” Seriously?

CB,

Hezekiah means “Mighty God” why did you ask if it means Almighty GOD?

To understand Isaiah 9:6 you need to know the scriptures and who they speak of and when. Relating Jesus to everything you agree with, is not a spiritualy acceptable method.

[Country boy]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 03 2009,14:15)

Quote (Country boy @ Aug. 03 2009,14:09) So Hezekiah was “Almighty God?” Seriously? CB, Hezekiah means “Mighty God” why did you ask if it means Almighty GOD? To understand Isaiah 9:6 you need to know the scriptures and who they speak of and when. Relating Jesus to everything you agree with, is not a spiritualy acceptable method.

Hezekiah means “God gives strength”

More specifically, “Yahweh strengthens”

So my previous question remains unanswered.

http://www.behindthename.com/name/hezekiah

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Country boy @ Aug. 03 2009,14:19)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 03 2009,14:15) Quote (Country boy @ Aug. 03 2009,14:09) So Hezekiah was “Almighty God?” Seriously? CB, Hezekiah means “Mighty God” why did you ask if it means Almighty GOD? To understand Isaiah 9:6 you need to know the scriptures and who they speak of and when. Relating Jesus to everything you agree with, is not a spiritualy acceptable method. Hezekiah means “God gives strength” More specifically, “Yahweh strengthens” So my previous question remains unanswered. http://www.behindthename.com/name/hezekiah

Hezekiah (or Ezekias) (Hebrew: חִזְקִיָּ֫הוּ Ḥizqiyyāhu, Khizkiyahu; or יְחִזְקִיָּ֫הוּ Yəḥizqiyyāhu, Y'khizkiyahu; “YHWH Mighty God, or The Might of God”; compare Ezekiel) was the 13th king of the Kingdom of Judah.

You just want to believe what you see, instead of what is actually before you. Jesus was never called Mighty God but Hezekiah's name is that, Jesus was never called Prince of Peace, Hezekiah was. Why do you want to take away what God gave Hezekiah? Jesus doesn't need what belongs to Hezekiah to remain The Christ.

[NickHassan]

Hi BD,
Those islamic glasses are like looking though the ends of milk bottles.
No wonder you can't see much.

[Author]

Posts