This is in response to what was posted on a site called “Deeper Waters” and the further remarks. The “further remarks” we are replying to below in red, while our original post retains the black type.
The claim is made that there is a difference between the child who is born and the son who is given. It is alleged that the child had a beginning in the incarnation, but the son, being fully of the nature of deity, does not have a beginning, but that he is given. In other words, the same old trinitarian dualism that trinitarians assume, add to, and read into, many scriptures is being also assumed, added to, and read into Isaiah 9:6, thus splitting upon this one sentence so as to have part of the sentence apply to the alleged Jesus the alleged God being, and another part of the sentence is supposed to apply to Jesus the human being.
Our Reply to “Deeper Waters” Respondent:
Deeper Waters has responded to the above, stating: “Our critic seems to think that a functional subordination within the Trinity distracts from the deity of the Son.” (1) The Bible reveals nothing about a “functional subordination within the trinity”, so we are not concerned with such. Such an idea has to be assumed, added to, and read into the scriptures in order to seemingly support the added-on trinitarian dogma. The default assumption is that God is one person, since that is the way he is presented all through the scriptures. (2) We do not wish to detract from the true deity of Christ, as that deity is expressed in the scriptures. Jesus’ deity, the mightiness as given to him by the only true God, does not mean that Jesus is the only true God who has given him this deity.
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php/topic,179.0.html
The claim is made concerning our statements: “our writer assumes we are arguing for the Trinity from this passage.” Evidently, it is being assumed by the “Deeper Waters” author that since only Isaiah 9:6 was dealt with in our post that we are assuming that the writer was arguing the trinity doctrine solely from that passage. No, that is not at all our thought. We are aware of all the many scriptures that the trinitarian presents to allegedly support the trinity doctrine. However, the trinitarian doctrine cannot be actually derived from any of those scriptures. The trinity dogma has to be assumed and placed over the scriptures so that the assumption can be read into the scriptures. And all of those scriptures can be seen to be in harmony with the entire Bible without assuming and adding to them the trinitarian dogma. Nor do we find anywhere in the New Testament where trinitarian thought came to full revelation in the New Testament. The trinity simply is not at all revealed in the New Testament, nor the Old Testament, at all.
It is claimed that we note that the “Deeper Waters” author had “one sentence devoted to the humanity of Christ and one to the deity of Christ.” We never stated such in the above, and whether deliberate or not, it ignores the point actually made, and addresses something that is not at all stated by us. In effect, the response side tracks the issue to put down something we never stated. Nevertheless, since the scriptures never speak of Jesus’ having two “natures” at once, we have no reason to add to the scriptures that Jesus is such. We have no problems at all with what the scriptures say, and we do not have any reason to take a sentence of Jesus, and split it up as the trinitarian does, so as to have one part of the sentence supposedly apply to the alleged God being and and another part of the same sentence applying to the Jesus as a human being. Click here for our discussion of just one example: Revelation 2:8. As time permits, we may examine many other scriptures and present links to them at:
http://godandson.reslight.net/
or on the relavant pages linked to from that page, such as the “Isaiah” page.
It is claimed that Arianism has a problem with the two natures of Christ. We want to state that we do not claim to agree with Aranism (whatever that is alleged to mean), as it implies that we are followers of Arius, but we certainly have no problems with the two general glories of Jesus, properly applied from the scriptures.
Returning now the original discussion:
The son of God, however, was indeed born. He was the firstborn creature (Colossians 1:15) Being the firstborn, he was indeed the first living creature to be born, brought forth into existence.
Our Reply to “Deeper Waters” Respondent:
Our respondent ignores what we have presented before on the matter Colossians 1:15, and claims that “all things” in Colossians 1:16 means that Jesus was the creator of time. I do not know of any scripture that ever says that “time” itself was created; certainly “time” as we know it upon the planet earth was brought forth into existence when the planet was created and began its rotation and orbit around the sun. Regarding the word from which “all” is translated: all forms of the Greek word “pas” always look to context as well as common evidence for what is to be included or excluded. The “all” being spoken of in Colossians 1:16 is shown in the phrases following, which refers to living creation. Paul gives an example of evident exclusion in 1 Corinthians 15:27. Jesus, being the firstborn of that creation, is, of course, excluded from the “all” that is being spoken of in Colossians 1:16. We suggest a study of the following:
Colossians 1:16 and the Creator
Returning now the original discussion:
The scriptures show that Jesus was begotten/born/brought forth three times.
(1) as the firstborn creature. — Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22-25.
(2) of the holy spirit as a human. — Matthew 1:20.
(3) from the dead when raised from the dead. — Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33; Colossians 1:18; Hebrews 1:5; 5:5.
Our Reply to “Deeper Waters” Respondent:
Our respondent asks: “Can we truly say Jesus was firstborn from the dead?” This, of course, appears to be another sidetrack issue presented to offset attention from the the fact that Jesus is actually being called the “firstborn” here from the dead, and that Jesus was actually “born” three times. It is claimed that others came back from the dead before Christ. Yes, there were others who came back from the dead, but they were not raised from the dead to life — life outside of the dying condition that they were already under. While some were raised back to the former dying condition, none were actually raised to the life — eternal life — as Jesus was. Jesus was indeed the first one to be born again into such an eternal life, to never die again. (Romans 6:9) Jesus now lives forever (Hebrews 7:24), but this was not true before he died, else he could not have died. Thus, Jesus truly was the first one to be born, brought forth into being, from the dead condition that he was in while he was dead.
The Deeper Waters author says he/she does not see the point concerning the second birth of Jesus spoken of, and seems to the think that the point being made to that of his being born of a virgin. Perhaps we assumed that the point could be too easily seen. We did not go into detail on that verse, and possibly should have provided a link to where we have gone into greater consideration of the this as applied to Jesus. Regardless, the point should be seen that Jesus was indeed brought forth into existence three different times.
Please see:
http://notrinity.blogspot.com/2008/11/human-son.html
http://studies.reslight.net/bos.html
http://hereafter.reslight.net/rm.html
Returning now the original discussion:
So not only was Jesus born when he was begotten of God’s spirit as a human being, he was born again when he was raised from the dead.
Our Reply to “Deeper Waters” Respondent:
Our respondent claims that what we mean by “born again” when raised from the dead must be something different than what Christ means for biblically, this is something that happens in one’s lifetime and reaches full fruition in the after-death. Actually, we do recognize that the believer is begotten of the spirit as a grain, a seed, in this age, but the actual birth belongs to the last day. Again, perhaps we should have given links to what we have written before on this topic. Please see:
http://studies.reslight.net/bos.html
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php/topic,301.0.html
http://reslight.net/ps2-7.html
http://studies.reslight.net/wb.html
http://hereafter.reslight.net/rm.html
Returning now the original discussion:
The son given by Yahweh (Isaiah 9:7) is the one spoken of in Luke 1:32 as the “son of the Most High.” This son given by Yahweh to Israel (and to the world) is not the Most High Yahweh who has given this son. The son of the Most High is never spoken of as the Most High. Only Yahweh, the God and Father of Jesus, is spoken of as the Most High. — Genesis 14:22; Psalm 7:17; 83:18; 92:1; Luke 1:32; John 13:16.
Our Reply to “Deeper Waters” Respondent:
Our respondent chides us for presenting what he calls the assumption of “unipersonalism”, and claims this to be an error. Of course, the default assumption is that God is one person, not three persons. It is not for us to disprove otherwise, but rather it is for those who claim otherwise to prove their assumption. The trinitarian usually, however, denies that he is assuming anything, and thus, due to this, fails to be led out of his assumptions.
It was not our original intent to go into a full discussion of these matters in this post, but rather it was only meant to briefly show that Isaiah 9:6 does not give support to the trinitarian suppositions. We had probably thought to add links to previous discussions, but evidently did not do so as we became involved in other matters.
Our respondent asks us what we believe Son of God means? We are aware of the trinitarian argument that they wish to add to and read into the scriptures that “Son of God” means that the Jesus had the “nature” of God, that is, the Jesus was God Almighty along with the other two whom they also believe to be God Almighty. We believe that it means what it says, that Jesus is the son of God. It does not mean that Jesus is “God” of whom he is the Son. That is the default reasoning; for those who think otherwise, then it is up to them to prove otherwise. Our question to the trinitarian would be: In what way was Jesus the Son of the Most High, as recorded in Luke 1:32? Does “son” here mean “Most High”, as is often claimed that Son of God means that Jesus is God? In what way is the word “son” used in Luke 1:32? “He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High. [Yahweh] God will give to him the throne of his father, David.” This is obviously referring to Isaiah 9:7, and it is obviously is referring to Jesus as a human being, and not as a supposed “God being”. Taking it as stated, and applying the trinitarian supposition that God begats God, then also the Most High would begat the Most High, leaving the trinitarian with the quandry of the Most High being begotten as a human being, a little lower than the angels. Of course, in reality, the Most High, the Almighty God, is not at all subject to the reproduction laws that the Most High has placed upon his fleshly creation.
Returning now the original discussion:
Scripturally, Isaiah 9:6 is speaking of one singular “name”, not “names” (plural). But the tradition has been to ignore the singular name, and then to render and misquote the verse as though it was speaking of a series of “names” (plural), all of which are then applied individually to the son who is given by Yahweh.
Our Reply to “Deep Waters” Respondent:
It is claimed by our respondent that the above is “an assumption, and just that.” In reality,we do not at all have to “assume” that the name is singular, because that is the way that the scripture reads in all translations that we have examined: “his name [not "names"] shall be called.” On the contrary, it is those who would like for the name to be given as a series of “names” that have to assume and actually change “name” [singular] to “names” [plural].
Returning now the original discussion:
Thus, we find, as in this case, many refer to many of the words that make up the singular name as each a “name” in itself, and that is the way we find Isaiah 9:6 in most translations. The page that we are responding to does this; it ignores that there is only one name given, and then goes on to speak of various words as each an individual name that is supposed to be applied to the Messiah. In other words, it refers to “Wonderful”, “Mighty God”, “Everlasting Father”, and “Prince of Peace” as names (plural), and not as the scripture reads, a singular name. As a singular name, it is: Pelejoezelgibborabiaadarshalom. As a singular name, it is given the meaning: “Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace.” This recognizes the name by which the Messiah is to be called as a description of the God and Father of the Messiah, and not as a series of “names” given to the Messiah.
Our Reply to “Deep Waters” Respondent:
It is being claimed that the above is “simply an assertion”. It is implied that this assertion is not being used by Hebrew scholars. Actually, I doubt that very few “trinitarian” “scholars” would reach this conclusion, because of their desire for the “name” to be “names”, so that they can use it thus as a support for their added-on dogma. Additionally, practically all of the Jewish Hebrew scholars recognize that the scripture is a “name”, not “names”, and thus give it a meaning appropriate to what the scripture actually says. So also do many Christian scholars. The Hebrew scholar who have given us the Jewish Publication Society translation, for instance, translate the meaning of this name as: “Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace.” This is in keeping the same kind of translations given to such singular names in the Hebrew Scriptures. Nevertheless, as pointed out, this is not crucial to realizing that Jesus is is not here being spoken of his God. Even if one changes this to names instead of the one name, and claim that Jesus is being referred to as EL GIBBOR, as we have shown, it still would not mean that Jesus is Yahweh, his God.
Returning now the original discussion:
We ar told that the word “Wonderful” is the same “name” that is applied to the angel of Yahweh in Judges 13:18. This is misleading. The word translated *wonderful* in many translations at Judges 13:18 is Strong’s #6383. It is an adjective. There is no indication that the angel of Yahweh meant that this adjective was to supposed to be his “name”, but rather that angel is simply using this Strong says of this word: “remarkable:–secret, wonderful.” BDBG defines it: “wonderful, incomprehensible, extraordinary.”* This word, as such, appears in only one other place in the Scriptures, Psalm 139:6, where it is translated “too wonderful” in the King James Version. We believe that the angel was using the word to say why he was not revealing his name, not as claiming this adjective to be his name. As such, we should realize that the angel was stating that his name — whatever it was — would not be appreciated by Manoah, and thus he was not revealing his name. Indeed, the names of none of the angels of Yahweh are revealed in the scriptures except that of Gabriel. The Hebrew word — an adjective — for wonderful found in Judges 13:18 and Psalm 139:6 does not appear in Isaiah 9:6, although we do find the noun form that is rendered “wonderful”. Forms of this “noun” may be found at least 13 times in the Old Testament. In all except one (Daniel 12:6), it is directly used to describe the works of Yahweh, the God and Father of Jesus; likewise, we believe that as part of the singular name being attributed to Jesus in Isaiah 9:6, it is describing the God and Father of Jesus as “Wonderful in counsel”.
Our Reply to “Deep Waters” Respondent:
It is claimed that the above is “smoke and mirrors”, and an assertion of “We don’t think it means that so believe it.” Actually, it is the other way around. It is the trinitarian who wishes not to think beyond the trinitarian blinders, so that they will not see what is obvious. It is the trinitarian that assumes “name” really mean “names, and thus assumes that what follows are a series of “names” to applied to Jesus, and then based on these assumptions, they would have us to believe that this means that Jesus is Yahweh, who, in reality, is presented in the scriptures as the God and Father of Jesus.
We are chided for not giving a reason as to why the angel would not think that Manoah would not appreciate the name of the angel. If we could answer that question, then we would ourselves have to know and appreciate what the name of the angel was.
As pointed out already, however, the Hebrew word used by the angel is not presented as his name, but rather as an adjective describing his name. In keeping with the recognized meaning of the word, as seen in most translations of Psalm 139:6, as well as in many translations of Judges 13:18 (including the King James Version), we conclude that the angel was indeed using that word as adjective of the word “name”, and not as a designation of a name by which he was to be called.
Our respondent, evidently referring to the noun, which is most often applied, not to Yahweh as a “name”, but rather in reference to the works of Yahweh, continues to claim that the adjective is so applied as in Judges 3:18, although this would, in effect, mean that the word in Judges 3:18 would not be applied as “name”, but rather as describing the works of Yahweh. Of course, all that the angel of Yahweh does is the works of Yahweh, and I could see such an application, although we do not see how the adjective used by the angel of Yahweh in Judges 3:18 could be seen to be understood in this manner. Even so, such application to Judges 3:18 would actually be against the idea that the angel of Yahweh was saying that “Wonderful” was a name that he was to be called by, but rather than in some vague manner that the adjective was describing the works of Yahweh being done through the angel. There is nothing in the idea that the noun used in the reference to the works of Yahweh has anything to do with applying such as convenient with Arianism, whatever that is thought to mean.
Returning now the original discussion:
While we believe that “wonderful” here is referring to the God and Father of Jesus, Jesus is , however, also “wonderful”, in that he did “wonderful things” through the power of the holy spirit of his God and Father. — Matthew 21:15.
Our Reply to “Deeper Waters” Respondent:
Our respondent, after relegating the evidence presented to simply being something we say, then again, sidetracks the issue by making it appear that we have said that the whole passage refers to God, and not Jesus. We never said that. Indeed, we said just the opposite. The name is applied to the son given by Yahweh, but the name itself is a description of the God and Father of Jesus. This is no way was meant to say, imply or otherwise give any indication that this prophecy of Isaiah 9 was all to be applied to the God and Father of Jesus and not to Jesus.
It is claimed that our just saying this does not make enough an argument. Of course, in reality, it is not just our saying it, but rather the testimony of what is actually stated in the scripture (Isaiah 9:6), as well as the testimony of the entire scriptures support what is stated.
Returning now the original discussion:
We are next presented with “Mighty God” as an alleged “name” of the Messiah. The Hebrew of this is usually transliterated as “EL GIBBOR”. “EL” here signifies “God, a god, strength, might, power.” Jesus, of course, is a mighty one of power. While we do not believe that “EL GIBBOR” is being applied to Jesus as a singular name here, but rather to the God and Father of Jesus, the phrase EL GIBBOR can certainly be applied to Jesus, if one takes into account the broader meaning of the various forms of the word EL as applied to other persons or things than to Yahweh, that is, in the sense of might, strength, power, etc., having received might and power from the only true source of that power, his God and Father. The plural form of this phrase is is applied to human rulers in Ezekiel 32:21, which is rendered in the King James Version there as ” “The strong among the mighty.” All translations we have examined renders it similar to the King James Version. We do not know of any translation that renders the phrase with the word “Gods” in Ezekiel 32:21.
Our Reply to “Deeper Waters” Respondent:
Our respondent acknowledges that an alternate meaning can apply to the Hebrew EL, but claims that the proximity of Isaiah 9:6 and Isaiah 10:21, the repondent claims reason to believe that in Isaiah 9:6 it refers to, as stated “deity”, evidently meaning to God Almighty. First, we do not wish to be understood as saying that “Mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6 is directly applicable to Jesus; what we are saying is that such an expression can be used of Jesus, since Jesus is indeed mighty. It is our belief that “Mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6 is referring to the God and Father of Jesus, as we have shown. Further, we do not deny the Hebriac deity of Jesus. We do deny that deity — mightiness — given to the Jesus by the only true God, means that Jesus is the only true God who has given to him deity. Psalm 45 is referenced, evidently, more specifically, Psalm 45: 6,7, where Jesus is thought to be called ELOHIM, as well as where another who is also ELOHIM anoints Jesus.
See:
http://godandson.reslight.net/heb-1-8.html
Returning now the original discussion:
The next “name” examined is “everlasting father.” We are told that this is applied to Jesus since Jesus is paternal in nature. Again, we believe that as part of the singular name in Isaiah 9:6, “everlasting father” is speaking of the God and Father of Jesus, and not as a separate “name” applied to describe Jesus. However, we do realize however that the phrase “everlasting father” could be applied to Jesus since he has become the “last Adam”, “the life-giving spirit.” — 1 Corinthians 15:45.
Our Reply to “Deeper Waters” Respondent:
It is asserted that because we said “We believe that”, that our statements are being presented without any backing whatsoever, which is not true. The scripture itself does not speak of “names”, but only of one name. Furthermore, again, we are not saying that “everlasting father” in Isaiah 9:6 applies to Jesus, we said that the expression “everlasting father” can be applied to Jesus, and that if one wishes to apply such to Jesus, we have no ojbection, and we gave the reason from the scripture for this. When we original wrote this, we only meant for it to be a summary, not a detailed explanation, which explanations have already been given elsewhere. However, perhaps we should have taken time to provide the links of earlier discussions, which we are now providing at the end of this discussion.
Returning now the original discussion:
And, finally, we have the phrase “Prince of Peace.” As shown above, we believe that this is not a separate name, but rather a part of the singular name given to Messiah that describes the God and Father of Messiah. Nevertheless, as a separate title, this could also apply to the one who rules on the throne of Yahweh, eventually bringing peace to the whole earth.
Regardless, what we do not find in Isaiah 9:6 is any mention of three persons in Yahweh; we do not find any mention of two persons in Yahweh. Any idea of the trinity has to be assumed, added to, and read into, what is stated there, just as in all of the other scriptures presented to allegedly prove the trinity dogma.
It is Yahweh who performs what is spoken of in Isaiah 9:6, as shown in the next verse, Isaiah 9:7. Jesus does, however, perform the works of Yahweh, as the agent of Yahweh; this does not mean that he is a person of his God.
Our Reply to “Deeper Waters” Respondent:
Our respondent replies that he also does not find two persons of the trinity spoken of in the passage. This leaves us with the question: Who then is the one who is giving the child? If the trinitarian is claiming that there are not two persons of the trinity being spoken of then, it would imply that the one who is giving the child is not a person of the their alleged trinity. Of course, the one who is giving the child is identified in Isaiah 9:7 as Yahweh. Likewise, we find in the Gospel accounts that it is God, that is, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who has given the child, as prophesied. Then, who does the trinitarian wish us to believe “Yahweh”, the giver of this child, is? Do they not, in actuality, assume, add to, and read into this, that Yahweh here must refer to the their alleged “first person” of the trinity? We would wonder that anyone would not see how that there are indeed two persons involved in the passage, the one who is giving the son, and the son also who is given. And yet it is still true that there is nothing here that gives any thought that these two persons are both Yahweh.
Earlier studies on Isaiah 9:6 include, but not necessarily limited to:
http://godandson.reslight.net/?p=26
http://godandson.reslight.net/?p=78
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php/topic,405.0.html
http://notrinity.blogspot.com/2008/07/isaiah-96.html
http://notrinity.blogspot.com/2009/01/isa9-6.html
CLICK HERE to post comments, questions, etc., on the “Jesus and His God” Discussion forum.
For books related to Jesus and His God, click on the locale provided below:
USA * CANADA * UNITED KINGDOM
[...] Isaiah 9:6 and the Alleged Trinity [...]
[...] http://godandson.reslight.net/?p=82 [...]
[...] Isaiah 9:6 – Click Here for the study: Isaiah 9:6 and the Alleged Trinity [...]