- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 1 day, 9 hours ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 20 2012,11:36) Hi,
Jesus Christ is the Son of God, The Christ and the Word.Was Jesus of Nazareth always the son?
NO
Was he always the Word
NO
Was he always the Christ
NO
Nick,The problem with your concluding that Yahshua Messiah “IS” LITERALLY Father Yahweh's word is that Scripture does not say or teach that he “IS”. Scripture certainly does say and teach that Yahshua “IS” LITERALLY the Messiah and he “IS” LITERALLY Father Yahweh's son, but it never says and teaches that Yahshua LITERALLY “IS” Father Yahweh's ACTUAL word.
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ April 20 2012,10:09) Quote (jammin @ April 19 2012,19:11) Quote (kerwin @ April 19 2012,15:15) Quote (jammin @ April 19 2012,09:32) Quote (Ed J @ April 19 2012,12:32) Hi Jammin, In the beginning: the HolySpirit was with God and was God; God's HolySpirit is now given to us.
“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out MY SPIRIT upon all flesh;” (Joel 2:28)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
edj,
that's not what the bible says
make your own version LOL
Jammin,Since when have you questioned that the Spirit of God is God?
The first few verses of Genesis do say the Spirit and God are both there.
you words are useless.i believe what john said.
Revelation 19:13Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
13 And he was clothed in a cloak sprinkled with blood; and the name of him was called The Son of God. [And he was clothed in a cloth sprinkled with blood; and the name of him was called The word, or Son, of God.]study hard boy
jammin,Quite interesting that you brought up the John Wycliffe translation of Revelation 19:13, since the original John Wycliffe English translation reads:
“And he was clothid in a cloth spreynt with blood; and the name of hym was clepid The sone of God.”
Note that the words in brackets indicate that these words were not in the original John Wycliffe English translation, but were later added by another person. The majority of the translations of this verse read:
“He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God” (Revelation 19:13).
Makes one wonder if this name/title that Yahshua is said to be called by should have been more accurately translated “Son of *Yahweh” or “Word of *Yahweh”, since it is quite obvious that the English words 'son' and 'word' have two completely different meanings altogether!
BTW, It is YOUR words that you have posted in this forum that I find quite USELESS, but the source that you posted I have found quite telling.
Did Yahshua Create Or Pre-exist His Birth?
…
I would also like to point out that Revelation 19:13 in William Tyndale's English translation is originally translated as follows:“And he was clothed with a vesture dipt in bloud and and hys name ys called the worde of God.”
This would agree with the majority of translations of this verse, but it certainly does not say Yahshua IS the word of Yahweh in a LITERAL sense.
Just like when when Abraham's name “was called Abram”, it didn't mean he was really “Abram”?
It's sometimes fun to read the silly things people come up with in an effort to force the scriptures to teach a doctrine they really don't teach.
If “his NAME IS CALLED the Son” wouldn't change the fact that Jesus IS the Son, then “his NAME IS CALLED the Word” shouldn't change the fact that Jesus IS the Word of God because he is God's main spokesman.
And just as being called “Son” doesn't make Jesus EVERY MENTION of the word “son” in scripture, being called “the Word” doesn't mean Jesus is EVERY MENTION of the word “word” in scripture.
But certain “sons” apply to Jesus – and certain “words” do too.
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ April 20 2012,02:45)
kerwin,I'm not interested in participating in that thread, since it is quite obvious that you are intermingling Greek mythological thought with Hebrew in accordance with your response to me on this matter.
Frank,You act like a fool, just as Job's wife did, by blinding yourself and so denying the Word of God.
Do you believe that Scripture erred by translating Sheol to the Greek Netherworld Hades?
The original Scripture using the name of the Hebrew land of the dead as the destination of the soul.
Psalm 16:10
New American Standard Bible (NASB)10 For You will not abandon my soul to [a]Sheol;
Nor will You allow Your [c]Holy One to [d]undergo decay.
Footnotes:Psalm 16:10 I.e. the nether world
Psalm 16:10 Lit give
Psalm 16:10 Or godly one
Psalm 16:10 Or see corruption or the pitPeter quoting Psalms using the Greek name of the netherworld.
Acts 2:27
New American Standard Bible (NASB)27 BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES,
NOR [a]ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO [c]UNDERGO DECAY.
Footnotes:Acts 2:27 Lit give
Acts 2:27 Or devout or pious
Acts 2:27 Lit see corruptionAnd then it uses Tartarus for the lowest Sheol
2 Peter 2:4
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)4For if God messengers who sinned did not spare, but with chains of thick gloom, having cast [them] down to Tartarus, did deliver [them] to judgment, having been reserved,
Two passages speaking of the lowest Sheol, wherein the rich man entered.
Deuteronomy 32:22
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)22For a fire hath been kindled in Mine anger, And it burneth unto Sheol — the lowest, And consumeth earth and its increase, And setteth on fire foundations of mountains.
Psalm 86:13
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)13For Thy kindness [is] great toward me, And Thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest Sheol.
Whatever you have been taught by men; it is clear there is a land of the dead with a lower level.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 20 2012,07:05) Just like when when Abraham's name “was called Abram”, it didn't mean he was really “Abram”? It's sometimes fun to read the silly things people come up with in an effort to force the scriptures to teach a doctrine they really don't teach.
If “his NAME IS CALLED the Son” wouldn't change the fact that Jesus IS the Son, then “his NAME IS CALLED the Word” shouldn't change the fact that Jesus IS the Word of God because he is God's main spokesman.
And just as being called “Son” doesn't make Jesus EVERY MENTION of the word “son” in scripture, being called “the Word” doesn't mean Jesus is EVERY MENTION of the word “word” in scripture.
But certain “sons” apply to Jesus – and certain “words” do too.
Mike,You have blinders on or you would realize you have preconceived idea that the Word is a person.
Neither the Word or the Father of many nations are persons though person can embody one or both.
Take your blinders off and then you will see to stay on the path.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 20 2012,12:05) Just like when when Abraham's name “was called Abram”, it didn't mean he was really “Abram”? It's sometimes fun to read the silly things people come up with in an effort to force the scriptures to teach a doctrine they really don't teach.
If “his NAME IS CALLED the Son” wouldn't change the fact that Jesus IS the Son, then “his NAME IS CALLED the Word” shouldn't change the fact that Jesus IS the Word of God because he is God's main spokesman.
And just as being called “Son” doesn't make Jesus EVERY MENTION of the word “son” in scripture, being called “the Word” doesn't mean Jesus is EVERY MENTION of the word “word” in scripture.
But certain “sons” apply to Jesus – and certain “words” do too.
Mike,The fact still remains, and will for ever remain, that Yahshua was not LITERALLY his and our Father Yahweh's word that was a pre-existent being with his and our Father Yahweh in the beginning as “a god” as you attempt to falsely teach in your attempting to falsely teach “Jesus IS the Word”. Yahshua most certainly IS LITERALLY the spokesman of His and our Father Yahweh's word in this last time period as Hebrews 1:1-2 makes quite clear, but he is not LITERALLY his and our Father Yahweh's word. This is made quite clear in Yahshua saying:
“For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak” (Yahchanan [John] 12:49).
Quote (kerwin @ April 20 2012,12:18) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ April 20 2012,02:45)
kerwin,I'm not interested in participating in that thread, since it is quite obvious that you are intermingling Greek mythological thought with Hebrew in accordance with your response to me on this matter.
Frank,You act like a fool, just as Job's wife did, by blinding yourself and so denying the Word of God.
Do you believe that Scripture erred by translating Sheol to the Greek Netherworld Hades?
The original Scripture using the name of the Hebrew land of the dead as the destination of the soul.
Psalm 16:10
New American Standard Bible (NASB)10 For You will not abandon my soul to [a]Sheol;
Nor will You allow Your [c]Holy One to [d]undergo decay.
Footnotes:Psalm 16:10 I.e. the nether world
Psalm 16:10 Lit give
Psalm 16:10 Or godly one
Psalm 16:10 Or see corruption or the pitPeter quoting Psalms using the Greek name of the netherworld.
Acts 2:27
New American Standard Bible (NASB)27 BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES,
NOR [a]ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO [c]UNDERGO DECAY.
Footnotes:Acts 2:27 Lit give
Acts 2:27 Or devout or pious
Acts 2:27 Lit see corruptionAnd then it uses Tartarus for the lowest Sheol
2 Peter 2:4
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)4For if God messengers who sinned did not spare, but with chains of thick gloom, having cast [them] down to Tartarus, did deliver [them] to judgment, having been reserved,
Two passages speaking of the lowest Sheol, wherein the rich man entered.
Deuteronomy 32:22
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)22For a fire hath been kindled in Mine anger, And it burneth unto Sheol — the lowest, And consumeth earth and its increase, And setteth on fire foundations of mountains.
Psalm 86:13
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)13For Thy kindness [is] great toward me, And Thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest Sheol.
Whatever you have been taught by men; it is clear there is a land of the dead with a lower level.
kerwin,It is you who acts a fool in continuing to teach you Greek philosophy here in this thread after one of the moderators clearly made it known that you are off topic in discussing this here in this thread.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 20 2012,10:34) Frank, I wonder if it did truly say “his name is called the Son of God”, would people like Marty still try to claim that he isn't actually the Son of God, it's just that his name is CALLED that – like they do with “Word of God”?
Hi Mike:When did I ever deny that Jesus is the Son of God?
In Isaiah his name is called wonderful, counselor, Mighty God, the Everlasting Father.
Is he “the Everlasting Father”, Mike or is it as he said: “he who has seen me has seen the Father”?
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (terraricca @ April 17 2012,02:38) Quote (942767 @ April 16 2012,18:12) Quote (terraricca @ April 15 2012,14:02) Quote (942767 @ April 15 2012,19:03) Quote (terraricca @ April 15 2012,11:40) Quote (942767 @ April 15 2012,18:04) Hi: Quote Hbr 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Quote Hbr 1:1 ¶ God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hbr 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
In John 1:1 the Word pertains to Jesus, but no, the Word is not Jesus but is that which God has spoken and embodies His plan, and this plan demonstrates God's character.
Quote Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Quote 1Jo 1:1 ¶ That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 1Jo 1:2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen [it], and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
Love in Christ,
Marty
Martyyou have overlooked many scriptures why
?
Hi T:I haven't ignored any scriptures. I have selected some scriptures which show that “the Word” in John 1:1 is not Jesus as a pre-existent sentient person as has mistakenly been taught, but is what God has spoken and that it embodies His plan.
Again, this is to show that “the Word” in John 1:1 pertains to Jesus but is not Jesus as a pre-existent, sentient person.
My interest is that both you and I teach the truth.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Martythis would be one ;Jn 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Jn 1:15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ ”about whom you think John and John the bpt talking
Hi T:The Word in John 1:1 and in John 1:14 is Logos which is defined as the Word that God has spoken. He spoke from the beginning of the coming Messiah beginning with Genesis here as the seed of the woman:
Quote Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. In Exodus 12, we have the scriptures pertaining to the passover and the passover lamb which is symbolic of Jesus.
There are many other scriptures in the OT which speak either symbolically or prophetically of Jesus.
And so, to restate what I have already stated, “the Logos” is what God had spoken pertaining to Jesus and it embodies His plan. In John 1:14 what God had stated pertaining to Jesus became flesh. As the bible relates, the Holy Ghost overshadowed the virgin Mary, and she conceived, and Jesus was born into the world.
“The Word” is that which God has spoken. In Hebrews 1 the scripture states that in these last days “God has spoken to us through His Son”. What God has spoken is the Word of God
Love in Christ,
Marty
Martyso God gives legs to his words
Hi T:What does Hebrews 1 state?
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (mikeboll64 @ April 20 2012,12:05) Just like when when Abraham's name “was called Abram”, it didn't mean he was really “Abram”? It's sometimes fun to read the silly things people come up with in an effort to force the scriptures to teach a doctrine they really don't teach.
If “his NAME IS CALLED the Son” wouldn't change the fact that Jesus IS the Son, then “his NAME IS CALLED the Word” shouldn't change the fact that Jesus IS the Word of God because he is God's main spokesman.
And just as being called “Son” doesn't make Jesus EVERY MENTION of the word “son” in scripture, being called “the Word” doesn't mean Jesus is EVERY MENTION of the word “word” in scripture.
But certain “sons” apply to Jesus – and certain “words” do too.
Hi MB,
You snigger at those who have seen deeper things?
You prove your reliance is on logic.Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 20 2012,07:48) Good work KW,
Though is TARTARUS said to BE the lowest Sheol?
Nick,Jesus only mentioned two parts of Sheol; and Abraham's Bosom, also called Paradise, has a higher nature than where the rich man went.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 16 2012,14:14) Hi 94,
Indeed he was.
Conceived of the Holy Spirit.
But his monogenes Sonship to God is not shared with Mary.neither can we follow such a sonship
Hi Nick:Please elaborate.
Thanks,
MartyHi ($,
Jesus Christ is the monogenes Son of God.
That sonship is not shared with Mary.He was given the Spirit of sonship at the Jordan just as we can be.
Rom 8.15Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ April 20 2012,07:34) Quote (kerwin @ April 20 2012,12:18)
Frank,You act like a fool, just as Job's wife did, by blinding yourself and so denying the Word of God.
Do you believe that Scripture erred by translating Sheol to the Greek Netherworld Hades?
The original Scripture using the name of the Hebrew land of the dead as the destination of the soul.
Psalm 16:10
New American Standard Bible (NASB)10 For You will not abandon my soul to [a]Sheol;
Nor will You allow Your [c]Holy One to [d]undergo decay.
Footnotes:Psalm 16:10 I.e. the nether world
Psalm 16:10 Lit give
Psalm 16:10 Or godly one
Psalm 16:10 Or see corruption or the pitPeter quoting Psalms using the Greek name of the netherworld.
Acts 2:27
New American Standard Bible (NASB)27 BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES,
NOR [a]ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO [c]UNDERGO DECAY.
Footnotes:Acts 2:27 Lit give
Acts 2:27 Or devout or pious
Acts 2:27 Lit see corruptionAnd then it uses Tartarus for the lowest Sheol
2 Peter 2:4
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)4For if God messengers who sinned did not spare, but with chains of thick gloom, having cast [them] down to Tartarus, did deliver [them] to judgment, having been reserved,
Two passages speaking of the lowest Sheol, wherein the rich man entered.
Deuteronomy 32:22
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)22For a fire hath been kindled in Mine anger, And it burneth unto Sheol — the lowest, And consumeth earth and its increase, And setteth on fire foundations of mountains.
Psalm 86:13
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)13For Thy kindness [is] great toward me, And Thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest Sheol.
Whatever you have been taught by men; it is clear there is a land of the dead with a lower level.
kerwin,It is you who acts a fool in continuing to teach you Greek philosophy here in this thread after one of the moderators clearly made it known that you are off topic in discussing this here in this thread.
Frank,I was pointing out that you are a blind guide because you refuse to acknowledge the truth. You can choose open your eyes or not as you please. I do know that when the blind follow the blind they risk falling into a snare of the evil one.
You need to take those blinders off for tunnel vision can cause you to fall into the Obstacle's traps.
The credibility of a witness is relevant to any topic.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 20 2012,07:59) Hi KW,
Then do you KNOW if it is part of Sheol?
Nick,I am confident that the writers of Scriptures knew what they were doing when they used Tartarus; a part of Hades.
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ April 20 2012,10:09) Quote (jammin @ April 19 2012,19:11) Quote (kerwin @ April 19 2012,15:15) Quote (jammin @ April 19 2012,09:32) Quote (Ed J @ April 19 2012,12:32) Hi Jammin, In the beginning: the HolySpirit was with God and was God; God's HolySpirit is now given to us.
“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out MY SPIRIT upon all flesh;” (Joel 2:28)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
edj,
that's not what the bible says
make your own version LOL
Jammin,Since when have you questioned that the Spirit of God is God?
The first few verses of Genesis do say the Spirit and God are both there.
you words are useless.i believe what john said.
Revelation 19:13Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
13 And he was clothed in a cloak sprinkled with blood; and the name of him was called The Son of God. [And he was clothed in a cloth sprinkled with blood; and the name of him was called The word, or Son, of God.]study hard boy
jammin,Quite interesting that you brought up the John Wycliffe translation of Revelation 19:13, since the original John Wycliffe English translation reads:
“And he was clothid in a cloth spreynt with blood; and the name of hym was clepid The sone of God.”
Note that the words in brackets indicate that these words were not in the original John Wycliffe English translation, but were later added by another person. The majority of the translations of this verse read:
“He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God” (Revelation 19:13).
Makes one wonder if this name/title that Yahshua is said to be called by should have been more accurately translated “Son of *Yahweh” or “Word of *Yahweh”, since it is quite obvious that the English words 'son' and 'word' have two completely different meanings altogether!
BTW, It is YOUR words that you have posted in this forum that I find quite USELESS, but the source that you posted I have found quite telling.
Did Yahshua Create Or Pre-exist His Birth?
…
the meaning of the verse is that the name Word refers to the son of GOD!
that's what the bible says.not the father or the HS.
read well boy LOL
Quote (942767 @ April 20 2012,12:42) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 20 2012,10:34) Frank, I wonder if it did truly say “his name is called the Son of God”, would people like Marty still try to claim that he isn't actually the Son of God, it's just that his name is CALLED that – like they do with “Word of God”?
Hi Mike:When did I ever deny that Jesus is the Son of God?
In Isaiah his name is called wonderful, counselor, Mighty God, the Everlasting Father.
Is he “the Everlasting Father”, Mike or is it as he said: “he who has seen me has seen the Father”?
Love in Christ,
MartyI think it is so funny how Mike continuously gets owned on the very forum that he co-moderates!
Does Isayah 9:6 Proclaim Yahshua To Be Yahweh?
Does Isaiah 9:6 Claim That “Jesus is God”?JPS version, done in 1917. The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text: A New Translation. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America reads as follows:
“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 (See END NOTE) -Abi-ad-sar-shalom.”
The 1985, and the revised e-edition of 1997, render Is. 9:5b as:
“… he has been named “The Mighty God is planning grace (d);
The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler.”(d) = as in 25:1
Many question why the the JPS 1917 transliterate this portion of the passage as opposed to translating it. The reason is quite obvious. Christian translations have traditionally understood this prophecy to refer to “Jesus”, and then used this quite complicated name as a series of messianic titles. The JPS wanted to avoid
this, and to emphasize that this is a (real or symbolic) personal name. Just
like “Jonathan” is not translated “Yahweh-has-given” in the A.K.J.V. of the Bible. The A.K.J.V. does not translate “Immanuel” in 7:14 and etc. as “God-is-with-us”.For not having a better explanation of this passage, I have on a number of occasions in the past explained that the A.K.J.V. reads “… his name shall be CALLED …”, not that his name IS all of these names. This passage is worded in a future tense. Understanding this passage as a future prophecy concerning Yahshua, would this not stand true? Is he not given all of these attributive names/titles at this time? None of these are his GIVEN name (singular) though. There was only one name (“… for there is NONE OTHER NAME under heaven GIVEN among men …” Acts 4:12) GIVEN to him at birth.
A messenger (“malak, angel”) of Yahweh conveyed to Yahseph [Joseph] that he was to call his name Yahshua and he did as the messenger of Yahweh had told him.
“And [Yahseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name YAHSHUA. (Matthew 1:25)
The name Yahshua was GIVEN to him by Father Yahweh which was conveyed through His messenger.
“Wherefore Yahweh also has highly exalted him, and GIVEN him a name which is above every name: …” (Philippians 2:9)
Father Yahweh Is Our Supreme Redeemer
The Name YAHshua means 'YAHweh Is Redeemer'. Yahshua came in the Name of our Heavenly Father and Creator (Yahchanan [John] 5:43). Father Yahweh is our Supreme Redeemer THROUGH his son Yahshua. Yahshua said “No man comes unto the Father, but by me.” (Yahchanan [John] 14:6). Yahshua is our advocate with Father Yahweh (1 John 2:1). He is our mediator with Father Yahweh (I Timothy 2:5).
END NOTE
The Hebrew for “mighty god” in Isaiah 6:9 is gibbor el, which is nearly the same Hebrew as the name of the angel Gabriel.
The Net Bible has this interesting note on the title gibbor el (“mighty God”):
“probably an attributive adjective (“mighty God”), though one might translate “God is a warrior” or “God is mighty.” Since this title is apparently used later (10:21, but cf. Hos. 3:5) for God, some have understood it as pointing to the king's deity. Others argue that the title portrays the king as God's representative on the battlefield, whom God empowers in a supernatural way (see Hayes and Irvine, Isaiah, 181-82). The latter sense seems more likely in the original context of the prophecy. Having read the NT, we might in retrospect interpret this title as indicating the coming king's deity, but it is unlikely that Isaiah or his audience would have understood the title in such a bold way. Ps 45:6 addresses the Davidic king as “God” because he ruled and fought as God's representative on earth. Ancient Near Eastern art and literature picture gods training kings for battle, bestowing special weapons, and intervening in battle. According to Egyptian propaganda, the Hittites described Ramses II as follows: “No man is he who is among us, It is Seth great-of-strength, Baal in person; Not deeds of man are these his doings, They are of one who is unique.” (See M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2:67) Isa. 9:6 probably envisions a similar kind of response when friends and foes alike look at the Davidic king in full battle regalia. When the king's enemies oppose him on the battlefield, they are, as it were, fighting against God himself.”
Notice that the NetBible scholars are Trinitarians, yet they are realistic and fair minded enough to recognize that gibbor el is not a title of deity. Other scholars agree.
Actually, the passage is not a particularly good one for Trinitarians. It would help the Oneness folks a lot more. The Trinitarian does not regard Jesus as the Father, yet the passage says he shall be called “everlasting father.” The Trinitarian has to do all sorts of twisting to insist that “gibbor el” should be taken as telling us that Jesus is God, but then the next phrase they have to explain away to tell us that he is not the Father.
The following article was obtained from the Assembly of Yahweh (7th Day):
THE MIGHTY EL – THE EVERLASTING FATHER
Isaiah 9:6“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulders: and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, The Mighty God, The Ever lasting Father, The Prince of Peace” (KJV).
It seems that the Name which was to be given to Yahshua, the Son of Yahweh the Father, is a descriptive Name or Title which honors Yahweh. The Messiah came “in his Father's Name” (John 5:43). Below are quotations from several versions of the Bible which help to make clear the meaning of Isa. 9:6.
(Some versions number it as verse 5).The Complete Bible, By Smith and Goodspeed.
“For a child is born to us; and the government will be upon his shoulders; and his name will be called 'Wonderful counselor is God almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace.'”Knox Version
“For our sakes a child is born, to our race a son is given, whose shoulder will bear the septre of princely power. What name shall be given him? Peerless among counsellors, the mighty God, Father of the world to come, the Prince of peace.”The Emphasised Bible
“… And his Name hath been called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, * Father of Futurity **, Prince of Prosperity.”* Footnote by the translator: “el gibbor, as in chapter 10:21”.
** “Father of Progress”.
The Holy Script
ures, by The Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelpheia; 1917, 1945, 1955.
“… And his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi–ad-sar–slalom.” ****** Footnote by the translator: “That is, Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace.”
Holy Bible – Catholic Layman's Edition, Catholic Press Inc., Chicago; 1964.
“… and his name shall be called, Wonderful Counselor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace.”Douay-Rheims Version
“… and his name shall be called, Wonderful Counsellor God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace.”The Leeser Version
“His name shall be called, Wonderful Counselor of the mighty El, of the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, …”This Son was to be given names (or titles) which describe, honor and extol the heavenly Father in his exulted position. It is not that every one of these names describe the person and attributes of the Son to be born. Take the name Eliyah. The meaning is, “Yah is El.” This does not mean that Eliyah was El. Instead, Eliyah describes and reveals who Yahweh is; Yahweh is El. Many other names could be cited. So it is with Isa. 9:6. These names describe the grandeur and glory which the heavenly Father is entitled to receive.
The following was excerpted from: http://www.seekwhatistruth.com/studies….v
Isaiah 9:6: “His Name Shall be Called”
Isa.9:6 reads, “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, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”
Take a long hard look at Isa 9:6. Can you find anywhere in the entire Bible where the Son is called “Wonderful?” Can you find anywhere in the entire Bible where the Son is called “Counselor?” Can you find anywhere in the entire Bible where the Son is called “The mighty God?” Can you find anywhere in the entire Bible where the Son is called “The everlasting Father?” Can you find anywhere in the entire Bible where the Son is called “The Prince of Peace?” Not a one! Why is He never called the names Isaiah said He would be called? Take another long hard look and you will see the word NAME, not names. It is a single name! Oneness, many times have pointed this out to Trinitarians when discussing Mt 28:19, so they should be well aware of the difference.
These five descriptive titles are not really five different names, but are instead, one long, multiple name. Here are a few versions of the Old Testament that recognize this.
The Complete Bible, by Smith and Goodspeed.
“And his name will be called ‘Wonderful counselor is God almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace.’”The Holy Scriptures, by The Jewish Publication Society of America.
“And his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom.” Footnote by the translators: “That is, Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace.”The Leeser Version
“His name is called, Wonderful, counselor of the mighty El, of the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.”
It seems that this name that was given to Yahshua the Son is a descriptive name or title which honors Yahweh His Father. Not unusual since Yahshua, the Son’s name, also honors the Father, meaning Yahweh is salvation. Notice the Jewish Version above, by means of hyphens, fastens them all together into one name or title, which the Messiah is to wear. The attributes that are revealed in this title are ascribed to the Father because, as we’ve said many times, Yahweh accomplishes everything by and through His Son.Other Links To Consider:
Isaiah 9:6 Explained
The Mighty God & Eternal Father
By Craig Bluemel[PDF] Is Jesus “the Mighty God” in Isaiah 9.6?
by Servetus the EvangelicalIsaiah 9:6 The Trinity On Trial
Isaiah 9:6 The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father – A Restoration Light Publication
Isaiah 9:6 (No. 224) – Christian Churches of God
Why does Isaiah 9:6 call Jesus “Mighty God, Everlasting Father”?
Isaiah 9:6 Not Jesus, but Hezekiah
Did Yahshua Create Or Pre-exist His Birth?
It seems that Muslims have more knowledge of Scripture than the average Christian has:
Trinitarian Verses (part 1 of 4): “A Child Will Be Born To Us…Eternal Father, Prince of Peace”
In Isaiah 9:6 and the Old Testament
Answering Christianity…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
