What do you think this text says about the deity of Christ?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

DNB

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2019
4,199
1,370
113
Toronto
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
mmm John Burgon, the same Anglican that attempted to defend the authenticity of the last 12 verses of Mark 16. When these verses were never found in any early manuscript of Mark. You are right, I'm not impressed and you can keep your precious source as your truth.

As I already said,
Instead of God, they used the word ‘He,’ ‘Who’ or ‘Which’ instead. Some examples, even from your fellow Trinitarians....they do get it right many times I have to admit...

NIV 1984 edition - “HE appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit...”

NASB 1995 edition - “HE WHO was revealed in the flesh, was vindicated in the Spirit...”

RSV - “HE was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit...”

ESV 2001 - “HE (R10) was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit...” Footnote 10 - Greek Who; some manuscripts God; others Which.

Holman Standard 2003 - “HE was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit”

ISV (International Standard Version) - “In flesh was HE revealed to sight, Kept righteous by the Spirit's might”

Catholic Douay-Rheims 1582 - “And evidently great is the mystery of godliness WHICH was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared unto angels,”

Catholic Douay 1950 - "great is the mystery of godliness: WHICH was manifested in the flesh"

St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 - “HE was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit...”

Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 - “HE was made visible in the flesh, justified in the Spirit...”

Catholic Public Domain Version 2009 - "this mystery of piety, which was manifested in the flesh"

Besides, you are also missing the main point, it was Jesus that was seen by angels, given glory by his Father etc... his Father as YHWH never gave himself a human body and then gave glory to it....how sick is that...unless you invent impossible and imaginary processes like incarnation and the hypostatic union of two natures dwelling in one vessel and kept separate, mutually exclusive.

To force YHWH into a human body, to make him have his own divine nature plus a human nature, to fit a sick pagan theory that is a mystery and a lie. This mocks my Yahshua, Lord and Savior and my Creator, YHWH. It brings Yahshua, the Son of YHWH of no consequence or significance, and mocks his Father's role and power and influence on his Son to bring salvation to us all, who is also my YHWH.

It would be interesting to know who you pray to, and it must be difficult at times to keep it all straight with all this stuff going on, of dual-200% natures housed inside one living human body, walking around 2000 years ago, and as a god-man saviour, as God the Son, and God the Father, and a separate personality for YHWH's own Spirit?

just saying....

APAK
What do you mean 'just saying', you just destroyed him! That was an excellent, sound and insightful exposition of the fundamental deficiencies, absurdities, and blasphemies of trinitarian theology. They will never address a single point that you made.
Unfortunately, and not to sound abusive, but these two specifically @justbyfaith and @Enoch111, are the epitomes of bias and indoctrination, and thus, you'll bang your head against the wall attempting to have a dialectically sound discussion with them. I'm sure that you've realized that.
They both incessantly and indicatively, make their appeals and establish their predication based on spurious sources, and cite them as though they were authoritative. And again, ignoring or denying the main fundaments of the argument, that is, the entire implausability of it's Ontology, Christology and Soteriology, and thus, ultimate offense to God on so many levels.
Unless you're doing this as either a personal excercise, or for others who may come across this thread, expect both obstinance and nonsense to ensue from the these two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: APAK and tigger 2

DNB

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2019
4,199
1,370
113
Toronto
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Well put together, as 2 of my 3 viable and sound arguments I was going to offer and you wrote them more eloquently.....I was also going to offer my least favorite, 3rd option, although a sound solution none the less. Similar to your use and meaning of 'Lord' as you wrote, by replacing 'God' as 'god' that more accurately represents this verse in John. Christ, the Son of God as the god to Thomas, the true representative of the source of power, YHWH. And that his Father saved him with his resurrection from the dead.

In Christ, for the glory of our Father,

APAK
@tigger 2 ...and I might add to @APAK 's supplement, is that contextually speaking, Thomas, who only a week earlier did not even believe that Jesus was the Messiah, let alone God, that simply due to a human resurrection would make such a leap of induction? In other words, he was fully aware of Lazarus', Jaruis' daughter, the widow from Nain's son, the Shunnamite and Sarepta boy's, etc.. resurrections, therefore, simply seeing Jesus alive after his death does not warrant such an assertion.

Plus, we would expect either a mutual exclamation, or an expression of awe from those around him, due to Thomas' declaration. Or, at least a confirmation from the narrator of such an extraordinary claim. Clearly the immediate audience and the author, did not perceive Thomas' remark as an ascription of deity to Jesus.

Therefore, yes, your exegesis on the significance of Thomas' usage of the word theos in this verse, are both more culturally viable, and theologically sound, than a trinitarian interpretation, ...obviously.

...sorry tigger2, I just read your 'part 1' where you made the first point already.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: APAK and tigger 2

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@APAK,

I would only point out that Isaiah 9:6 shows clearly that the son that was given shall have the names, among other things, of The Mighty God (see also Psalm 50:1 (kjv)) and the everlasting Father.

Isa 9:6, 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.

Psa 50:1, [[A Psalm of Asaph.]] The mighty God, even the LORD, hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof.

Thus the concept of the hypostatic union (which is sound doctrine, btw) is not so far-fetched as you may have previously thought.

Most assuredly, I know that there are arguments against this and that people often try to change the wording of this scripture (Isaiah 9:6) in order to make it not say what it plainly does teach.

But I would say that 2 Timothy 4:3-4 is what is here coming into play.

2Ti 4:2, Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
2Ti 4:3, For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4, And they shall turn away their ears from the truth,...

Notice that it here says to preach the word; not to preach arguments against the concepts that the word clearly teaches when you accept it as the word of the Lord and take it at face value. In fact, to do that would be to become one of the false teachers of whom the reprobate mind will seek after with itching ears.
 
Last edited:

Taken

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Feb 6, 2018
24,509
12,929
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What do you think this text says about the deity of Christ?
^ OP
[8] But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
[9] Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

That - the:
Son.......Lord
Father....God
Power.....Almighty
are:
ONE
Devine, Harmonious, Righteous, Authorative, Holy Lord God Himself, Above and Before All of His Creations and Makings.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
They both incessantly and indicatively, make their appeals and establish their predication based on spurious sources, and cite them as though they were authoritative.

Apparently, in your sight, the King James Version of the Bible, as a source of truth, is both spurious and unauthoritative (see post #423 (What do you think this text says about the deity of Christ?)).

@tigger 2 ...and I might add to @APAK 's supplement, is that contextually speaking, Thomas, who only a week earlier did not even believe that Jesus was the Messiah, let alone God, that simply due to a human resurrection would make such a leap of induction? In other words, he was fully aware of Lazarus', Jaruis' daughter, the widow from Nain's son, the Shunnamite and Sarepta boy's, etc.. resurrections, therefore, simply seeing Jesus alive after his death does not warrant such an assertion.

Are you so willfully blind that you do not see Jesus' resurrection of other people as evidence that He is God? Who else but God has power over life and death?

But Jesus did not only raise other people; He raised Himself from the dead (John 10:18)! This is something that only God can do.
 
Last edited:

APAK

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2018
8,853
9,590
113
Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What do you mean 'just saying', you just destroyed him! That was an excellent, sound and insightful exposition of the fundamental deficiencies, absurdities, and blasphemies of trinitarian theology. They will never address a single point that you made.
Unfortunately, and not to sound abusive, but these two specifically @justbyfaith and @Enoch111, are the epitomes of bias and indoctrination, and thus, you'll bang your head against the wall attempting to have a dialectically sound discussion with them. I'm sure that you've realized that.
They both incessantly and indicatively, make their appeals and establish their predication based on spurious sources, and cite them as though they were authoritative. And again, ignoring or denying the main fundaments of the argument, that is, the entire implausability of it's Ontology, Christology and Soteriology, and thus, ultimate offense to God on so many levels.
Unless you're doing this as either a personal excercise, or for others who may come across this thread, expect both obstinance and nonsense to ensue from the these two.
Well DNB I do believe you are bold and thus your initial statement to me, and this is what I also truly believe as you I see ,and even @tigger 2 with his related comments....I just once in awhile as the Spirit actually compels me to say it like it is with blinding naked truth.....thank you and I give glory to our Father that we follow and live for him with his glorious Son,our brother and our Lord..Amen
 
  • Like
Reactions: DNB

APAK

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2018
8,853
9,590
113
Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@APAK,

I would only point out that Isaiah 9:6 shows clearly that the son that was given shall have the names, among other things, of The Mighty God (see also Psalm 50:1 (kjv)) and the everlasting Father.

Isa 9:6, 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.

Psa 50:1, [[A Psalm of Asaph.]] The mighty God, even the LORD, hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof.

Thus the concept of the hypostatic union (which is sound doctrine, btw) is not so far-fetched as you may have previously thought.

Most assuredly, I know that there are arguments against this and that people often try to change the wording of this scripture (Isaiah 9:6) in order to make it not say what it plainly does teach.

But I would say that 2 Timothy 4:3-4 is what is here coming into play.

2Ti 4:2, Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
2Ti 4:3, For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4, And they shall turn away their ears from the truth,...

Notice that it here says to preach the word; not to preach arguments against the concepts that the word clearly teaches when you accept it as the word of the Lord and take it at face value. In fact, to do that would be to become one of the false teachers of whom the reprobate mind will seek after with itching ears.
This verse of Isaiah 9:6 is not what you understand it to be as I read you words.....let me know if you want my explanation...Blessings..APAK
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This verse of Isaiah 9:6 is not what you understand it to be as I read you words.....let me know if you want my explanation...Blessings..APAK
I understand that you do not take its literal meaning.

As such I count you to be as the liberal scholars who are also devoid of spiritual life since they do not take the word of God and its message of salvation to be authoritative in their lives.

If you have an alternate explanation, it is wise that you subject it to public scrutiny.

I will always take the literal rendering of the word of the Lord over and above the words of those who attempt to explain away its message with arguments; which will be demolished by the weapons of our warfare which are not carnal but mighty in God for the pulling down of strognholds.
 

APAK

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2018
8,853
9,590
113
Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I understand that you do not take its literal meaning.

As such I count you to be as the liberal scholars who are also devoid of spiritual life since they do not take the word of God and its message of salvation to be authoritative in their lives.

If you have an alternate explanation, it is wise that you subject it to public scrutiny.

I will always take the literal rendering of the word of the Lord over and above the words of those who attempt to explain away its message with arguments; which will be demolished by the weapons of our warfare which are not carnal but mighty in God for the pulling down of strognholds.

I actually do read the literal meanings of scripture especially after I've ensured the words in scripture are the most precise and 'best' choice in translation, context and meaning. Something to think about before taking all scripture literally on a whim without any thought. Study and careful analysis are required. No one is perfect, including myself, although I try to do my due diligence, especially with scripture that on first view seems to be out of place.

Back to the verse under study, Isaiah 9:6:

Let me jump into it in the middle without looking at the context at this time. Something I do not usually do.

Jesus Christ is actually called the 'everlasting Father' in many Bibles. There are four valid and sound important reasons and support that says it is not saying this at all. Therefore I cannot take this statement literally. It would be heretic to do so.

The 4 reasons:

1. This first one, you should delight in, because it comes from die-hard serious Trinitarians. And as I've already said in many words I do not believe in any Triune god or Trinity doctrine.

Their summary argument and conclusion is simply this: If Jesus is called the Father it would confound the 'persons' in God. It would make Jesus = Father and that would violate the core belief in the Trinitarian doctrine on who is 'God.'

2. The second reason is taken for Matthew 23:9....do not call anyone on earth father..there is only one Father, who is in heaven.

3. The third reason, and its also shared with these same 'serious' Trinitarians, and it is my view and those of others who have been called heretics throughout history.

'Everlasting Father' should be understood literally as 'father of perpetuity,' that is, one who will be perpetually the father. In Canaanite religion the high god is called 'father of years,' and this title in Hebrew seems to carry a similar intent. It describes one who produces, directs, and is lord over the ages (future ages to come).

In the Old Testament, the Messiah and King was to be known as the 'Son,' not the Father, according to the Davidic Covenant. The covenant said that God would be to the king, a father, and the king would be to Him a son (2 Sam. 7:14). But here in Isaiah the Son is called the Father. The point here is that YHWH who had always enthroned the Davidic kings would produce a Son and come and rule as the Messiah.

4. The 4th reason: Simply, Jesus is the father of the new creation of believers. He is the King and father of us, the head of his ekklesia. As Henry Ford was the father of the model Ford-T. Alexander Bell was the father of the telephone. There is only one that can be the true father of something or someone, and there will never be a substitute.

The 'Father of all future ages' (given by YHWH, his true Father) is then the best translation of the common mistranslated 'everlasting Father' phrase in Isaiah 9:6.

I guess I will stop at this point..

APAK
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
1. This first one, you should delight in, because it comes from die-hard serious Trinitarians. And as I've already said in many words I do not believe in any Triune god or Trinity doctrine.

Their summary argument and conclusion is simply this: If Jesus is called the Father it would confound the 'persons' in God. It would make Jesus = Father and that would violate the core belief in the Trinitarian doctrine on who is 'God.'

I am Oneness to a very great extent (though I do see a distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost so I might be considered Trinitarian in a limited sort of way): you can see my viewpoint on the Trinity in the following thread:

True Trinity.

My pov is clearly preached upon in approximately the first five posts.

2. The second reason is taken for Matthew 23:9....do not call anyone on earth father..there is only one Father, who is in heaven.

Jesus is not on the earth at this time; and even if He were, it would simply be forbidden to call Him Father...that does not mean that He isn't the Father. It would simply mean that His Sonship is exalted over His Fatherhood during His millenial reign; because the 1st Person of the Trinity (He who inhabiteth eternity, Isaiah 57:15) will at that time still be watching over things from His throne in heaven. This does not mean that the 2nd Person is not also the God who created us and therefore also the Father in His Spirit (John 4:23-24, John 14:7-11).

'Everlasting Father' should be understood literally as 'father of perpetuity,' that is, one who will be perpetually the father.

Jesus is perpetually the Father.

4. The 4th reason: Simply, Jesus is the father of the new creation of believers. He is the King and father of us, the head of his ekklesia. As Henry Ford was the father of the model Ford-T. Alexander Bell was the father of the telephone. There is only one that can be the true father of something or someone, and there will never be a substitute.

See Malachi 2:10, there is only one Father. Compare to Hebrews 2:11-13. This substantiates my view rather than refuting it.

The 'Father of all future ages' (given by YHWH, his true Father) is then the best translation of the common mistranslated 'everlasting Father' phrase in Isaiah 9:6.

As I knew you would, you have contested that the rendering of the kjv is inaccurate. While this may suffice to keep you from ever coming to the knowledge of the truth, those of us who are kjv-only and/or kjv-superior in our pov are not going to fall for your shenanigans.

We understand that the way to life is narrow and that there are few who find it (Matthew 7:13-14). And therefore we hold to the "narrow-minded" opinion that the kjv is the inspired and inerrant, authorized version that holds as the primary standard in English for today.
 
Last edited:

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There is one Lord in holy scripture (Ephesians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 8:6). That Lord is the Father (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21). However, no one can say that Jesus is the Lord except by the Holy Ghost (1 Corinthians 12:3), who is the Spirit of truth.
 

APAK

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2018
8,853
9,590
113
Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There is one Lord in holy scripture (Ephesians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 8:6). That Lord is the Father (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21). However, no one can say that Jesus is the Lord except by the Holy Ghost (1 Corinthians 12:3), who is the Spirit of truth.
Ok JBF, your comments are now confusing, deflective, of no substance in many places and really ridiculous. Just in reading your last comment, there are many placed that the KJV has it right over other translations, and there are also serious errors in it as in many translations..I do not discriminate and play with the truth as it come to me. I can now see why some folks have given up on commenting to you....this is not a gang up, I just now know you cannot take my comments seriously and address THEM not just YOURS specifically where you disagree or even agree....

I did get the real take-away though, that you are a Oneness 'Jesus only' believer that teaches erroneous doctrine, as the Trinitarians.

You are a false teacher JBF!

Luke 18:7-8 comes to mind..as we go into the future

APAK
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
there are many placed that the KJV has it right over other translations, and there are also serious errors in it as in many translations..

The kjv is inspired and inerrant. Those who enter in through the narrow gate will believe in this, those who enter through the broad way may disbelieve in it.

I do not discriminate and play with the truth as it come to me.

It appears to me that you do...for you disregard the teaching of the kjv only because it is in contradiction to what you already believe.

I did get the real take-away though, that you are a Oneness 'Jesus only' believer that teaches erroneous doctrine, as the Trinitarians.

I actually believe that there are distinctions between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and that defines me as Trinitarian.

You are a false teacher JBF!

May the Lord abundantly bless you.

(see 1 Corinthians 4:12-13).

(And Acts 24:14 (kjv)).
 
Last edited:

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@APAK,

You have three fingers pointing back at you: you are a false teacher who denies the essential doctrines of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity (I affirm the Trinity).

I was trying to be nice before; so I didn't tell you.
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@APAK,

I would only point out that Isaiah 9:6 shows clearly that the son that was given shall have the names, among other things, of The Mighty God (see also Psalm 50:1 (kjv)) and the everlasting Father.

Isa 9:6, 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.

....

Most assuredly, I know that there are arguments against this and that people often try to change the wording of this scripture (Isaiah 9:6) in order to make it not say what it plainly does teach.


Isaiah 9:6 (part 1)


Many (but not all) trinitarians will tell you that Is. 9:6 proves that Jesus is God.

Is. 9:6 says –

“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 shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” - NASB.

All Christians, I believe, accept this son as being the Christ. Some will tell you that since the meaning of this symbolic name includes the words “Mighty God, Eternal Father,” then Jesus is the Mighty God and the Eternal Father”

But there are at least two other ways this personal name has been interpreted by reputable Bible scholars. (1) The titles within the name (e.g., “Mighty God”) are intended in their secondary, subordinate senses. (2) the titles within the name are meant to praise God the Father, not the Messiah.

First, there is the possibility that the words (or titles) found in the literal meaning of the name apply directly to the Messiah all right but in a subordinate sense. In other words, Christ is “a mighty god” in the same sense that God’s angels were called “gods” and the judges of Israel were called “gods” by God himself (also by Jesus - John 10:34, 35), and Moses was called “a god” by Jehovah himself.

Yes, men and angels were called gods (elohim - Hebrew; theos - Greek) in a proper, but subordinate, sense by Jehovah and his inspired Bible writers (see the DEF and BOWGOD studies). Although they were given this elevated title in a proper sense (not false gods), it was obviously with the clear understanding that it in no way implied a comparison with the Most High, Only True God. (A bank employee calling his boss, the head of the bank, “the president” would certainly not imply an equality of position, power, etc. with “The President” [of the USA].)

The word “god” as understood by those who used that term simply meant a “mighty one” - see Young’s Concordance. In fact the word “Mighty” as found at Is. 9:6 (Gibbor in the original Hebrew) is also applied to the angels at Ps. 103:20 (see a modern concordance such as the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible).

Remember, there was no initial capitalization (or punctuation) in the original Bible manuscripts (or their copies for many hundreds of years thereafter). Therefore, it is strictly up to the personal interpretation of the translator as to when and where he wants to add capitalization in English! Of course, since the words in question at Is. 9:6 are parts of a name, all the major words found there are often capitalized in English (as is done for most other names). For example, Ex. 17:15 - “The-LORD-Is-My Banner” - NKJV, NASB, NLV, and “The LORD is my Banner” - NIV, REB, GNB, and “Under-the- Eternal’s-Banner” - Moffatt. Is. 8:3 - “Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz”, NIV, NKJV, NJB, ETRV, and “Quick-Loot-Fast-Plunder” - GNB. Rev. 19:13 - “the name by which he is called is The Word of God,” most translations.

Therefore, it is not meaningful that ‘God,’ ‘Father,’ etc. are also capitalized in most translations of the name at Is. 9:6. (Trinitarian Dr. James Moffatt, for example, translated this name in Is 9:6 in all lower case letters.)

It is interesting that the ancient translation of the Old Testament that Jesus frequently quoted, the Septuagint Version, renders Is. 9:6: “and his [the Messiah’s] name is called the Angel [ἄγγελος, messenger] of Great Counsel.” (And a footnote in Zondervan’s Edition adds that the Alexandrine text renders it, “Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty One, Potentate, Prince of Peace, Father of the age to come.”) The very early (ca. 160 A.D.) Christian Justin Martyr quoted Is. 9:6 also as “The Angel of mighty counsel” - “Dialogue With Trypho,” ch. LXXVI.




So, just as “Lord” was applied to anyone in authority: angels, masters over servants, husbands, etc., so, too, could “god” be applied to anyone (good or bad) who was considered a “mighty one.” Of course only one person could be called the “Most High God,” or the “Only True God,” or the “Almighty God”!

At any rate, even most trinitarians do not confuse the two separate persons of the Father and the Son. They do not say the Son is the Father. They say the Father and the Son are two separate individual persons who are equally “God”!

Jesus was never called by the title “Father,” and he didn’t want anyone to take the title “Father” (in a spiritual sense, of course) other than his Father, Jehovah, in heaven. (Matt. 23:9) The relationship between Jesus and men (some men, at least) isn’t described as Father and sons but brothers. (Ro. 8:29; Heb. 2:10-18)

Therefore, since we obviously cannot take “Eternal Father” in the literal sense to mean that Jesus is the Father, we cannot take the rest of that same name (esp. ‘Mighty God’) in its literal highest sense and say that Jesus is Mighty God, etc., either.

In addition to the distinct possibility of the use of the secondary subordinate meanings of the titles such as “God/god” as explained by Bible language scholars (see the BOWGOD study), we can see by the actual renderings of some trinitarian Bible translators at Is. 9:6 that they believe such subordinate meanings were intended by the inspired Bible writer.

Instead of “Mighty God,” Dr. James Moffatt translated this part of Is. 9:6 as “a divine hero;” Byington has “Divine Champion;” The New English Bible has “In Battle Godlike;” The Catholic New American Bible (1970 and 1991 revision) renders it “God-Hero;” and the REB says “Mighty Hero.” Even that most-respected of Biblical Hebrew language experts, Gesenius, translated it “mighty hero” - p. 45, Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon.

Also, The NIV Study Bible, in a f.n. for Ps 45:6, tells us:

“In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his ‘splendor and majesty’ (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called ‘god’ as a title of honor [cf. Isa 9:6].” (Bracketed information included in original footnote.)

In addition, Rotherham has rendered “Eternal Father” as “father of progress,” and the New English Bible translates it: “father of a wide realm.”

The above-mentioned Bible translations by trinitarian scholars which apply the words in the name at Is. 9:6 in a subordinate sense directly to Jesus clearly show that they do not believe this scripture implies an equality with Jehovah the Father.


But, some may ask, if ‘a mighty god’ were intended in this name, why is “God” given a capital ‘G’ in most translations of this name?

The answer is that in English translations of names we often find the major words within a name (or title) are capitalized. This is similar to the way book titles, names of buildings, ships, etc. are written in English. ‘The Lord of the Rings,’ ‘The World Trade Center,’ ‘The Empire State Building,’ ‘Allure of the Seas’ (cruise ship), etc., are modern examples.
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Isaiah 9:6 (Part 2)


And second, another way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name is with the understanding that it (as with many, if not most, of the other Israelites’ personal names) does not apply directly to the Messiah but is, instead, a statement praising the Father, Jehovah God.

Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as “my,” “is,” “of,” etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.

For instance, two of the best-known Bible concordances (Young’s and Strong’s) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today’s Dictionary of the Bible) differ on the exact meaning of many Biblical personal names because of those “minor” words which must be added to bring out the intended meaning.

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name “Elimelech” (which is literally just “God King”) means “God of (the) King.” Young’s Analytical Concordance says it means “God is King.” Today’s Dictionary of the Bible says it means “ God his King” - p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982. And an online meaning is given as “My God is the King.” - kveller.com.

I haven’t found any scholar/translator who says the name of Elimelech should be translated with its literal meaning of “God King.” And no scholar ever translates it to mean that Elimelech himself was "God King."

Those missing minor words that the translator must supply at his own discretion can often make a vital difference! - For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in The NIV Study Bible: The name ‘Abram’ “means ‘Exalted Father,’ probably in reference to God (i.e., ‘[God is the] Exalted Father’).” - bracketed information is in the original.

This is why another name the Messiah is to be called by at Jer. 23:6 is rendered, `The LORD [YHWH] IS Our Righteousness' in the following Bibles: RSV; NRSV; NEB; NJB; ESV; JPS (Margolis, ed.); Tanakh; Byington; AT; CEB; GW; LEB; NLT; The Voice; and ASV (footnote). Of course a few other translations render it more literally by calling the Messiah "The LORD [YHWH] Our Righteousness" to help support a `Jesus is God' doctrine. Some of these (such as the NASB, NRSV, RSV, ESV, AT, and NEB) actually render the very same name at Jer. 33:16 as "The LORD [or Jehovah] is Our Righteousness"!

(Unfortunately for "Jesus is Jehovah" advocates, the very same name given to the Messiah at Jer. 23:16 is given to a city at Jer. 33:16.)


But perhaps most instructive of all is the name given to the prophet’s child in Isaiah 8:3 shortly before his giving the name found in Is. 9:6.

Is. 8:3

Maher-shalal-hash-baz: Literally, “spoil speeds prey hastes” or “swift booty speedy prey.” Translated by various Bible scholars as: “In making speed to the spoil he hasteneth the prey” - - “swift [is] booty, speedy [is] prey” - - “the spoil speeded, the prey hasteth” - - “Speeding for spoil, hastening for plunder” - - “There will soon be looting and stealing”- - “Speeding is the spoil, Hastening is the prey” - - “The Looting Will Come Quickly; the Prey Will Be Easy” - - “Take sway the spoils with speed, quickly take the prey” - - “Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey” - - “Swift the Spoils of War and Speedy Comes the Attacker” - - “Make haste to plunder! Hurry to the spoil!” - - “Make haste to the spoil; fall upon the prey.” - - “Your enemies will soon be destroyed.’” - TLB. - -They hurry to get what they can. They run to pick up what is left.” - NLV.

(Notice the added words required to understand the intended meaning of this multiple-word name. This is standard with multiple-word names - except, of course, for most translations of Is. 9:6. - - - I wonder why!)



And John Gill wrote:

“‘hasten to seize the prey, and to take away the spoil.’ Some translate it, ‘in hastening the prey, the spoiler hastens’; perhaps it may be better rendered, ‘hasten to the spoil, hasten to the prey.’”

Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated in the footnote as:

“And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel IS God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace” - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.)

to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.

The Leeser Bible also translates it:

“Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace”

Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith & Goodspeed) says:

“Wonderful Counselor IS God Almighty, Father forever, Prince of Peace.”

From the Is. 9:6 footnote in the trinity-supporting NET Bible:


".... some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow ['called'] refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, 'and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."'"

Of course it could also be honestly translated:

“The Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God Is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace.”

And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:

[1] “The Mighty God is planning grace;
[2] The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler.”

This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism (“Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz” means [a]“quick to the plunder; swift to the spoil” - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [a]“For unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given.” It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.

So it is clear, even to a few trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not necessarily imply that Jesus is Jehovah God.
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
the two separate persons of the Father and the Son.

They are distinct not separate according to the creeds.

Therefore, since we obviously cannot take “Eternal Father” in the literal sense to mean that Jesus is the Father,

We most certainly can. See John 4:23-24 (kjv), John 14:7-11 (kjv); where we are taught that the Father is the Spirit of Jesus..

Instead of “Mighty God,” Dr. James Moffatt translated this part of Is. 9:6 as “a divine hero;” Byington has “Divine Champion;” The New English Bible has “In Battle Godlike;” The Catholic New American Bible (1970 and 1991 revision) renders it “God-Hero;” and the REB says “Mighty Hero.” Even that most-respected of Biblical Hebrew language experts, Gesenius, translated it “mighty hero” - p. 45, Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon.

Another reason why I believe that holding to the kjv as authoritative above other translations may indeed be essential to your salvation.

“In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his ‘splendor and majesty’ (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called ‘god’ as a title of honor [cf. Isa 9:6].” (Bracketed information included in original footnote.)

Remember, there was no initial capitalization (or punctuation) in the original Bible manuscripts (or their copies for many hundreds of years thereafter). Therefore, it is strictly up to the personal interpretation of the translator as to when and where he wants to add capitalization in English! Of course, since the words in question at Is. 9:6 are parts of a name, all the major words found there are often capitalized in English (as is done for most other names). For example, Ex. 17:15 - “The-LORD-Is-My Banner” - NKJV, NASB, NLV, and “The LORD is my Banner” - NIV, REB, GNB, and “Under-the- Eternal’s-Banner” - Moffatt. Is. 8:3 - “Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz”, NIV, NKJV, NJB, ETRV, and “Quick-Loot-Fast-Plunder” - GNB. Rev. 19:13 - “the name by which he is called is The Word of God,” most translations.

So one can render 1 Corinthians 8:6,

But to us there is but one god, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

However, that would put it in contradiction to the verse previous to it as it really is:

1Co 8:5, For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated in the footnote as:

Rejecting the kjv for liberal scholarship has led to many a heresy.

From the Is. 9:6 footnote in the trinity-supporting NET Bible:

The NET is not Trinitarian by any means.
 
Last edited:

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There is one Lord in holy scripture (Ephesians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 8:6). And that Lord is the Father (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21). Yet no one can say that Jesus is the Lord except by the Holy Ghost (1 Corinthians 12:3).

Think about it.

This has not been disputed with any kind of scripture in all of the times that I have mentioned it.
 

DNB

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2019
4,199
1,370
113
Toronto
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Well DNB I do believe you are bold and thus your initial statement to me, and this is what I also truly believe as you I see ,and even @tigger 2 with his related comments....I just once in awhile as the Spirit actually compels me to say it like it is with blinding naked truth.....thank you and I give glory to our Father that we follow and live for him with his glorious Son,our brother and our Lord..Amen
Agreed!
...yes, the glory of His son, I do believe, is a profound mystery, that you delineated very accurately, I would say. And thus, there is an ardency on our parts to convey this in a forthright and uncompromising manner, for it does elude many. Therefore, the evidential bastardization of God's wisdom and ontology defined in theologies that both deify men, and incarnate God, are unacceptable and an egregious offense to both God and man. And thus, must be denounced in an assertive and austere manner. I truly believe.
Thanks!
 
Last edited:

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Agreed!
...yes, the glory of His son, I do believe, is a profound mystery, that you delineated very accurately, I would say. And thus, there is an ardency on our parts to convey this in a forthright and uncompromising manner, for it does elude many. Therefore, the evidential bastardization of God's wisdom and ontology defined in theologies that deify men and incarnate God, are unacceptable and an egregious offense to both God and man, and must be denounced in an assertive and austere manner. I truly believe.
Thanks!
I simply pray that the Holy Spirit may open your eyes to see the truth.