Trinitarian Verses (part 1 of 4): “A Child Will Be Born To Us…Eternal Father, Prince of Peace”
|
   
Description: A discussion of the various passages in which Christians seek to prove the Trinitarian nature of God. Part 1: Isaiah 9:6.
By IslamReligion.com
Published on 13 Mar 2006 - Last modified on 02 Nov 2008
Viewed: 10401 (daily average: 8) - Rating: 3.7 out of 5 - Rated by: 6
Printed: 703 - Emailed: 10 - Commented on: 1
Category: Articles
> Comparative Religion
> Jesus
Category: Articles
> Comparative Religion
> Christianity
|
|
_001.jpg) There are several key verses which Christians use to
prove the biblical origin of the Trinity. Upon analysis of these verses, one
can clearly see that they do not prove the Trinity, but rather the same
monotheistic message of God. One of the most frequently cited passages from
the Bible is Isaiah 9:6-7, from which Christians conclude that the Messiah must
be God incarnate. The passage states:
“or a child will be born to us, a son will be given
to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will
be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, on the throne of David
and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and
righteousness from then on and forevermore the zeal of the Lord of hosts will
accomplish this.”
That Isaiah
9:6 has been misinterpreted can be seen from
the fact that Jesus is never called the “Eternal Father” anywhere else in Bible. Since the Trinitarian
doctrine teaches that Christians should “neither confound the Persons
nor divide the Substance” (Athanasian Creed),
how can the Trinitarians accept that Jesus is the “Eternal Father”? Let us consider additional facts impartially.
First, all the Hebrew verb forms in Isaiah 9:6 are
in the past tense. For example, the word which the Christian Bibles render as “his
name will be called” is the two words ‘vayikra shemo,’ which
properly translated, should read “his name was called.” The word “vayikra”
is the first word to appear in the book of Leviticus (1:1), and it is
translated properly over there – in the past tense. In addition, the King
James Version translates the same verbs elsewhere in the past tense in Genesis
4:26 and Isaiah 5:25. Only in Isaiah 9:6-7 are these verbs translated in the
future tense!
Notice that it says “a child HAS been born to us.”
This is an event that has just occurred, not a future event. Isaiah is not
making a prophecy, but recounting history. A future event would say a child
will be born to us, but this is NOT what the verse says. The Christian
translations capitalize the word ‘son’ assuming that this is a messianic
prophecy and the names of a divine son.
Second, the two letter word “is”, is
usually not stated in Hebrew. Rather, “is” is understood. For example,
the words “hakelev” (the dog) and “gadol” (big), when joined into
a sentence - hakelev gadol - means “the dog IS big,” even though no
Hebrew word in that sentence represents the word “is.” A more accurate
translation of the name of that child, then, would be “A wonderful counselor
is the mighty God, the everlasting father ...”. This name describes God,
not the person who carries the name. The name Isaiah itself means “God is
salvation,” but no one believes the prophet himself is God in a human body!
Third, the phrase “Mighty God” is a poor
translation according to some biblical scholars. Although English makes a
clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language,
which has only capital letters, cannot. The Hebrew word “God” had a
much wider range of application than it does in English. Some suggest 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.
Fourth, according to the New Testament, Jesus was
never called any of these names in his lifetime.
Fifth, if Isaiah 9:6 is taken to refer to Jesus, then
Jesus is the Father! And this is against the Trinitarian doctrine.
Sixth, the fact that the New Testament does not
quote this passage shows that even the New Testament authors didn’t take this
verse to be in reference to Jesus.
Seventh, the passage is talking about the wonders
performed by the Lord for Hezekiah, king of Judah. Preceding verses in Isaiah
9 talk of a great military triumph by Israel over its enemies. At the time
Isaiah is said to have written this passage, God had just delivered King
Hezekiah and Jerusalem from a siege laid by the Assyrians under General
Sennacherib. The deliverance is said to have been accomplished in spectacular
fashion: an angel went into the Assyrian camp and killed 185,000 soldiers while
they slept. When Sennacherib awoke to find his army decimated, he and the
remaining soldiers fled, where he was assassinated by his own sons (Isaiah
37:36-38). Chapters 36 and 37 of Isaiah recount how Hezekiah stood firm in the
face of Sennacherib’s vast army and his blasphemous words against the God. When
all seemed lost, Hezekiah continued to trust in the Lord, and for this he was
rewarded with a miraculous victory. It is interesting to note that the
statement, “the zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this,” found
at the end of Isaiah 9:7, is found in only two other places in the Bible: Isaiah
37:32 and 2 Kings 19:31. Both these passages discuss the miraculous
deliverance of Hezekiah by God. Therefore, in light of the above, Isaiah is
recounting God’s defense of Jerusalem during the Assyrian siege. Furthermore, Soncino’s
commentary says the chapter is about the fall of Assyria and the announcement
of the birth of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz.
|
Trinitarian Verses (part 2 of 4): “His Name Shall Be Immanuel”
|
 
Description: A discussion of the various passages in which Christians seek to prove the Trinitarian nature of God. Part 2: Is the name Immanuel a proof that Jesus is God?
By IslamReligion.com
Published on 13 Mar 2006 - Last modified on 12 Jul 2006
Viewed: 8672 (daily average: 6) - Rating: 3.9 out of 5 - Rated by: 7
Printed: 658 - Emailed: 6 - Commented on: 1
Category: Articles
> Comparative Religion
> Christianity
Category: Articles
> Comparative Religion
> Jesus
|
|
The Hebrew name “Immanuel” can be translated as, “God
with us” or “God is with us.” Some people believe, based on Isaiah 7:14, that
because Jesus would be called “Immanuel,” he must be God incarnate. Isaiah
7:14 and Matthew 1:23 are often read around Christmas. They are read as
follows:
Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself will give
you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and
will call him Immanuel.”
Matthew 1:23 “Behold, a virgin shall be with child,
and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being
interpreted is, God with us.”
First, the prophesy states that his name
will be Immanuel.”
It does not say that “he will be Immanuel.”
Second, Mary never called her child “Immanuel” as
required by the prophecy. According to the Bible, she named him Jesus following
instructions by the angel of God.
Matthew 1:25 “but kept her a virgin until she gave birth
to a son; and he called His name Jesus.”
Luke 1:30-31 “The angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid,
Mary; for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your
womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.”
Third, when read in context, the birth and naming
of the child Immanuel was to be a sign for king Ahaz that God was with his
people who were about to be invaded by two rival kingdoms (Isa 7:10-16). The
promise was fulfilled by God (2 Kings 16:9). The name “God is with us,” means
that God will support us. The name
makes perfect sense if the child’s name was supposed to indicate to King Ahaz
that God was on his side.
Isa 7:10-16 “Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, ‘Ask the
Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest
heights.’ But Ahaz said, ‘I will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test.’
Then Isaiah said, ‘Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the
patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord
himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth
to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he
knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy
knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two
kings you dread will be laid waste.”
2 Kings 16:9 The king of Assyria complied by
attacking Damascus and capturing it. He deported its inhabitants to Kir and
put Rezin to death.
Fourth, Isaiah 7:14 in actual Hebrew does not say
a virgin would give birth but that a young woman would conceive. The Hebrew
word almah, used in Isaiah 7:14 means young woman or maiden, not a virgin.
The Hebrew word for virgin is b’tulah. The RSV (Revised Standard
Version) Bible is one of the few Christian Bibles that used the translation ‘young
woman’ instead of replacing it with the word ‘virgin.’
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give
you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall
call his name Imman’u-el.
Fifth, when something is “called” a certain name,
it does not mean that the thing is literally what it is called. Symbolic names
are frequently used by Hebrews in the Bible. Many names would cause great
problems if taken literally. Jerusalem is called “the Lord our Righteousness,”
and Jerusalem is obviously not God (Jer. 33:16). In Genesis 32:30, we are told
that Jacob called a piece of land “Face of God.” Abraham called the mountain
on which he was about to sacrifice Ishmael “the Lord will provide,” yet no one
would believe that the mountain was God. Similarly, no one would believe an
altar was God, even if Moses called it that: “Moses built an altar and called
it ‘the Lord is my Banner’” (Ex. 17:15). Would Christians believe that Elijah
was “God Jehovah,” or that Bithiah, a daughter of Pharaoh, was the sister of
Jesus because her name means “daughter of Jehovah?” Do Christians believe that
Dibri, not Jesus, was the “Promise of Jehovah,” or that Eliab was the real
Messiah since his name means “My God (is my) father?” Similarly, would they
say that Jesus Bar-Abbas, who avoided crucifixion by being set free (Mat. 27:15-26),
was the son of God because his name meant “Jesus, son of his Father”? Of
course not.
We can conclude that reading Jesus as the fruition of a
prophecy in Isaiah is only due to Matthew quoting the prophecy, rather than
people actually calling Jesus Immanuel in his lifetime. Furthermore, even if
his name was Immanuel, the name does not necessarily reflect the fact, as can
be seen from other names linked with God (in the Hebrew forms of El or Yah)
belonging to other people. Making the claim that Immanuel means Jesus God in
the flesh among His people is therefore merely an example of how the
Trinitarian doctrine of incarnation was forced upon the message of Jesus by “bending”
prophecies.
|
Trinitarian Verses (part 3 of 4): Alpha and Omega
|
Description: A discussion of the various passages in which Christians seek to prove the Trinitarian nature of God. Part 3: Who is Alpha and Omega, God, Jesus or both?
By IslamReligion.com
Published on 13 Mar 2006 - Last modified on 24 Jul 2006
Viewed: 8546 (daily average: 6) - Rating: 3.3 out of 5 - Rated by: 7
Printed: 664 - Emailed: 3 - Commented on: 0
Category: Articles
> Comparative Religion
> Christianity
Category: Articles
> Comparative Religion
> Jesus
|
|
Some people say that since the same titles – Alpha and
Omega - are used for both God and Jesus, this proves that they one and the same.
It is further claimed that these expressions mean the eternity of the Father
and the Son. Upon analysis, we see that this notion raises several problems.
Isaiah 44:6 “This is what the Lord says - Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from
me there is no God.”
Revelation 1:8 “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning
and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come,
the Almighty.”
Revelation 1:11 “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the
first and the last:”
Revelation 22:13 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the
first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
First, the Book of Revelation is an unreliable
book. Early Christians and elders of the Church - Marcion, Caius of Rome,
Dionysius of Alexandria, Amphilocius of Iconium, Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril of
Jerusalem, Synod of Laodicea in 360 CE - disputed it.
The author of the Revelation identifies himself as some unknown John, but probably
not the apostle John because the style of the book is completely different from
the Gospel of John. Other than
his name, very little is known about him. Martin Luther criticized this book.
He wrote in the preface to Revelation,
About this
book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions.
I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I
miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be
neither apostolic nor prophetic… Many of the fathers also rejected this book a
long time ago… For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ
is neither taught nor known in it.”
To this day, Lutheran scholars put
the Revelation of John in a separate category of disputed books.
Second, Alpha and Omega are the first and last
letters of the Greek alphabet. Biblical scholars are not completely sure what
the phrase “the Alpha and the Omega” means. It cannot be strictly
literal, because neither God nor Jesus is a Greek letter. It is like saying
God is ‘A’ and ‘Z’. Lenski concludes, “It is fruitless to search Jewish and
pagan literature for the source of something that resembles this name Alpha and
Omega. Nowhere is a person, to say nothing of a divine Person, called ‘Alpha
and Omega’, or in Hebrew, ‘Aleph and Tau’.”
Although there is no evidence from the historical sources that anyone is named
“the Alpha and Omega,” Bullinger says that the phrase “is a
Hebraism, in common use among the ancient Jewish Commentators to designate the
whole of anything from the beginning to the end; e.g., ‘Adam transgressed the
whole law from Aleph to Tau’.” The best
scholarly minds have concluded that the phrase has something to do with
starting and finishing something, or the entirety of something.
Third, the doctrine of Alpha and Omega is a sad
and unfortunate example of mankind’s tampering with the Word of God. It shows
how doctrine is contracted by men to justify false beliefs. The phrase “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the
last” (Revelation 1:11) which is found in the King James Version was not in
the original Greek texts. Therefore, the Alpha Omega phrase is not found in
virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any
modern translation!
Revelation 1:10-11
KJV “and heard behind me a great voice, as of a
trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:”
NIV “and I heard behind me a loud voice like a
trumpet, which said: ‘Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven
churches’”
NASB and I heard behind me a loud voice like the
sound of a trumpet, saying, “Write in a book what you see, and send it to the
seven churches:”
ASV “and I heard behind me a great voice, as of a
trumpet saying, What thou seest, write in a book and send it to the seven
churches:”
RSV “and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet
saying, “Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches”
NAB (Catholic) “and heard behind me a voice as loud
as a trumpet, which said, “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the
seven churches”
|
Trinitarian Verses (part 4 of 4): Alpha and Omega
|
Description: A discussion of the various passages in which Christians seek to prove the Trinitarian nature of God. Part 4: Who is Alpha and Omega, God, Jesus or both?
By IslamReligion.com
Published on 13 Mar 2006 - Last modified on 12 Jul 2006
Viewed: 7410 (daily average: 5) - Rating: 3.5 out of 5 - Rated by: 8
Printed: 650 - Emailed: 22 - Commented on: 0
Category: Articles
> Comparative Religion
> Jesus
Category: Articles
> Comparative Religion
> Christianity
|
|
Fourth, In the Book of Revelation 1:8, King James
Version implies that Jesus said he was Alpha and Omega. Since God says He is
Alpha and Omega in Isaiah 44:6, Jesus, according to Christians, is claiming
divinity here. However, the wording of King James is inaccurate. Not only do all
modern translations clarify it was God who said it, not Jesus, but the conveyor
of the words is one of God’s angels.
Revelation 1:1-3
NRSV “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God
gave him to show his servants what must soon take place; He made it known by
sending His angel to His servant John, who testified to the word of God
and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is the
one who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear
and who keep what is written in it; for the time is near.”
With these corrections, it becomes evident that this was
a statement of God and not a statement of Jesus, the Prophet of God.
Revelation 1:8
KJV “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the
ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the
Almighty.”
NIV “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord
God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”
NASB “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord
God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
ASV “I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord
God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
RSV ‘“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord
God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.’
New American Bible (Catholic) “I am the Alpha and
the Omega,” says the Lord God, “the one who is and who was and who is to come,
the almighty.”
Fifth, Revelation 22:13 is part of the vision of
an unknown John (not the author of the gospel) in which he claims a visitation by
an angel, mentioned in Revelation 21:09.
NRSV “Then one of the seven angels who had the
seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, ‘Come, I will
show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.’”
The angel is speaking from Revelation 22:10-13:
NRSV “And he said to me, ‘Do not seal up the words
of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. Let the evildoer still do
evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the
holy still be holy. See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay
according to everyone’s work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the
last, the beginning and the end.’
Jesus did not say those words, not is there any
indication they refer to him. Then passage continues in verses 14 and 15.
NRSV “Blessed are those who wash their robes, so
that they will have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the
gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and
idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.”
This does not appear to be Jesus Christ speaking because
the appearance of the first person singular pronoun in 22:16 signals a shift in
speaker. Therefore, Alpha and Omega in the passage refers to God Himself,
speaking through the angel. This is born out by Revelation 21:5-7, which says:
NRSV “And the One Who was seated on the throne
said, ‘See, I am making all things new.’ Also He said, ‘Write this, for these
words are trustworthy and true.’ Then He said to me, ‘It is done! I am the
Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give
water as a gift from the spring of the water of life. Those who conquer will
inherit these things, and I will be their God and they will be my children.’”
What Jesus is reported as saying is,
NRSV, Revelation 22:16; “‘It is I, Jesus, who sent
my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the
descendant of David, the bright morning star.’”
Therefore, for the sake of argument, should the saying “I
am the Alpha and the Omega” actually pertain to other than Jesus, can one
gamble personal salvation on a vision claimed by an author whose identity is
not clear, and whose book is disputed as being reliably canon?
Sixth, what is significant is not so much the use
of this name, but the fact that God is always superior to Jesus when the Bible
describes the relationship between God and Jesus as explained elsewhere.
We can see from this analysis that these verses which
Christians use to prove that Jesus is the son of God cannot be used in proving
the Trinity. Rather, an examination of the history of the theological
development in Church philosophy will reveal that the Trinity was a concept
developed much later in Christianity due to various socio-political factors,
which later Christians sought to justify through various passages of the Bible.
|
|
