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]

They were the texts of the Jews. It’s no good claiming that they misunderstood the texts that had comprised their own holy book for millennia. They wrote them.

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.

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

Furthermore, Hezekiah was 39 when this passage was written...how could it apply to him??? Hezekiah was 25 when he became king; and the Assyrian invasion referenced in Isaiah 8 took place in the 14 year of his reign. Why would Isaiah be talking about the birth of a 39 y.o.? Makes no sense.

2 Kings 18:1 "Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. (2) Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem . …"


2 Kings 18:13 "Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them."

[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

Furthermore, Hezekiah was 39 when this passage was written...how could it apply to him??? Hezekiah was 25 when he became king; and the Assyrian invasion referenced in Isaiah 8 took place in the 14 year of his reign. Why would Isaiah be talking about the birth of a 39 y.o.? Makes no sense.

2 Kings 18:1 "Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. (2) Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem . …"


2 Kings 18:13 "Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them".

"The greatness of Hezekiah lies in his setting the stage for Israel’s future. Hezekiah was a true reformer. He cleansed religious worship of foreign influence, purged the palace and the Temple of images and pagan altars, and reestablished pure monotheistic religion. In the long run Hezekiah’s achievements would outlive him, leaving an everlasting, indelible impact on the history of his people. Thus, God, through Isaiah, bestows upon Hezekiah this name which honors the king by proclaiming the great things God will do for him, and, through him, for the people of Israel."

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.htm



"The greatness of Hezekiah lies in his setting the stage for Israel’s future. Hezekiah was a true reformer. He cleansed religious worship of foreign influence, purged the palace and the Temple of images and pagan altars, and reestablished pure monotheistic religion. In the long run Hezekiah’s achievements would outlive him, leaving an everlasting, indelible impact on the history of his people. Thus, God, through Isaiah, bestows upon Hezekiah this name which honors the king by proclaiming the great things God will do for him, and, through him, for the people of Israel."

http://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/ :

The two verses discussed here deal specifically with Messiah’s origin, both human and divine...
Divine Origin—9:6b
In 9:6b, this son is given four names, each one having two parts. Each of these names is applicable to God; three of them exclusively so:


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


1. Wonderful Counselor
This can be found in Isaiah 25:1: ” . . . I will praise thy name; for thou hast done wonderful things, [even] counsels of old . . .” and in Isaiah 28:29, “This also cometh forth from Jehovah of hosts, who is wonderful in counsel . . .”
2. Mighty God
This is found in the very next chapter in Isaiah 10:21, ” . . . to the mighty God.” There are many liberal theologians who object to the concept of Messiah as a God-Man. When they translate verses such as Isaiah 9:6 they are forced to interfere with the text in order to justify their own presuppositions. In the New English Bible, for example, an entire phrase — completely absent in the Hebrew text—is inserted to make Isaiah 9:6 read, “in battle he will be God*like.” This is an impossible translation. In the Hebrew there are only two words, El Gibbor, which mean “God Almighty.” Furthermore, when exactly the same words appear in Isaiah 10:21, the NEB then translates them correctly as ” . . . the mighty God.” Clearly there is no integrity in such inconsistent translation.
3. Eternal Father
This can be compared with Isaiah 63:16b, ” . . . thou, O Jehovah, art our Father; our Redeemer from everlasting is thy name.” The same words used in Isaiah 9:6 as a proper name are seen within this sentence where they are clearly used of God.
4. Prince of Peace
Isaiah 26:3 says, “The steadfast of mind Thou wilt keep in perfect peace . . .” The object and subject of the sentence is God himself. Again in Isaiah 26:12, the work of peace is attributed to God: “Lord, Thou wilt establish peace for us . . .” As stated above, the fourth name, “the Prince of Peace,” is sometimes used of men in the Hebrew text. If we limit our attention to the book of Isaiah, however, then the work of peace is the work of God only.

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


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

The second title the Messiah is to have, asks some immediate questions about His nature, as it is El gibor or “Mighty God.” This is a title used of God proper in Isaiah 10:21: “A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God [el-El gibbor].” In the estimation of John N. Oswalt, “Wherever ʼēl gibbôr occurs elsewhere in the Bible there is no doubt that the term refers to God (10:21; cf. also Deut. 10:17[2]; Jer. 32:18[3]).”[4]


There were, in the Ancient Near East and classical Greco-Roman worlds, likely many kings and aristocrats who identified along the lines of being considered deified as “gods,” even though they were only mortal. When it comes to the Messiah, however, whose origins are certainly something beyond corporeal (Micah 5:2)—and with the spiritual and religious culture of Ancient Israel and Second Temple Judaism being decisively subversive to paganism—would the Messiah’s being titled as El Gibbor or “Mighty God” imply His being anything other than God? Isaiah 9:6 could have just said that the Messiah would be gibbor, “strong, mighty” (BDB),[5] akin to “mighty one,” and thusly one simply empowered by God or who had a special relationship with God. But when the title El gibbor, actually used of God proper, is a title possessed by the Messiah, then it is something which suggests something more than a supernatural yet created origin of Him; it suggests that the Messiah is, Himself, integrated into the Divine Identity.

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! It’s worth taking a look at that verse in Isaiah 9 again in context –


“The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined. You have multiplied the nation; you have increased its joy; they rejoice before you as with joy at the harvest, as they are glad when they divide the spoil. For the yoke of his burden, and the staff for his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, you have broken as on the day of Midian. For every boot of the tramping warrior in battle tumult and every garment rolled in blood will be burned as fuel for the fire. For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.”...
Yes, Yeshua came into this fallen world, weak and vulnerable as a baby, brought God’s light and salvation to all who call upon him. The incarnation, the Son that was given, is like the Day of Midian, in that God is telling us we cannot do it ourselves. He delights to save us in our weakness as we trust and lean into him for salvation.

"The greatness of Hezekiah lies in his setting the stage for Israel’s future. Hezekiah was a true reformer. He cleansed religious worship of foreign influence, purged the palace and the Temple of images and pagan altars, and reestablished pure monotheistic religion. In the long run Hezekiah’s achievements would outlive him, leaving an everlasting, indelible impact on the history of his people. Thus, God, through Isaiah, bestows upon Hezekiah this name which honors the king by proclaiming the great things God will do for him, and, through him, for the people of Israel."


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/ :

The two verses discussed here deal specifically with Messiah’s origin, both human and divine...
Divine Origin—9:6b
In 9:6b, this son is given four names, each one having two parts. Each of these names is applicable to God; three of them exclusively so:


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


1. Wonderful Counselor
This can be found in Isaiah 25:1: ” . . . I will praise thy name; for thou hast done wonderful things, [even] counsels of old . . .” and in Isaiah 28:29, “This also cometh forth from Jehovah of hosts, who is wonderful in counsel . . .”
2. Mighty God
This is found in the very next chapter in Isaiah 10:21, ” . . . to the mighty God.” There are many liberal theologians who object to the concept of Messiah as a God-Man. When they translate verses such as Isaiah 9:6 they are forced to interfere with the text in order to justify their own presuppositions. In the New English Bible, for example, an entire phrase — completely absent in the Hebrew text—is inserted to make Isaiah 9:6 read, “in battle he will be God*like.” This is an impossible translation. In the Hebrew there are only two words, El Gibbor, which mean “God Almighty.” Furthermore, when exactly the same words appear in Isaiah 10:21, the NEB then translates them correctly as ” . . . the mighty God.” Clearly there is no integrity in such inconsistent translation.
3. Eternal Father
This can be compared with Isaiah 63:16b, ” . . . thou, O Jehovah, art our Father; our Redeemer from everlasting is thy name.” The same words used in Isaiah 9:6 as a proper name are seen within this sentence where they are clearly used of God.
4. Prince of Peace
Isaiah 26:3 says, “The steadfast of mind Thou wilt keep in perfect peace . . .” The object and subject of the sentence is God himself. Again in Isaiah 26:12, the work of peace is attributed to God: “Lord, Thou wilt establish peace for us . . .” As stated above, the fourth name, “the Prince of Peace,” is sometimes used of men in the Hebrew text. If we limit our attention to the book of Isaiah, however, then the work of peace is the work of God only.

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


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

The second title the Messiah is to have, asks some immediate questions about His nature, as it is El gibor or “Mighty God.” This is a title used of God proper in Isaiah 10:21: “A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God [el-El gibbor].” In the estimation of John N. Oswalt, “Wherever ʼēl gibbôr occurs elsewhere in the Bible there is no doubt that the term refers to God (10:21; cf. also Deut. 10:17[2]; Jer. 32:18[3]).”[4]


There were, in the Ancient Near East and classical Greco-Roman worlds, likely many kings and aristocrats who identified along the lines of being considered deified as “gods,” even though they were only mortal. When it comes to the Messiah, however, whose origins are certainly something beyond corporeal (Micah 5:2)—and with the spiritual and religious culture of Ancient Israel and Second Temple Judaism being decisively subversive to paganism—would the Messiah’s being titled as El Gibbor or “Mighty God” imply His being anything other than God? Isaiah 9:6 could have just said that the Messiah would be gibbor, “strong, mighty” (BDB),[5] akin to “mighty one,” and thusly one simply empowered by God or who had a special relationship with God. But when the title El gibbor, actually used of God proper, is a title possessed by the Messiah, then it is something which suggests something more than a supernatural yet created origin of Him; it suggests that the Messiah is, Himself, integrated into the Divine Identity.

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! It’s worth taking a look at that verse in Isaiah 9 again in context –


“The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined. You have multiplied the nation; you have increased its joy; they rejoice before you as with joy at the harvest, as they are glad when they divide the spoil. For the yoke of his burden, and the staff for his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, you have broken as on the day of Midian. For every boot of the tramping warrior in battle tumult and every garment rolled in blood will be burned as fuel for the fire. For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.”...
Yes, Yeshua came into this fallen world, weak and vulnerable as a baby, brought God’s light and salvation to all who call upon him. The incarnation, the Son that was given, is like the Day of Midian, in that God is telling us we cannot do it ourselves. He delights to save us in our weakness as we trust and lean into him for salvation.

.

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.

If you want to accurately describe the Jewish view cite Jewish sources, as Shunya said, not biased pro-Christian sources such as “Jews for Jesus” et al.

[Cow Poke]

If you want to accurately describe the Jewish view cite Jewish sources, as Shunya said, not biased pro-Christian sources such as “Jews for Jesus” et al.

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.