23 Jun 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat is not to understand robbie ,who is you spiritual father Jesus or Jehovah?
this is hilarious, you really have no idea in what sense the term father is used in the very scripture that you quoted, brilliant, follow Hinds along the yellow brick road,
were off to see the wizard, tra la la la
You can only have one spiritual father, or do you have 2 fathers? Are you a spiritual bastard?
So who is is Jesus or Jehovah?
23 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsHe can't because of the scripture in the OP. At least not until he gets instruction on how to respond from the governing body, this is why the JWs often delay in answering, they are waiting for confirmation on how to respond.
I was clear as to who my spiritual father and my God is. It is Yahshua (Jesus). All you have to say is that your spiritual father is Jehovah. That is why you claim to be Jehovah's Witnesses isn't it?
The Instructor
23 Jun 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOh, here we go again. Delay tactic #1.
what do you mean father, in what sense are you using the term father, it is after all, rather ambiguous, please define your terms. If you are meaning someone who provides guidance, i have many spiritual fathers, so what do you mean?
"Please define your terms."
I find it hard to believe that he who claims to be so versed in Hebrew and Greek does not own or understand an English dictionary.
23 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterLol. You are a liar sir as is cleary evident as I've never waited on a responce from anyone before I posted.
He can't because of the scripture in the OP. At least not until he gets instruction on how to respond from the governing body, this is why the JWs often delay in answering, they are waiting for confirmation on how to respond.
You are seriously losing the small amount of respect you may have had here MR D.
23 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by Suziannewhich dictionary should i look up to get a sense of the term Father in the quoted scripture? why dont you tell us in what sense it is used in the text?
Oh, here we go again. Delay tactic #1.
"Please define your terms."
I find it hard to believe that he who claims to be so versed in Hebrew and Greek does not own or understand an English dictionary.
23 Jun 13
Originally posted by galveston75Who is your spiritual father, Jesus or Jehovah?
Lol. You are a liar sir as is cleary evident as I've never waited on a responce from anyone before I posted.
You are seriously losing the small amount of respect you may have had here MR D.
I ask simple questions Galveston but and robbie are always unable to answer them, why is that I wonder...
23 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterwhat could be simpler than, in what sense are you using the term father, to which you answered, in the sense of the Op, to which we have asked, in what sense is that,
Who is your spiritual father, Jesus or Jehovah?
I ask simple questions Galveston but and robbie are always unable to answer them, why is that I wonder...
you have failed to provide a single answer for these two plain and simple questions and here you are, hypocrisy as evident as ever chastising others for simply wanting to know what you actually mean, when you answer these questions, ill answer yours.
I ask simple questions but divegeester is always unable to answer them, why is that I wonder...
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
23 Jun 13
Originally posted by divegeesterTrinitarians 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.”
Then how do you account for Jesus being called the Everlasting Father in the scripture in the OP. have you got 2 fathers? Like the JWs are going to have to say......eventually.
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
23 Jun 13
Originally posted by checkbaitervery interesting and thank you for providing background and references to Biblical texts and how they compare so as to impart understanding.
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 Su ...[text shortened]... t does not refer to the Trinity at all, but to the Messiah, the son of David and the Son of God.