20 Oct 08
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywillNo, look at the wording of the scripture again, it states that the child is a mighty god, not almighty god, for NOWHERE IN THE ENTIRE BIBLICAL CANON IS THE TERM ALMIGHTY GOD USED EXCEPT WITH REFERENCE TO THE FATHER HIMSELF, Satan is even called a god (2 corinthians 4:4) as are the angels (pslam 82:1), it simply means a mighty or divine being.
[b] Isaiah 9:6 The teaching is that the child is the Mighty God. And the Son is the Eternal Father.[/b]
this is evident when we look at the original language, for example, the word “Almighty” is translated from the Hebrew word Shaddai and the Greek word Pantokrator, both words evidently convey the idea of strength or power, however in the prophecy at Isaiah 9:6 concerning the Messiah, the title “Mighty God” is applied to the promised Prince of Peace, this expression, however, translates the Hebrew El Gibbohr, not El Shaddai as in the aforementioned scripture
20 Oct 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAn important test of doctrine which is useful to apply is to ask.. "Did the disciples and Apostles in the time of Christ believe this doctrine". It is clear that from the numerous times they referred to Christ as the SON OF GOD, they believed Him to be the SON and NOT THE FATHER or GOD himself. They believed that he was sent by God. The prophesies all predicted that a Messiah will come, a Saviour. Not God himself.
No, look at the wording of the scripture again, it states that the child is a mighty god, not almighty god, for NOWHERE IN THE ENTIRE BIBLICAL CANON IS THE TERM ALMIGHTY GOD USED EXCEPT WITH REFERENCE TO THE FATHER HIMSELF, Satan is even called a god (2 corinthians 4:4) as are the angels (pslam 82:1), it simply means a mighty or divine being.
20 Oct 08
5 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie======================================
No, look at the wording of the scripture again, it states that the child is a mighty god, not almighty god, for NOWHERE IN THE ENTIRE BIBLICAL CANON IS THE TERM ALMIGHTY GOD USED EXCEPT WITH REFERENCE TO THE FATHER HIMSELF, Satan is even called a god (2 corinthians 4:4) as are the angels (pslam 82:1), it simply means a mighty or divine being.
No, look at the wording of the scripture again, it states that the child is a mighty god, not almighty god,
========================================
We can safely rule out that Isaiah was taking about Satan. There should be no good reason to think that this child is Satan, a god.
Who then is "Mighty God" ?
Jeremiah 32:17,18 says that Jehovah is the mighty God - " ... I prayed unto Jehovah, saying, Ah Lord Jehovah ! behold, thou hast made the heavens and the earth by they great power ... who showest lovingkindness unto thousands ... the mighty God, Jehovah of hosts is his name ..."
Jeremiah informs us that Jehovah is the mighty God. Exodus 6:2 proves that Jehovah is not only the MIghty God but also the Almighty God.
Deuteronomy 10:17 also tells us that Jehovah is the mighty God - [b]"For Jehovah your God, he is God of gods, and Lord of lords, the great God, the mighty, and terrible, who regardeth not person, nor taketh reward." (Deut. 10:17, 1901 American Standard Bible)
Psalm 50:1 says "The Mighty One, God, Jehovah, hath spoken."
[/b]
The Mighty God in Isaiah is Yahweh. Or if you prefer He is Jehovah.
Now this little baby human child is to be called Mighty God. This means that Jehovah God, the Mighty God, will be incarnated as a man. This occured in the New Testament.
The Son and the Father are both God. The Eternal Father and the Mighty God are both God.
Appeal to 2 Cor. 4:4 is no way out.
20 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillNo my friend, look at the original languages, this is not a translation for almighty God, but a mighty god, the Hebrew is different than if it was for almighty god himself.
[b]======================================
No, look at the wording of the scripture again, it states that the child is a mighty god, not almighty god,
========================================
We can safely rule out that Isaiah was taking about Satan. There should be no good reason to think that this child is Satan, a god.
Who then is Eternal Father and the Mighty God are both God.
Appeal to 2 Cor. 4:4 is no way out.
20 Oct 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWrong.
No my friend, look at the original languages, this is not a translation for almighty God, but a mighty god, the Hebrew is different than if it was for god himself.
In the Old Testament Jehovah is called the Mighty God and Jehovah is ALSO called the Almighty God.
Compare Exodus 6:2 and Jeremiah 32:18.
20 Oct 08
Originally posted by jaywillno I am correct, the term El Shaddai, translated Almighty God is used only with reference to Jehovah himself, exclusively, as at exodus 6:3 he may well be described elsewhere as mighty, but this does not negate the fact that at the scripture in Isaiah 9:6 is a different Hebrew word altogether, not El Shaddai, which would translate almighty God and prove without a shadow of a doubt that the scripture is a reference to the most high, but El Gibbohr, (mighty god, NOT ALMIGHTY GOD) why can you not grasp this?
Wrong.
In the Old Testament Jehovah is called the Mighty God and Jehovah is ALSO called the Almighty God.
Compare[b] Exodus 6:2 and Jeremiah 32:18.[/b]
20 Oct 08
Exodus 6:2 - "And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am Jehovah: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty ..."
Jeremiah 32:18 - " ... the great, the mighty God, Jehovah of hosts is his name ..."
God the Almighty is the Mighty God. The Mighty God is the Almighty God, Jehovah.
The little child born in Isaiah 9:6 shall be called Mighty God.
20 Oct 08
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywillyes but you cannot infer from the original Hebrew that this is with respect to almighty god, otherwise the prophet would have used El Shaddai not El Gibbohr.
[b]Exodus 6:2 - "And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am Jehovah: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty ..."
Jeremiah 32:18 - " ... the great, the mighty God, Jehovah of hosts is his name ..."
God the Almighty is the Mighty God. The Mighty God is the Almighty God, Jehovah.
The little child born in Isaiah 9:6 shall be called Mighty God.[/b]
if you don't mind me saying so, you are being incredibly unreasonable in you attempt to defend this doctrine, perhaps you can show me a similar reference where anyone other than god, is termed El Shaddai, for example Christ.
20 Oct 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobie=======================================
yes but you cannot infer from the original Hebrew that this is with respect to almighty god, otherwise the prophet would have used El Shaddai not El Gibbohr.
if you don't mind me saying so, you are being incredibly unreasonable in you attempt to defend this doctrine, perhaps you can show me a similar reference where anyone other than god, is termed El Shaddai, for example Christ.
yes but you cannot infer from the original Hebrew that this is with respect to almighty god, otherwise the prophet would have used El Shaddai not El Gibbohr.
====================================
I think you should say "Yes" period. And there is no "but" about it.
Robert, there were many names for God. Isaiah could have used many other designations. It is enough to know that the name Jehovah takes on both names as witnessed by Exodus 6:2 and Jeremiah 32:18, Deut. 10:17, Psalm 50:1.
Jumping into the original Hebrew will not salvage your error.
==========================================
if you don't mind me saying so, you are being incredibly unreasonable in you attempt to defend this doctrine, perhaps you can show me a similar reference where anyone other than god, is termed El Shaddai, for example Christ.
======================================
If you are reasonable, I think there is no need at all to go anywhere else. Isaiah 9:6 is sufficient to prove that before the 4th century AD there was written a teaching in the Bible that at one time a born child is to be Jehovah and a human child. And at one time a Son is to also be the Eternal Father.
Right here in this passage your anti-trinitarian doctrine is defeated.
20 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillno you have defeated yourself, because Christ and Jehovah are two completely distinct entities, you say on one hand that this is with reference to Christ, then you are trying to state that it is with reference to Jehovah, god was not born was he , that could never be for he has always existed (1 timothy 1:15), he is not a creation like Christ is he (colossians 1:15), furthermore he cannot be killed can he, furthermore no one can see god and live can they, when certainly many people saw Christ (john 1:18), furthermore who was Christ praying to when dying, himself ?, furthermore why did Christ say my god and your god to Mary on his resurrection (john 20:17), furthermore Christ never considered himself equal to god did he (philipians 2:5), furthermore Christ tells us to pray our father, including himself. (mathew 6:9)etc etc etc.
[b]=======================================
yes but you cannot infer from the original Hebrew that this is with respect to almighty god, otherwise the prophet would have used El Shaddai not El Gibbohr.
====================================
I think you should say "Yes" period. And there is no "but" about it.
Robert, there were many names for G Eternal Father.
Right here in this passage your anti-trinitarian doctrine is defeated.[/b]
going to the original Hebrew was merely the first stage in exposing your blasphemous doctrine, by the time we are finished, it will lay in tatters, smoking like a kipper in hell and you will be glad to be rid of it!
20 Oct 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobie======================================
no you have defeated yourself, because Christ and Jehovah are two completely distinct entities, you say on one hand that this is with reference to Christ, then you are trying to state that it is with reference to Jehovah, god was not born was he , that could never be for he has always existed (1 timothy 1:15), he is not a creation like Christ is he ( ...[text shortened]... :5), furthermore Christ tells us to pray our father, including himself. (mathew 6:9)etc etc etc.
no you have defeated yourself, because Christ and Jehovah are two completely distinct entities,
=========================================
I do not mind saying that the Father and the Son are distinct. I believe that. But I believe they are not seperate.
I said that we should avoid either one of two extremes. Tritheism means that there are three Gods. I do not believe the Bible teaches that. That is one extreme to aboid.
Modalism means when any one of the Three are present, the other two do not exist. I reject this other extreme because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are taught to exist simultaneously.
Otherwise we would not see the Son praying to the Father and other passages which reveal that Father and Son are distinct. They are not seperate. Each lives within the Other.
=====================================
you say on one hand that this is with reference to Christ, then you are trying to state that it is with reference to Jehovah, god was not born was he , that could never be for he has always existed (1 timothy 1:15),
==========================================
Now you are talking about the incarnation. God became a man. God did not always have humanity. He had divinity only. Then in time the Word became flesh.
Flesh is a part of creation. And man is also a part of creation. God created man. But then God became a man.
So what is this One ? He is God / Man. He is the mingling of God and man. He is the incorporation of God into man. God clothed Himself with humanity.
By saying that God became a man we do not mean that in doing so He ceased to be God.
=========================================
he is not a creation like Christ is he (colossians 1:15), furthermore he cannot be killed can he, furthermore no one can see god and live can they, when certainly many people saw Christ (john 1:18), furthermore who was Christ praying to when dying, himself ?, furthermore why did Christ say my god and your god to Mary on his resurrection (john 20:17), furthermore Christ never considered himself equal to god did he (philipians 2:5), furthermore Christ tells us to pray our father, including himself. (mathew 6:9)etc etc etc.
===========================================
I am familiar with all of these passages.
John's introduction to his Gospel is the underlying foundation for all that he reveals in subsequent chapters to chapter 1.
The Word was with God and the Word WAS God (John 1:1). Then in verse 14 it says that the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us.
God was incarnated. God became a man. God became a God man. OF course this is precisely what the prophet Isaiah had said in Isaiah 9:6. A born child would be the Mighty God and a Son given would be the Eternal Father.
You should be able to see that the Gospel of John is simply an enlargement of the revelation of Isaiah 9:6.
20 Oct 08
=============================
furthermore why did Christ say my god and your god to Mary on his resurrection (john 20:17), furthermore Christ never considered himself equal to god did he (philipians 2:5),
===================================
Speaking as a man He said that.
When we say Christ was a man we do not mean that He was not also God.
When we say that Christ is God we do not mean that He is not also a man.
20 Oct 08
Originally posted by jaywillanswer the questions and don't try to squirm out of it, the references are easily understandable, the logic unassailable, God, Jehovah is not Christ, they are separate, distinct, father and son, creation and creator, not part of some blasphemous trinity, please do not cloud the issues!
[b]======================================
no you have defeated yourself, because Christ and Jehovah are two completely distinct entities,
=========================================
I do not mind saying that the Father and the Son are distinct. I believe that. But I believe they are not seperate.
I said that we should avoid either one of two extr ...[text shortened]... that the Gospel of John is simply an enlargement of the revelation of Isaiah 9:6.[/b]
20 Oct 08
1 edit
COncerning Philippians 2:5.
He emptied Himself in the sense of His glorious expression of divine splendour. This emptying is not an emptying of His divine essence. It is an emptying of the expression of glory.
He appeared as a man and even as a slave of a man. His expression changed to a humble and lowly one.
He was still in essence God Himself.
20 Oct 08
Originally posted by jaywilllook before we go any further, you had better define what you mean as trinity, because from this reasoning, i cannot make out whether you believe it or not, or what it is you actually do believe!
[b]=============================
furthermore why did Christ say my god and your god to Mary on his resurrection (john 20:17), furthermore Christ never considered himself equal to god did he (philipians 2:5),
===================================
Speaking as a man He said that.
When we say Christ was a man we do not mean that He was not also God.
When we say that Christ is God we do not mean that He is not also a man.[/b]