Isaiah 9:6

Bill_Coley · February 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Wolfgang said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Wolfgang said:
"Some like it hot" was a title of a somewhat funny movie many moons ago ... "Some like God to be Three rather than One" is however not quite that funny ... it's rather sad.

I am sick and tired of you mischaracterizing what those of us who believe the truth claim Wolfgang. We do not claim three gods no matter how badly you wish to say we do.

So you do not say that there are Three Who are God? Until now, I was sure you believed in the Trinity doctrine/dogma .... I am sorry if I wrongly assumed that to be the case.

The problem is that not what is taught by the Trinity. Never have we claimed three Gods, only one. So you lie about our position to slander us.

As a result of your post, David, I think I understand your legal strategy - you're going to file a slander lawsuit against Wolfgang because, in your view, he intentionally mischaracterized your position on the Trinity - but I don't understand your position on the Trinity... at least not as well as I understand your legal strategy.

Perhaps you could first state your position on the Trinity clearly, then identify the way(s) you believe Wolfgang's post(s) have mischaracterized your position.

And then, if you're still hungry for on-topic conversation, perhaps you could address the textual analysis I offered earlier in this thread, the time frame analysis rooted in Isaiah 7.8, Isaiah 7.16, and Isaiah 7.17. In that post, I'm confident you'll agree, I offered no characterizations whatsoever of your Trinity position, so therefore, could not possibly have slandered you.

[Deleted User] · February 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:

So you do not say that there are Three Who are God? Until now, I was sure you believed in the Trinity doctrine/dogma .... I am sorry if I wrongly assumed that to be the case.

The problem is that not what is taught by the Trinity. Never have we claimed three Gods, only one. So you lie about our position to slander us.

Where did I say "three Gods" ? I said that the Trinity teaches that God is THREE, not One. The Trinity teaches clearly that (1) the Father is God, (2) the Son is God, (3) the Holy Spirit is God ... yes or no?
The Trinity teaches that these three each are God independently of each other, in other words Father, Son, Holy Spirit are not God only as One Team, but each individually is God ... yes or no?
Should the answers to these be "yes", I leave it up to you to figure out how many Gods that then makes ... no matter what is claimed to the contrary.

dct112685 · February 2018

@Bill_Coley said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Wolfgang said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Wolfgang said:
"Some like it hot" was a title of a somewhat funny movie many moons ago ... "Some like God to be Three rather than One" is however not quite that funny ... it's rather sad.

I am sick and tired of you mischaracterizing what those of us who believe the truth claim Wolfgang. We do not claim three gods no matter how badly you wish to say we do.

So you do not say that there are Three Who are God? Until now, I was sure you believed in the Trinity doctrine/dogma .... I am sorry if I wrongly assumed that to be the case.

The problem is that not what is taught by the Trinity. Never have we claimed three Gods, only one. So you lie about our position to slander us.

As a result of your post, David, I think I understand your legal strategy - you're going to file a slander lawsuit against Wolfgang because, in your view, he intentionally mischaracterized your position on the Trinity - but I don't understand your position on the Trinity... at least not as well as I understand your legal strategy.

Perhaps you could first state your position on the Trinity clearly, then identify the way(s) you believe Wolfgang's post(s) have mischaracterized your position.

And then, if you're still hungry for on-topic conversation, perhaps you could address the textual analysis I offered earlier in this thread, the time frame analysis rooted in Isaiah 7.8, Isaiah 7.16, and Isaiah 7.17. In that post, I'm confident you'll agree, I offered no characterizations whatsoever of your Trinity position, so therefore, could not possibly have slandered you.

Why in the world are you talking about a legal strategy? Good grief.

Second, we believe that there is one God who manifests himself in three persons. Not three separate entities.

I'm lost on your post Bill, which one is it?

@Wolfgang said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

So you do not say that there are Three Who are God? Until now, I was sure you believed in the Trinity doctrine/dogma .... I am sorry if I wrongly assumed that to be the case.

The problem is that not what is taught by the Trinity. Never have we claimed three Gods, only one. So you lie about our position to slander us.

Where did I say "three Gods" ? I said that the Trinity teaches that God is THREE, not One. The Trinity teaches clearly that (1) the Father is God, (2) the Son is God, (3) the Holy Spirit is God ... yes or no?
The Trinity teaches that these three each are God independently of each other, in other words Father, Son, Holy Spirit are not God only as One Team, but each individually is God ... yes or no?
Should the answers to these be "yes", I leave it up to you to figure out how many Gods that then makes ... no matter what is claimed to the contrary.

One God. That is what we teach.

Bill_Coley · February 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:
Why in the world are you talking about a legal strategy? Good grief.

In a recent post to Wolfgang, you accused him of lying about your position in order to slander you.

"The problem is that not what is taught by the Trinity. Never have we claimed three Gods, only one. So you lie about our position to slander us."

Slander is a legal term, of course; hence, my "legal strategy" reference.

I'm lost on your post Bill, which one is it?

There doesn't seem to be a way to link to a specific post in these threads as there was in the ChristianDiscourse forums, so here's the post to which I refer, in full quotation. I have added emphasis to the time-frame analysis I raised to your attention:

Thanks for sharing your views, Gao Lu.

In my view, the idea that FOR THE PROPHET, his reference in Isaiah 9.6 (and Isaiah 7.14, for that matter) was to a child to be born, potentially, 700 years in the future, does not make sense. As Isaiah 7 makes clear, for example, the prophet's mission was to encourage his current audience, not readers centuries into the future.

Isaiah 7.14 says a young woman (not a "virgin"!) shall give birth to a son whose name will be Immanuel. What time frame does the prophet have in mind for that son's birth? He tells us! In Isaiah 7.16 he predicts that before the child to be born is old enough to choose between good and evil, the lands of the two kings Ahaz fears will be deserted. Such maturation won't take 700 years.

In Isaiah 7.17 the prophet adds to the soon-arriving agenda: The Lord will then bring the king of Assyria upon Ahaz himself, as well as Ahaz's people and Ahaz's father house. That's an era-specific reference that rules out the time of Jesus, in my view. (For an additional reference, consider the prophet's assurance to Ahaz in Isaiah 7.8 that within 65 years one of the two nations he fears - Ephraim/Israel - will be "shattered from being a people).

That's my case and I'm quite comfortable with it. But clearly, people of good faith disagree as to the meaning of these verses. I respect views different from mine.

As for the "prophetic future tense," the examples cited in the Wikipedia article don't make the case, in my view, but I don't have time to engage them. Bottom line for me is that I think the NIB article makes a much stronger case for its analysis of the verb tenses than does the Wikipedia article. I respect your different conclusion.

dct112685 · February 2018

@Bill_Coley said:

@davidtaylorjr said:
Why in the world are you talking about a legal strategy? Good grief.

In a recent post to Wolfgang, you accused him of lying about your position in order to slander you.

"The problem is that not what is taught by the Trinity. Never have we claimed three Gods, only one. So you lie about our position to slander us."

Slander is a legal term, of course; hence, my "legal strategy" reference.

Oh brother, surely you know it is not only a legal term but a term to say someone has made an intentionally false statement about you.

dct112685 · February 2018

@Bill_Coley said:

Thanks for sharing your views, Gao Lu.

In my view, the idea that FOR THE PROPHET, his reference in Isaiah 9.6 (and Isaiah 7.14, for that matter) was to a child to be born, potentially, 700 years in the future, does not make sense. As Isaiah 7 makes clear, for example, the prophet's mission was to encourage his current audience, not readers centuries into the future.

Isaiah 7.14 says a young woman (not a "virgin"!) shall give birth to a son whose name will be Immanuel. What time frame does the prophet have in mind for that son's birth? He tells us! In Isaiah 7.16 he predicts that before the child to be born is old enough to choose between good and evil, the lands of the two kings Ahaz fears will be deserted. Such maturation won't take 700 years.

It is most certainly virgin in context and culture. Also look at the Septuagint and how they translate it.

In Isaiah 7.17 the prophet adds to the soon-arriving agenda: The Lord will then bring the king of Assyria upon Ahaz himself, as well as Ahaz's people and Ahaz's father house. That's an era-specific reference that rules out the time of Jesus, in my view. (For an additional reference, consider the prophet's assurance to Ahaz in Isaiah 7.8 that within 65 years one of the two nations he fears - Ephraim/Israel - will be "shattered from being a people).

Unfortunately it doesn't fit the rest of the passage so you need to go back and try again.

That's my case and I'm quite comfortable with it. But clearly, people of good faith disagree as to the meaning of these verses. I respect views different from mine.

It's a pretty bad case.

As for the "prophetic future tense," the examples cited in the Wikipedia article don't make the case, in my view, but I don't have time to engage them. Bottom line for me is that I think the NIB article makes a much stronger case for its analysis of the verb tenses than does the Wikipedia article. I respect your different conclusion.

[Deleted User] · February 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Wolfgang said:
Where did I say "three Gods" ? I said that the Trinity teaches that God is THREE, not One. The Trinity teaches clearly that (1) the Father is God, (2) the Son is God, (3) the Holy Spirit is God ... yes or no?
The Trinity teaches that these three each are God independently of each other, in other words Father, Son, Holy Spirit are not God only as One Team, but each individually is God ... yes or no?
Should the answers to these be "yes", I leave it up to you to figure out how many Gods that then makes ... no matter what is claimed to the contrary.

One God. That is what we teach.

Well. as I already said, just making a big fat bold claim doesn't prove a lousy thing.
Since you say you teach One God, then you obviously do not teach that (1) the Father is God, (2) the Son is God, (3) the Holy Spirit each are God??? If only one of these three is God, who is it?

You mentioned before that you believe that the one God manifests Himself in three persons .... so you are actually speaking of FOUR "individuals" (a) God ... the One Who manifests Himself, and (b) three persons in whom this God manifests Himself ?

Bill_Coley · February 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:

Isaiah 7.14 says a young woman (not a "virgin"!) shall give birth to a son whose name will be Immanuel. What time frame does the prophet have in mind for that son's birth? He tells us! In Isaiah 7.16 he predicts that before the child to be born is old enough to choose between good and evil, the lands of the two kings Ahaz fears will be deserted. Such maturation won't take 700 years.

It is most certainly virgin in context and culture. Also look at the Septuagint and how they translate it.

Please identify the specific aspects of the word's context in Isaiah 7 and the culture in which the prophet wrote that in your view suggest that the word "almah" should be translated "virgin" when the word means a woman of childbearing age (without reference to her virginity) and when the prophet could have used the Hebrew word "betulah," which actually means "virgin," but did not.

In Isaiah 7.17 the prophet adds to the soon-arriving agenda: The Lord will then bring the king of Assyria upon Ahaz himself, as well as Ahaz's people and Ahaz's father house. That's an era-specific reference that rules out the time of Jesus, in my view. (For an additional reference, consider the prophet's assurance to Ahaz in Isaiah 7.8 that within 65 years one of the two nations he fears - Ephraim/Israel - will be "shattered from being a people).

Unfortunately it doesn't fit the rest of the passage so you need to go back and try again.

I tried again and got the same result, David.

The prophet says that after the child is born, Ahaz himself, among others, will bear the consequences of the King of Assyria. So here's the sequence the prophet lays out:
1. The child is born
2. King Ahaz is visited by the King of Assyria.

Unless King Ahaz and the king of Assyria both lived 700+ years (and they didn't), the prophet must be talking about a child born in his time, not the time of Jesus.

In addition, the chapter declares that within 65 years, one of the two nations Ahaz fears will be no more. Which of those two nations, Syria or Israel/Ephraim, ended within 65 years of the prophet's conversation with Ahaz? (HINT: It wasn't Syria) Another clear indication that the child's birth the prophet predicts is a birth he expected in his time.

Please explain your objection - and why I needed to try again - in more than a single evidence-free sentence.

That's my case and I'm quite comfortable with it. But clearly, people of good faith disagree as to the meaning of these verses. I respect views different from mine.

It's a pretty bad case.

This is the kind of meticulous analysis that separates your posts from most others', David.

dct112685 · February 2018

@Wolfgang said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Wolfgang said:
Where did I say "three Gods" ? I said that the Trinity teaches that God is THREE, not One. The Trinity teaches clearly that (1) the Father is God, (2) the Son is God, (3) the Holy Spirit is God ... yes or no?
The Trinity teaches that these three each are God independently of each other, in other words Father, Son, Holy Spirit are not God only as One Team, but each individually is God ... yes or no?
Should the answers to these be "yes", I leave it up to you to figure out how many Gods that then makes ... no matter what is claimed to the contrary.

One God. That is what we teach.

Well. as I already said, just making a big fat bold claim doesn't prove a lousy thing.
Since you say you teach One God, then you obviously do not teach that (1) the Father is God, (2) the Son is God, (3) the Holy Spirit each are God??? If only one of these three is God, who is it?

You mentioned before that you believe that the one God manifests Himself in three persons .... so you are actually speaking of FOUR "individuals" (a) God ... the One Who manifests Himself, and (b) three persons in whom this God manifests Himself ?

Now you are just being difficult.

@Bill_Coley said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

Isaiah 7.14 says a young woman (not a "virgin"!) shall give birth to a son whose name will be Immanuel. What time frame does the prophet have in mind for that son's birth? He tells us! In Isaiah 7.16 he predicts that before the child to be born is old enough to choose between good and evil, the lands of the two kings Ahaz fears will be deserted. Such maturation won't take 700 years.

It is most certainly virgin in context and culture. Also look at the Septuagint and how they translate it.

Please identify the specific aspects of the word's context in Isaiah 7 and the culture in which the prophet wrote that in your view suggest that the word "almah" should be translated "virgin" when the word means a woman of childbearing age (without reference to her virginity) and when the prophet could have used the Hebrew word "betulah," which actually means "virgin," but did not.

In Isaiah 7.17 the prophet adds to the soon-arriving agenda: The Lord will then bring the king of Assyria upon Ahaz himself, as well as Ahaz's people and Ahaz's father house. That's an era-specific reference that rules out the time of Jesus, in my view. (For an additional reference, consider the prophet's assurance to Ahaz in Isaiah 7.8 that within 65 years one of the two nations he fears - Ephraim/Israel - will be "shattered from being a people).

Unfortunately it doesn't fit the rest of the passage so you need to go back and try again.

I tried again and got the same result, David.

The prophet says that after the child is born, Ahaz himself, among others, will bear the consequences of the King of Assyria. So here's the sequence the prophet lays out:
1. The child is born
2. King Ahaz is visited by the King of Assyria.

Unless King Ahaz and the king of Assyria both lived 700+ years (and they didn't), the prophet must be talking about a child born in his time, not the time of Jesus.

In addition, the chapter declares that within 65 years, one of the two nations Ahaz fears will be no more. Which of those two nations, Syria or Israel/Ephraim, ended within 65 years of the prophet's conversation with Ahaz? (HINT: It wasn't Syria) Another clear indication that the child's birth the prophet predicts is a birth he expected in his time.

Please explain your objection - and why I needed to try again - in more than a single evidence-free sentence.

That's my case and I'm quite comfortable with it. But clearly, people of good faith disagree as to the meaning of these verses. I respect views different from mine.

It's a pretty bad case.

This is the kind of meticulous analysis that separates your posts from most others', David.

I just choose not to waste my time on something that has been debunked repeatedly and is known to be something else.

[Deleted User] · February 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Wolfgang said:
Well. as I already said, just making a big fat bold claim doesn't prove a lousy thing.
Since you say you teach One God, then you obviously do not teach that (1) the Father is God, (2) the Son is God, (3) the Holy Spirit each are God??? If only one of these three is God, who is it?

You mentioned before that you believe that the one God manifests Himself in three persons .... so you are actually speaking of FOUR "individuals" (a) God ... the One Who manifests Himself, and (b) three persons in whom this God manifests Himself ?

Now you are just being difficult.

I am not difficult at all .... I used very simple, clear and plain words and reasoning in direct response to what YOU had stated earlier. I, and most likely others reading along in this thread, would appreciate you answering my simple questions to further explain YOUR earlier point. So then, dear David, how would you answer my above questions for clarification of your earlier comment ??

Bill_Coley · February 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:
I just choose not to waste my time on something that has been debunked repeatedly and is known to be something else.

I find your response here baffling, David - in that YOU'RE the one who created this thread and invited us to discuss Isaiah 9.6 - but not surprising - in that over the years you have refused more than a few of my requests for evidence to support your forum-posted claims under the cover that...

they'd been proven many times before (when they hadn't been)
or they were easily found with a search of the forums (when they weren't...because one can't find what doesn't exist)

To me, your response comes off proof that you're willing to state your views (which is fine!) but you do so only in short, few-sentence posts that you're then not willing to back up if challenged.