27 Jun 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, I know all about it. So you can't hide it from me by not making a mention of the watchtower bible and tract society.
I have not asked you to submit to anything, its illogical and irrational to debate with people who don't know what they are talking about and in fact I never mention the watchtower bible and tract society, usually its people like you that bring it up because you are devoid of anything else.
28 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsI am not trying to hide anything, i am not trying to subject you to anything, i simply refuse to engage in debate with brain dead zombies that cover the Internet with slobbery drool.
Well, I know all about it. So you can't hide it from me by not making a mention of the watchtower bible and tract society.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
28 Jun 14
Originally posted by gswilmIsaiah 9:6
Thanks for your contribution as it does help consideration of the passage. I will read it a couple of times.
[quote] 2. In The Doctrine of the Trinity, R. S. Franks, a Trinitarian and the Principal Emeritus of Western College in Bristol, writes,
It should be added that Rom. 9:5 cannot be adduced to prove that Paul ever thought of Christ as God. The st ...[text shortened]... erhaps further comment latter.
[ I am [b]sonship writing from user gswilm's session. ][/b]
“And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace….” (NIV)
1. Trinitarians should admit that this verse is translated improperly just from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Everlasting Father” anywhere else in Scripture. Indeed, Trinitarians correctly deny that Jesus is the “Everlasting Father.” It is a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” (Athanasian Creed). Thus, if this verse is translated properly, then Trinitarian Christians have a real problem. However, the phrase is mistranslated. The word translated “everlasting” is actually “age,” and the correct translation is that Jesus will be called “father of the [coming] age.”
In the culture of the Bible, anyone who began anything or was very important to something was called its “father.” For example, because Jabal was the first one to live in a tent and raise livestock, the Bible says, “he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock” (Gen. 4:20). Furthermore, because Jubal was the first inventor of musical instruments, he is called, “the father of all who play the harp and flute” (Gen. 4:21). Scripture is not using “father” in the sense of literal father or ancestor in these verses, because both these men were descendants of Cain, and all their descendants died in the Flood. “Father” was being used in the cultural understanding of either one who was the first to do something or someone who was important in some way. Because the Messiah will be the one to establish the age to come, raise the dead into it, and rule over it, he is called “the father of the coming age.”
2. The phrase “Mighty God” can also be better translated. Although the word “God” in the Hebrew culture had a much wider range of application than it does in ours, the average reader does not know or understand that. Readers familiar with the Semitic languages know that a man who is acting with God’s authority can be called “god.” Although English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot. A better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.” Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine hero” in their Bibles. (For more on the flexible use of “God,” see the notes on Heb. 1:8.
3. A clear example that the word translated “God” in Isaiah 9:6 can be used of powerful earthly rulers is Ezekiel 31:11, referring to the Babylonian king. The Trinitarian bias of most translators can be clearly seen by comparing Isaiah 9:6 (el = “God&rdquo😉 with Ezekiel 31:11 (el = “ruler&rdquo😉. If calling the Messiah el made him God, then the Babylonian king would be God also. Isaiah is speaking of God’s Messiah and calling him a mighty ruler, which of course he will be.
The phrase translated “Mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6 in the NIV in the Hebrew, el gibbor. That very phrase, in the plural form, is used Ezekiel 32:21 where dead “heroes” and mighty men are said, by the figure of speech personification, to speak to others. The phrase in Ezekiel is translated “mighty leaders” in the NIV, and “the strong among the mighty” in the KJV and NASB. The Hebrew phrase, when used in the singular, can refer to one “mighty leader” just as when used in the plural it can refer to many “mighty leaders.”
4. The context illuminates great truth about the verse, and also shows that there is no justification for believing that it refers to the Trinity, but rather to God’s appointed ruler. The opening verse of the chapter foretells a time when “there will be no more gloom for those in distress.” All war and death will cease, and “every warrior’s boot…will be destined for burning” (v. 5). How will this come to pass? The chapter goes on: “for to us a child is born and to us a son is given” (v. 6). There is no hint that this child will be “God,” and reputable Trinitarian scholars will assert that the Jews of the Old Testament knew nothing of an “incarnation.” For them, the Messiah was going to be a man anointed by God. He would start as a child, which of course Yahweh, their eternal God, could never be. And what a great ruler this man would grow to be: “the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty Hero, Father of the Coming Age, Prince of Peace.” Furthermore, “he will reign on David’s throne (v. 7), which could never be said of God. God could never sit on David’s throne. But God’s Messiah, “the Son of David,” could (Matt. 9:27, et al). Thus, a study of the verse in its context reveals that it does not refer to the Trinity at all, but to the Messiah, the son of David and the Son of God.
Buzzard, pp. 45 and 51
Farley, pp. 47-49
Morgridge, pp. 105 and 106
Snedeker, pp. 397-403
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
What does the Bible actually say about the Doctrine of the Trinity a Triune (three in one) Godhead?
Hello there, Fellow Truth-seeker,
We are glad you are looking for information, clarification, or enlightenment in regard to “the Trinity (a Triune, three-in-one, Godhead)” and related issues, and we welcome you to our research website. We’re very glad you found us, because we know what has happened for thousands of other dear folks who have taken the time to dig into our work.
First of all, please feel free not to believe everything you find here. We have no axe to grind, nor are we interested in trying to control your life or make you live up to any standard we impose upon you. We love God, our heavenly Father, we love the Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior, we love the truth, and we love God’s people. Our responsibility is to set forth the Word of God as we see it, and God’s responsibility is to give the increase in the hearts of those who hunger and thirst after righteousness.
We certainly recognize how important, how volatile, and how potentially polarizing is the subject of the Trinity. In fact, though it is sad to say, throughout Church history from about 400 AD to about 1800 AD, countless people were put to death for refusing to believe in the idea of “one God in three persons.” We believe that the reason that thousands of Christian people throughout the ages have stood against the Trinity, even with the threat of death, is that it is not in fact a biblical doctrine, but a man-made one.
We believe that the Word of God presents God as the “only true God” and Jesus Christ as the Son of God, our Savior.
We want to believe whatever the Word of God says, and we hope that what you find herein is representative of that.
The orthodox definition of the Trinity is said to be:
“A three-fold personality existing in one divine being or substance; the union in one God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three infinite, co-equal, co-eternal persons; one God in three persons.”
The questions to ask are “What does the Bible say?” And is that definition found in the Bible?
http://www.truthortradition.com/articles/searching-for-information-on-the-trinity
Originally posted by checkbaiterI believe you are confusing the belief of the oneness Pentacostals with that of Trinitarians. Trinitarians never refer to the translation "Everlasting Father" as referring to or meaning God the Father. That would make the Son of God the same as God the Father, which Trinitarians do not believe. Oneness Pentacostals are the ones that claim that. However, Trinitarians do believe that "Mighty God" or "Great God" is the correct translation and refers to the Son of God, who the apostal Paul referred to as our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.
Isaiah 9:6
“And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace….” (NIV)
1. Trinitarians should admit that this verse is translated improperly just from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Everlasting Father” anywhere else in Scripture. Indeed, Trinitarians correctly deny that Jesus is the “Everlasting Fath ...[text shortened]... zzard, pp. 45 and 51
Farley, pp. 47-49
Morgridge, pp. 105 and 106
Snedeker, pp. 397-403
(Titus 2:13 NASB)
looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,
The Greek word that was translated here as great could have just as easily been translated as mighty.
Christ Jesus is the everlasting father of those born again into His everlasting Kingdom.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
28 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsI'm not sure I follow what you are saying...I agree Jesus is our "father" in a sense, because he is the first born, but he is not God.
I believe you are confusing the belief of the oneness Pentacostals with that of Trinitarians. Trinitarians never refer to the translation "Everlasting Father" as referring to or meaning God the Father. That would make the Son of God the same as God the Father, which Trinitarians do not believe. Oneness Pentacostals are the ones that claim that. However, T ...[text shortened]...
Christ Jesus is the everlasting father of those born again into His everlasting Kingdom.[/b]
Referring to him as our "brother" would be more accurate.
Jesus has a God and father like we do...
28 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by checkbaiterOne difference between Jesus and each of us is that Jesus is the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God the Father. We all have a natural father and mother, whereas Jesus had a supernatural Father and a natural mother. Therefore He is referred to as both the son of man and the Son of God.
I'm not sure I follow what you are saying...I agree Jesus is our "father" in a sense, because he is the first born, but he is not God.
Referring to him as our "brother" would be more accurate.
Jesus has a God and father like we do...
God the Father referred to His only begotton Son as God as indicted below:
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.
For to which of the angels did He ever say,
“You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You”?
And again,
“I will be a Father to Him
And He shall be a Son to Me”?
And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,
“And let all the angels of God worship Him.”
And of the angels He says,
“Who makes His angels winds,
And His ministers a flame of fire.”
But of the Son He says,
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.
“You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness above Your companions.”
And,
“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the works of Your hands;
They will perish, but You remain;
And they all will become old like a garment,
And like a mantle You will roll them up;
Like a garment they will also be changed.
But You are the same,
And Your years will not come to an end.”
But to which of the angels has He ever said,
“Sit at My right hand,
Until I make Your enemies
A footstool for Your feet”?
Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?
(Hebrews 1:1-14 NASB)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by checkbaiter
1. Trinitarians should admit that this verse is translated improperly just from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Everlasting Father” anywhere else in Scripture. Indeed, Trinitarians correctly deny that Jesus is the “Everlasting Father.” It is a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” (Athanasian Creed). Thus, if this verse is translated properly, then Trinitarian Christians have a real problem. However, the phrase is mistranslated. The word translated “everlasting” is actually “age,” and the correct translation is that Jesus will be called “father of the [coming] age.”
Isaiah 9:6 says the Son given shall be called the Eternal Father. That is what it says, regardless of what Trinitarians say or do not say.
If it only says that He is called "Prince of Peace" but is not really the Prince of Peace than that is some kind of lie or vanity.
If is only says that He is called "Wonderful Counselor" but is not really the Wonderful Counselor then that too is some kind of lie or vanity.
And guess what? If the Son given is only called "Eternal Father" but is not really the Eternal Father then that TOO is some kind of lie or vanity.
It is not a matter of what Trinitarians say or do not say. It is a matter of what Isaiah 9:6 says.
If the "child ... born" is to be called "Mighty God" then it must be that He is what He is to be called.
It is the same with the all the titles ascribed to Him - "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace"
I do not listen to any kind of logic which suggests that the Person, the "child ... born" and the "Son ... given" is not the reality of any of the titles ascribed to Him.
Is it astounding to believe that the Son could be called the Father ?
Frankly it is astounding. But it is no less astounding then the fact that "the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)
If the Christian can bring himself to believe that " ... the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God" according to John 1:1 then he can also with the same faith believe that the "Son .... given to us" is the incarnation of "Eternal Father" .
Some of us choose to accept John 1:1 even though it is incredible.
And some of us also choose to accept Isaiah 9:6 even though it too is incredible.
And the Pulpit Commentary has this remark on Isaiah 9:6's - Eternal Father.
The Everlasting Father; rather, Everlasting or Eternal Father. But here, again, there is a singularity in the idea, which makes the omission of the article unimportant; for how could there be more than one Everlasting Father, one Creator, Preserver, Protector of mankind who was absolutely eternal? If the term "Father," applied to our Lord, grates on our ears, we must remember that the distinction of Persons in the Godhead had not yet been revealed.
http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/tpc/view.cgi?bk=22&ch=9
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by checkbaiter
In the culture of the Bible, anyone who began anything or was very important to something was called its “father.” For example, because Jabal was the first one to live in a tent and raise livestock, the Bible says, “he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock” (Gen. 4:20). Furthermore, because Jubal was the first inventor of musical instruments, he is called, “the father of all who play the harp and flute” (Gen. 4:21). Scripture is not using “father” in the sense of literal father or ancestor in these verses, because both these men were descendants of Cain, and all their descendants died in the Flood. “Father” was being used in the cultural understanding of either one who was the first to do something or someone who was important in some way. Because the Messiah will be the one to establish the age to come, raise the dead into it, and rule over it, he is called “the father of the coming age.”
Attempts have been made to try to prove that Eternal Father in Isaiah 9:6 is some OTHER Father beside the Father of the Triune God - Father - Son - Holy Spirit.
None of these excuses to say the Son given is some OTHER everlasting Father are reliable. That is whether they argue it is the Father of Creation or the Father of the world to come or the Father of the Messianic kingdom or some other Father besides the one and only Eternal Father of the Bible.
The attempts to make the Eternal Father into some OTHER Father end up with TWO Everlasting or Eternal Fathers in the Bible. But there is only one Divine Father who is everlasting and eternal in the Bible.
That is the God of Israel in the very same book of Isaiah -
"For You are our Father, Since Abraham does not know us, And Israel does not acknowledge us. You, Jehovah, are our Father; Our Redeemer from of old is Your name." (Isaiah 63:16)
This Father is the Eternal Father whom the Son given shall be called in Isaiah 9:6 and not some OTHER father of the human invention.
"But now, Jehovah, You are our Father; We are the clay; and You, our Potter; And all of us are the work of Your hand." (Isaiah 64:8)
This is the Eternal Father as the Creator - the Potter in whose creating hands the Israelites and all mankind is the molded clay. This is the Eternal Father whom the Son ... given is to be called.
If this is astounding to the reader then it is just astounding.
God is mysterious and Jesus affirmed the distinction between He and His Father but did not speak of any separation between them. He lived in the Father and the Father lived in Him. So Jesus upheld the prophecy of Isaiah 9:6 without inventing some OTHER divine Father that He was to be called:
"Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father and it is sufficient for us.
Jesus said to him, Have I been so long a time with you, and you have not known Me Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how is it that you say, Show us the Father." (John 14:8-9)
Jesus could well have reminded Philip of Isaiah 9:6. The Son given to us shall be called Eternal Father. To see the Son was to see the Father. It was not to see some OTHER theological father of some staggering unbelieving invention.
Jesus goes on - "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak from Myself, but the Father who abides in Me does His works.
Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; but if not, believe because of the works themselves." (John 14:10-11)
It is incredible. But we are not asked to be able to explain. We are commanded to believe.
Originally posted by sonship1. Trinitarians should admit that this verse is translated improperly just from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Everlasting Father” anywhere else in Scripture. Indeed, Trinitarians correctly deny that Jesus is the “Everlasting Father.” It is a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide ...[text shortened]... en revealed.
http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/tpc/view.cgi?bk=22&ch=9[/b]more trash talk and not a shred of scriptural evidence to back up your blasphemous claims, why don't you address a single point that checkbaiter raised instead of imposing your pagan doctrines on scripture? why? because you are a typical trinitarian, you simply don't do facts.
28 Jun 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you honor the Son as you honor the Father?
more trash talk and not a shred of scriptural evidence to back up your blasphemous claims, why don't you address a single point that checkbaiter raised instead of imposing your pagan doctrines on scripture? why? because you are a typical trinitarian, you simply don't do facts.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
28 Jun 14
More from the Pulpit Commentary on Isaiah 9:6 -
Isaiah does not really mean that the "Child" should bear as a name, or names, any of the expressions, but only that they should be truly applicable to him. Wonderful, Counselor. It has been proposed to unite these two expressions and translate, "Wondrous Counselor" (compare "wonderful in counsel," Isaiah 28:29). But Dr. Kay is probably right in saying that, if this had been the meaning, it would have been expressed differently. Gesenius, Rosenmüller, Delitzsch, and Vance Smith agree with Dr. Kay in taking the words separately. Wonderful. The Messiah would be "wonderful" in his nature as God-Man; in his teaching, which "astonished" those who heard it (Matthew 7:28); in his doings (Isaiah 25:1); in the circumstances of his birth and death; in his resurrection, and in his ascension. "Wonder" would be the first sentiment which his manifestation would provoke, and hence this descriptive epithet is placed first. As the Word, as Wisdom itself, as he who says, "Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am Understanding" (Proverbs 8:14), he is well named "Counselor." None will ever seek his counsel in vain, much less repent of following it. The mighty God; rather, perhaps, Mighty God; but the difference is not great, since El, God, contains within itself the notion of singularity, which is given to ordinary nouns by the article. The term El, God, had been previously applied to the Messiah only in Psalms 45:6. It denotes in Isaiah always (as Mr. Cheyne observes) "divinity in an absolute sense; it is never used hyperbolically or metaphorically."
http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/tpc/view.cgi?bk=22&ch=9
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Furthermore, the pursuit of theological knowledge can
lead to a reliance upon reason instead of an exercise of
faith. “God does not demand a faith that is unreason-
able,” William Law remarks, “but He does demand a
faith that goes beyond the limits of human reason. And
thus there is a point where faith and reason divide the hu-
man race into two kinds of men fully distinct from each
other” (p. 106). What will we be—a man of reason or a
man of faith? Will we exercise our faith within the limits
of our reason or beyond these limits? Will our reason
confine our faith or will our faith transcend our reason?
To transcend reason by faith is not to be irrational in our
mental life—it is to be normal in our spiritual life.
The economy of God is in faith (1Tim.1:4); the revela-
tion of God is “out of faith to faith” (Rom. 1:17); and
the operation of the mysterious Triune God is according to
faith (Heb.11). Those who are one with God for the carry-
ing out of His economy exercise faith to receive the
revelation of the Triune God in the Word of God. Those
who are devoted to systematic theology for the sake of relig
ious interest rely upon reason to systematize the divine
revelation in the Word.
From Affirmation and Critique - Sources of Trinatarian Deviations
http://www.affcrit.com/archives/ac_96_01.html