Nobody Dies for a Lie

[Cow Poke]

I would use the terms true God and true man, but yes, that's essentially what the hypostatic union teaches. He's not the "second part" of God though, seeing as God does not consist of parts. God consisting of 3 parts would be tritheism.

But the problem I have with the phrase "three-in-one deity embodied in Jesus" is that nowhere in Scripture, or orthodox Christian doctrine/dogma is it ever taught that the entire "three-in-one deity" is incarnated as Jesus, but that the second Person of the Trinity took on a human nature when He incarnated as a man.

Yeah!

[Littlejoe]

And because Jesus was Jewish, we Christians are "grafted into" the "Family of God". Making them our texts as well.

It might look obvious in retrospect but there are a lot of scholars who interpret this passage differently. Most commentators consider the text to refer to Hezekiah the successor to Ahaz and the Messianic hope of Israel at the time.

[Cow Poke]

Those commentators would have to be wrong...

A) Those commentators would have to exist
2) They would need to be the majority opinion

Otherwise, Tassman is full of bean dip.

Oh, and...

C) They would still be wrong

[Tassman]

I would use the terms true God and true man, but yes, that's essentially what the hypostatic union teaches. He's not the "second part" of God though, seeing as God does not consist of parts. God consisting of 3 parts would be tritheism.

But the problem I have with the phrase "three-in-one deity embodied in Jesus" is that nowhere in Scripture, or orthodox Christian doctrine/dogma is it ever taught that the entire "three-in-one deity" is incarnated as Jesus, but that the second Person of the Trinity took on a human nature when He incarnated as a man.

The problem with this is that the doctrinal definition of the Trinity consists of three indivisible persons in one God, i.e. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit...as per the Athanasian Creed:

3. We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit".

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

[Tassman]

And because Jesus was Jewish, we Christians are "grafted into" the "Family of God". Making them our texts as well.

Christianity may have appropriated the Jewish texts and read back into them predictions of Jesus' birth and messiahship, but they were written by the Jews for the Jews and understood differently by the Jews. They are Jewish scriptures after all.

Those commentators would have to be wrong then as Hezekiah was obviously not the Messiah, and most certainly was not God.

Hezekiah was not the messiah according the later Christian concept. Nor was he God. Hezekiah is referred to as "mighty god" not Almighty God. This passage is not referring to a divine messiah at all.

"The word for "Almighty" as applied exclusively to God in the OT is the Hebrew word "Shadday" {shad-dah'-ee}. However, this is not the word used in this verse. The actual word used in this verse is the Hebrew word "Gibbowr" meaning "mighty" and not "The Almighty." Now, although to us such a difference might seem subtle and insignificant, still, to the Jews, the difference was quite pronounced.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac/born.htm

http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/...n-isaiah-95-6/

[Goulette]

Hezekiah was not the messiah according the later Christian concept. Nor was he God. Hezekiah is referred to as "mighty god" not Almighty God. This passage is not referring to a divine messiah at all.

"The word for "Almighty" as applied exclusively to God in the OT is the Hebrew word "Shadday" {shad-dah'-ee}. However, this is not the word used in this verse. The actual word used in this verse is the Hebrew word "Gibbowr" meaning "mighty" and not "The Almighty." Now, although to us such a difference might seem subtle and insignificant, still, to the Jews, the difference was quite pronounced.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac/born.htmhttp://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/...n-isaiah-95-6/

So what you're saying is Isaiah predicted the birth of someone who was already born, was labeled by God as another god even though Almighty God forbade the Hebrews from having any other gods and warned Isaiah's people multiple times of the consequences of giving allegiance to other gods?

You also said

Christianity may have appropriated the Jewish texts and read back into them predictions of Jesus' birth and messiahship, but they were written by the Jews for the Jews and understood differently by the Jews. They are Jewish scriptures after all.

Yet Jewish Scripture goes out of its way to distinguish itself as monotheistic in an ancient polytheistic world, and you want us to believe the Jews thought Isaiah was labelling one of their kings a god?

[Littlejoe]

Christianity may have appropriated the Jewish texts and read back into them predictions of Jesus' birth and messiahship, but they were written by the Jews for the Jews and understood differently by the Jews. They are Jewish scriptures after all.

Yes, they are Jewish Scriptures, but Christian believe we were grafted into the Nation of Israel by Jesus, thereby making them ours (Christians) as well.

Romans 11:17 - But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree,

And we are considered adopted sons, which as you know means Full kinship in the family.

Ephesians 1:5 English Standard Version (ESV)...In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

Hezekiah was not the messiah according the later Christian concept. Nor was he God. Hezekiah is referred to as "mighty god" not Almighty God. This passage is not referring to a divine messiah at all.


"The word for "Almighty" as applied exclusively to God in the OT is the Hebrew word "Shadday" {shad-dah'-ee}. However, this is not the word used in this verse. The actual word used in this verse is the Hebrew word "Gibbowr" meaning "mighty" and not "The Almighty." Now, although to us such a difference might seem subtle and insignificant, still, to the Jews, the difference was quite pronounced.


http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac/born.htm

JewsForJesus.org, messainicapologetics.net, and oneforisrael.org all disagree with this exegesis from your source. Obviously the Jews can't see Jesus in this passage as they would then have to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. Also obvious is that your sources are Jewish and have a pro-Jewish and an anti-Christian bias and mine are ALSO Jewish but have a pro-Christian bias and are also pro-Jewish. The reason God Almighty is not used here IMO is that Jesus isn't God Almighty, that's the Fathers role. He is however Mighty God. The Mighty Arm of God...


From https://jewsforjesus.org/publication...-son-is-given/ :

These four names are all used elsewhere in the Book of Isaiah and in each case they are used of God, never of man.

As you can see, Isaiah never uses these Hebraic Words of God for men.


from messianicapologetics.net:
http://messianicapologetics.net/archives/18715





From oneforisrael.org :
https://www.oneforisrael.org/bible-b...day-of-midian/

The Day of Midian, it turns out, has everything to do with the coming and birth of Yeshua!

http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/...n-isaiah-95-6/

None of which earns him the right to be called names of God and/or divine.

[Tassman]

So what you're saying is Isaiah predicted the birth of someone who was already born, was labeled by God as another god even though Almighty God forbade the Hebrews from having any other gods and warned Isaiah's people multiple times of the consequences of giving allegiance to other gods?

I've already covered this. "... when we study the words "mighty God" carefully, we notice an interesting fact. For some reason, the words used are not "Almighty God" but rather "mighty God." Naturally, this makes one curious as to what the original Hebrew text actually says. So we decide to study it.

The word for "Almighty" as applied exclusively to God in the OT is the Hebrew word "Shadday" {shad-dah'-ee}. However, this is not the word used in this verse. The actual word used in this verse is the Hebrew word "Gibbowr" meaning "mighty" and not "The Almighty." Now, although to us such a difference might seem subtle and insignificant, still, to the Jews, the difference was quite pronounced. "

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac/born.htm

In short, the term "mighty god", as opposed to "almighty God" is more accurately referenced as "mighty warrior" in this passage.

You also said

Yet Jewish Scripture goes out of its way to distinguish itself as monotheistic in an ancient polytheistic world, and you want us to believe the Jews thought Isaiah was labelling one of their kings a god?

This is true. The Jews (and the early Christians who were also Jews) were strictly monotheistic. Which is why the Church was in such a predicament when it wanted to think of Jesus as God. They finally devised the tortuous Athanasian Creed by way of explanation.

[Tassman]

Yes, they are Jewish Scriptures, but Christian believe we were grafted into the Nation of Israel by Jesus, thereby making them ours (Christians) as well.

Yes Christians believe that. But why would the monotheistic Jews accept this appropriation of their scriptures by the Christians in order to justify Jesus as God? In fact they didn't.

Romans 11:17 - But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree,

And we are considered adopted sons, which as you know means Full kinship in the family.

Ephesians 1:5 English Standard Version (ESV)...In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

See above.

JewsForJesus.org, messainicapologetics.net, and oneforisrael.org all disagree with this exegesis from your source. Obviously the Jews can't see Jesus in this passage as they would then have to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. Also obvious is that your sources are Jewish and have a pro-Jewish and an anti-Christian bias and mine are ALSO Jewish but have a pro-Christian bias and are also pro-Jewish. The reason God Almighty is not used here IMO is that Jesus isn't God Almighty, that's the Fathers role. He is however Mighty God. The Mighty Arm of God...


From https://jewsforjesus.org/publication...-son-is-given/ :

These four names are all used elsewhere in the Book of Isaiah and in each case they are used of God, never of man.

As you can see, Isaiah never uses these Hebraic Words of God for men.


from messianicapologetics.net:
http://messianicapologetics.net/archives/18715





From oneforisrael.org :
https://www.oneforisrael.org/bible-b...day-of-midian/

The Day of Midian, it turns out, has everything to do with the coming and birth of Yeshua!

.

All of these quotes are from pro-Christian sites. As you say yourself, the pro-Jewish sites don't support this. For the good reason that the Jewish scriptures were written by and for the Jews. No matter how much Christians might want to believe that they "were grafted into the Nation of Israel by Jesus, thereby making them ours (Christians) as well", the Jews overall, do not believe that.

[shunyadragon]

So what you're saying is Isaiah predicted the birth of someone who was already born, was labeled by God as another god even though Almighty God forbade the Hebrews from having any other gods and warned Isaiah's people multiple times of the consequences of giving allegiance to other gods?

You also said

Yet Jewish Scripture goes out of its way to distinguish itself as monotheistic in an ancient polytheistic world, and you want us to believe the Jews thought Isaiah was labelling one of their kings a god?

This does not reflect the Jewish view of the references cite. It is rather contorted and contrived strongly biased view of the Jewish understanding of the scripture with a religious agenda. If you want to accurately describe the Jewish view cite Jewish sources.

[Littlejoe]

Yes Christians believe that. But why would the monotheistic Jews accept this appropriation of their scriptures by the Christians in order to justify Jesus as God? In fact they didn't.



See above.



All of these quotes are from pro-Christian sites. As you say yourself, the pro-Jewish sites don't support this. For the good reason that the Jewish scriptures were written by and for the Jews. No matter how much Christians might want to believe that they "were grafted into the Nation of Israel by Jesus, thereby making them ours (Christians) as well", the Jews overall, do not believe that.

ALL of my sources are Jewish sites...therefore, they have as much right to call them their Scriptures. You seem to think your source is entitled to special pleading...I say they are not.

[Tassman]

ALL of my sources are Jewish sites...therefore, they have as much right to call them their Scriptures. You seem to think your source is entitled to special pleading...I say they are not.

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, cause we really don't want to trust any Jew who actually found the Messiah they've been looking for all their lives.

[Tassman]

Yeah, cause we really don't want to trust any Jew who actually found the Messiah they've been looking for all their lives.

These Isaiah passages had NEVER, during the millennia of their existence, been interpreted by the Jews as predicting the future Messiah. And they still aren't. It was only after the event, when strict monotheist Jews wanted to say Jesus was God too, that the followers of Jesus took them to refer to Jesus.

[Cow Poke]

These Isaiah passages had NEVER...

Bless your heart.