Jesus is God

God, Christ, & The Holy Spirit
User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Jesus is God

Post by darinhouston » Fri May 28, 2021 10:53 am

commonsense wrote:
Thu May 27, 2021 11:00 pm
The entire Bible is basically about Israel started with the father Abraham and his faith in ONE God. Israel happens to be called the Son of God. And just as this Son of God is about to come to an end and die, Jesus appears on the scene and happens to be called the Son God. Is this all a coincidence?

Yet now we're supposed to believe that when the New Testament writers refer to Jesus as the Son of God or speak of the Father, suddenly from out of the blue, they're talking about a Trinity of Gods, and Jesus as God Himself. This is a prime example of how doctrines of men enter in.
The New Testament (particularly Romans and Hebrews) make it pretty clear that the notion of "Israel" is fulfilled in Christ and that all of the history of the nation of Israel was primarily a type of Christ, all of biblical history pointing to Jesus as Lord Messiah and Mediator - Redeemer. Most Jews failed to recognize this, but for Christians this is a fundamental principle.

But I think that discussion really belongs in its own topic.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Jesus is God

Post by darinhouston » Fri May 28, 2021 11:11 am

I think we've addressed this one before and Dwight complained that we were just wordsmithing or something, but this is a pretty good discourse from biblicalunitarian.com.

I find it particularly interesting that even Martin Luther translated "Mighty God" as “divine hero".

----

Isaiah 9:6
“And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace….” (NIV)

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”) with Ezekiel 31:11 (el = “ruler”). 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

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Jesus is God

Post by Paidion » Fri May 28, 2021 11:27 am

Dwight wrote:Would you mind explaining to me and the other readers of this post, WHY YOU LEFT OUT THOSE WORDS?
I don't mind at all. The explanation is simple.
I used Sir Lancelot Brenten's translation of the Septuagint (1851). Those words are not there.
Here are verses 6 and 7 of Isaiah 9:

6 For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and
his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and
health to him.
7 His government shall be great, and of his peace there is no end: it shall be upon
the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgment and
with righteousness, from henceforth and forever. The seal of the Lord of hosts shall perform
this.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Jesus is God

Post by darinhouston » Fri May 28, 2021 1:19 pm

Homer wrote:
Tue May 25, 2021 10:59 am
Hi Darin,

I do not recall any thread about Christophanies. I do believe that subject bears a direct relationship to this "Jesus is God" thread. And the Merriam-Webster definitions of deity and demigod can certainly help us understand one another. I think I know where Paidion stands but am not clear about what you believe or if you are unsure and searching or putting your thoughts to the test.
Most recently in a topic entitled "Angel of the Lord" but it comes up from time to time.

I'm not sure what specific question you have on where I "stand" to put a belief to the test. I think I've stated this many times in many ways, but I do not believe Jesus is Yahweh, eternal God of the Old Testament, uncreated creator. I think there are a large number of ways in which he can be called "divine" or "deity" or "god" in a variety of contexts and it's not real clear where those limits are reached. Each passage has to be evaluated on its own merit (somewhere between the way other men in history could be called "gods" and something unique due to his fully embodying God's Spirit.) The one thing that history seems to be clear about is many of the words and concepts we translate as "god" simply don't have any sort of notion of being the very God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. Princely or royal aspects of being God's son or his anointed and authorized agent (with an ancient notion of agency) are among those options.

As Dwight often relies on, there are many passages that "could" be consistent with Trinitarianism (IF THE TRINITY IS TRUE). But, because of the things we often point out in response here, most are subject to other paradigmatic views and interpretations and they are therefore not useful in an affirmative proof, individually or collectively. Further, there are too many passages that seem directly and clearly contrary to various Trinitarian positions. Are there "reasonable" answers to them? Most of them, but if I found them persuasive, I'd probably be a trinitarian. But, at best most are ambiguous. This is not unlike the historic debate over soteriology (Calvinism vs Arminianism) in that it doesn't matter how many proof-texts "sound" like they "could be" consistent with Calvinism, the larger teaching of scripture and other key texts seem to negate it and so they have to be interpreted in light of clear teachings otherwise.

I start from the OT premise of one true God and a human being divinely and miraculously conceived in Mary to be anointed as God's Messiah and RAISED to authority as Lord with all divine prerogatives (which we need concern ourselves) as God Himself sharing his throne as it pertains to our creation. That is my paradigm as that is clearly taught. I then see if other less clear scriptures can be interpreted in light of that clear teaching and most can be (or have questionable textual reliability) and I have yet to be persuaded that the specific claims of the Trinity are taught in scripture. I remain unconvinced about aspects of Trinitarianism such as pre-existence (in some form or in some aspect) and some other details, but the distinctive positions of the Trinity as 3 persons in one godhead seems unlikely. I started with a study into the distinct personality of the HS and became convinced at best a binitarian view was supported, but I'm leaning strongly unitarian at this point.

Of all the reasons to be cautious here, the most is how shockingly inaccurate most historical depictions of Nicea and beyond are (and the teachings of the so-called Fathers). This was perhaps the first "cancel culture" (repeated in spades in the 16th Century/Reformation). Is anyone even aware that Nicea was only a part of the church at the time and that it changed very few bishops or churches minds from being Arian (a term used even then for pretty much any non-Catholic position in this regard) and that following Nicea, Athanasius himself was exiled as a heretic for a time and that subsequent councils denounced Nicea and declared Arianism before later councils re-affirmed and expanded on Nicea, and so on and so forth. It seems to have depended largely on who was in power at the time which "side" was "winning." But for the burning of heretics and their books, we might well all have a different perspective.

Something to think about: I think what we are seeing right in front of us today in censorship and gaslighting by Facebook and Twitter and CNN and other forms of media, etc. on so many political and public health issues today should be fairly instructional in understanding the historical "development" of this issue and should give us pause on the extent to which concilar doctrines supported by/encouraged by/ and enforced by Imperial and later governments can be trusted.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Jesus is God

Post by dwight92070 » Fri May 28, 2021 1:42 pm

Paidion wrote:
Fri May 28, 2021 11:27 am
Dwight wrote:Would you mind explaining to me and the other readers of this post, WHY YOU LEFT OUT THOSE WORDS?
I don't mind at all. The explanation is simple.
I used Sir Lancelot Brenten's translation of the Septuagint (1851). Those words are not there.

Dwight - Then it appears that there was foul play. Like either a Trinitarian adding words or a non-Trinitarian subtracting words. It is interesting that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were about the same time frame, 3rd and 2nd century B.C. did include those words.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Jesus is God

Post by darinhouston » Fri May 28, 2021 2:52 pm

dwight92070 wrote:
Fri May 28, 2021 1:42 pm
Paidion wrote:
Fri May 28, 2021 11:27 am
Dwight wrote:Would you mind explaining to me and the other readers of this post, WHY YOU LEFT OUT THOSE WORDS?
I don't mind at all. The explanation is simple.
I used Sir Lancelot Brenten's translation of the Septuagint (1851). Those words are not there.

Dwight - Then it appears that there was foul play. Like either a Trinitarian adding words or a non-Trinitarian subtracting words. It is interesting that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were about the same time frame, 3rd and 2nd century B.C. did include those words.
Very interesting. The Tanakh variant makes more sense and avoids the debate over Jesus being identified as "Father".
https://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/3054578-septuagint-vs-masoretic-texts.html wrote:Tanakh: Isaiah 9:6 (9:5 in the Tanakh) For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

Notice that in the Tanakh, it is not the child who called the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, but is being called the prince of peace BY the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father. However, in both the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls, (and again, both of these are much older than the Tanakh) it is the child who is called the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, and the prince of peace.

Read more: https://www.city-data.com/forum/christi ... texts.html

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Jesus is God

Post by dwight92070 » Fri May 28, 2021 5:05 pm

Paidion wrote:
Fri May 28, 2021 11:27 am


I don't mind at all. The explanation is simple.
I used Sir Lancelot Brenten's translation of the Septuagint (1851). Those words are not there.

Dwight - Then it appears that there was foul play. Like either a Trinitarian adding words or a non-Trinitarian subtracting words. It is interesting that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were about the same time frame, 3rd and 2nd century B.C. did include those words.
[/quote]

Very interesting. The Tanakh variant makes more sense and avoids the debate over Jesus being identified as "Father".

Dwight - Of course it does, because you don't accept Jesus being God, and the Jews don't accept Jesus as being their Messiah. I believe the Tanakh is engaging in foul play right there.

Tanakh: Isaiah 9:6 (9:5 in the Tanakh) For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

Dwight - How obviously suspicious! I don't accept that reading at all.

Dwight - Once again, I bounced the Brenton translation off of Steve. His response? "That's convenient for the Jews and Arians, but the oldest Hebrew manuscripts, before Christianity, do NOT leave out those words." So he too, sees foul play in that translation.

Dwight - So we have non-Trinitarians scandalously LEAVING OUT WORDS or TWISTING THE SENTENCE STRUCTURE to make it say something in line with their belief (or I should say, their UNBELIEF).

Dwight - Isn't it suspicious that EVERY SCRIPTURE that indicates that Jesus is God, is, or has been, reinterpreted, twisted, tampered with, omitted, or flagged as having textual problems? Is that just a coincidence? No, that is the work of the devil.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Jesus is God

Post by Paidion » Fri May 28, 2021 6:09 pm

This mindset is pretty common—ascribing to the devil every scripture that does not line up with one's theology.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Jesus is God

Post by dwight92070 » Fri May 28, 2021 7:02 pm

I honor God's word. You dishonor scripture by quoting altered passages. That, itself, is of the devil.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Jesus is God

Post by darinhouston » Fri May 28, 2021 9:06 pm

dwight92070 wrote:
Fri May 28, 2021 7:02 pm
I honor God's word. You dishonor scripture by quoting altered passages. That, itself, is of the devil.
Please quit doing that. Whether you recognize it or not, it dishonors God.

What I find interesting about that version is that it makes "sense" (regardless of your theory). In fact, the Tanakh is actually more consistent with the Trinity - so, I think you're a bit off base there (and your eagerness to show corruption sure seems selective). It does, however, remove it as a proof-text. Identity of the child with the Father either requires a different perspective on "eternal father" or requires this translation - otherwise, both trinitarian and unitarian theories are both wrong and Jesus just "IS" the Father.

Post Reply

Return to “Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology”