My take on Trinity

[BeyondET]

He is an angel, i.e., a son of God and was always a bastard per the NT verse. I am not saying God didn't do the right thing in creating him, but he was always evil.

Did God create satan evil?. Because if you are saying always evil, that means from his creation.

 

[7thMoon]

Did God create satan evil?. Because if you are saying always evil, that means from his creation.

God created evil because it was the right thing to do.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Disclaimer: I am not against people using the term Trinity.

Isaiah 9:


Do these titles refer to the same person?

The term person is loaded with anthropomorphism. I prefer to stick to the wording of the Scripture and use the term witness instead.

See

• The Father is a witness
• The Holy Spirit is a witness
• Jesus is God
• Hagar and the angel of the LORD.

The word "Trinity" is not written in the Bible. I'd avoid using the term. I try to stick to the words and wording of the Bible as much as possible. The term was first used by Tertullian around 200 AD. I am not against the concept of the Trinity. I am not even against the word "Trinity". My point is that I prefer not to use the term Trinity in argumentation.

On the other hand, Berean Literal Bible, Acts 17:


KJB translated Θεῖον as "Godhead"; NKJB used "Divine Nature".

The term Trinity is loaded and not in the Bible. The term Divine Being (G2304) is in the Bible. I would use that instead of Trinity.

See also Is "elohim" singular or plural?.

Firstly, the term "τριάς" for Three distinct Persons was used by Theophilus of Antioch (Apology 2.15), who died in AD 180, before Tertullian wrote Adversus Praxean, in AD 213, which is in Latin, and the term used is, "trinitas". Though Theophilus uses this term for "God, Logos, and Wisdom", which is incorrect theology, yet the development of "the Trinity" in early Church history, which was more defined by Tertullian and others, later.

Secondly, the correct Greek word for "Godhead" is the noun, θειότης, which is used by Paul in Romans 1:20, where Versions like the King James, translates as "Godhead", which also means "divine nature". In Acts 17:29, the Greek τὸ Θεῖον, means "the Divine", as referring to the One True God of the Bible.

Thirdly, the term "Person", is the best to describe the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. As defined in the Webster's English dictionary in 1913, “A living, self-conscious being, as distinct from an animal or a thing; a moral agent”. The Three are clearly distinct in the Bible, and not one and the same "Person"

Fourthly, "divine being" is incorrect, as it does not define the fact as the term "Trinity" does, which is Three distinct Persons, Who are equally God, in the divine Godhead. "divine being" can indeed refer to only "one".

On the use of “˒ĕlōhı̂m”, I have recently posted a detailed study on this, in the theology section,˒ĕlōhı̂m: Plural Persons, or Majesty?

 

[7thMoon]

Secondly, the correct Greek word for "Godhead" is the noun, θειότης, which is used by Paul in Romans 1:20, where Versions like the King James, translates as "Godhead", which also means "divine nature". In Acts 17:29, the Greek τὸ Θεῖον, means "the Divine", as referring to the One True God of the Bible.

You realize θειον precluded Jesus being divine in Acts 17:29?

On the use of “˒ĕlōhı̂m”, I have recently posted a detailed study on this, in the theology section,˒ĕlōhı̂m: Plural Persons, or Majesty?

You realize the use of Elohim is newer rather than older than Hebrew/Aramaic syntax which is used in the New Testament? And you do also realize per Megillah 9a.12 of the Talmud, the LXX said I shall make man..., not "Let us make man..."?

 

[GodsGrace]

Carry_Your_Name


Hi Carry,
We were derailing that other thread, so here's my answer regarding Jesus not being just a man...
The other thread was about God's attributes.

I'm not sure I understand you.
Do you know about the hypostatic union?
Jesus is 100% God and 100% man.
This was decided by the early church when it was trying to make sense out of exactly who or what Jesus was.
He certainly wasn't just a man.
He certainly didn't know everything as God would have.
So what was the explanation?
Jesus was both God and Man. But not 50, 50.
He was FULLY GOD and FULLY MAN.

So I don't know what you mean by "He can't be both".

 

[GodsGrace]

CherubRam

We were derailing the other thread.

I had posted to you that the problem with the Trinity, or the Trinity, was handled by the early church and confirmed in Nicea in 325AD.

This is your response: (my reply will be in blue)

Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius were the students of the original Disciples. They lived at the turn of the century, before and after 100 AD. They did not mention a trinity or give a description of a trinity in all their writings. It was not until the second century AD that the idea of a trinity began to take shape in the Christian community. A Gnostic named Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, also known as Tertullian, he was the first to introduce trinitarianism into Christianity. He was the first person to formulate the idea of one substance having three persons.

New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967 Edition, Vol. 13, p.1021. The first use of the Latin word "trinitas" (trinity) with reference to God, is found in Tertullian's writings (about 213 AD) He was the first to use the term "persons" (plural) in a Trinitarian context.

Origen considered the Son to be not coequal, but derived from the Father whom is the Holy Spirit. Arius would also adopt the idea of the Son as being derivative of the Father in the third century AD. This eventually lead to a major crisis in the Counsel of Nicea. Arius who had many followers taught that Christ was a created being, created by the Father. PS Arians were the followers of Arius.

The creed that came out of the Counsel of Nicea in 325 AD did not conclude that there was a trinity. It simply proclaimed the divinity of Christ, rejecting Arianism. There was no resolution on who the Holy Spirit is. That issue would arise again in the Counsel of Constantinople in 381 AD.



I agree with you CR.
You're just confirming what I stated.
The early church, meaning its members, had an idea about the Trinity, as is noted by the writings of the very men you mention above (and others), but it took some time for the doctrine to be stated properly and confirmed.

This was done at Nicea, as you've also stated.

The Holy Spirit was indeed argued and even was one of the causes of the schism with the East in 1,000BC.

So I think we're good with this.



One purpose of the Council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in his relationship to the Father: in particular, whether the Son had been 'begotten' by the Father from his own being, and therefore having no beginning, or else created out of nothing, and therefore having a beginning.[13] St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arianism comes, took the second. The Council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two agreed to sign the creed, and these two, along with Arius, were banished to Illyria).[8][14]


source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

 

[Free]

I have. You may want to read it again

Your argument leads to a contradiction. Once again, if "one God, the Father" precludes Jesus from ever being God, then it necessarily follows that "one Lord, Jesus Christ," precludes the Father from ever being Lord. You want to have your cake and eat it too by arguing both ways, that Jesus can't be God but the Father can be Lord; but proper hermeneutics don't work that way.

And also, once again, if "from whom are all things" speaks of the eternal nature of the Father, then it necessarily follows that "from whom are all things" speaks of the eternal nature of Jesus (as the Son). In other words, Jesus is truly God in the same way that the Father is truly God. And that is also consistent with the Father also being Lord, just as Jesus is Lord.

Your position contradicts both points Paul makes here.

Please show where.

I already have: John 1:1-18; 5:18; 8:58; 1 Cor 8:6; Phil 2:5-7; Col 1:15-17; Heb 1:2, 8-12; 2:10; the use of the title "Son of God;" Jesus's use of titles that God uses of himself--"King of kings and Lord of lords," "the Alpha and the Omega," "the beginning and the end;" etc.

Ok, so let me get this straight. When I'm emptying a bucket of water, I'm actually adding to it? Sorry, my friend, to empty don'ts mean to add to something, it means to remove something.

That is what the passage clearly states; that is what you need to actually address.

Being God in nature doesn't necessitate being the same being.

Yes, it does. Judaism and Christianity are monotheistic at the core--there was, is, and ever will be only one God; God himself says so. If the Son is God in nature, then he must also be the same being, although he is distinct from the Father; it cannot be otherwise.

You said they were three persons in one being.

Exactly. That is the most basic definition of the Trinity.

John 16.

Where, specifically?

Where, other than in your understanding does the Bible present the Holy Spirit as a distinct entity from the Father?

Everywhere in the NT, as I have shown with Scripture. The continual distinction would, at best, be an exercise in futility, but it would be deception.

No, it's not. It may appear that way from your perspective, but it isn't necessitated.

Yes, it would be. The Father and the Holy Spirit are always spoken of distinctly, which only makes sense if they actually are.

Right, the Breath of God, of Christ, of Truth, of Wisdom, and quite a few more. What makes it a distinct third person? If this is a third person, how is He coming from Christ and the Father.

The Bible does say how, it just says that that is the case.

It's not my position that has the contradictions. I'm not trying to explain how three distinct persons can be one being. That's a contradiction.

Again, no it is not. The doctrine of the Trinity is worded specifically to avoid contradiction. Three persons in one person, as you have stated, is a contradiction; as is three Gods in one God or three beings in one being.

I'm not trying to explain how the Son was produced by the third person of the Trinity yet somehow the Father is His Father. That's a contradiction.

How, exactly, is that a contradiction?

I'm not trying to explain how somehow there are three distinct, coequal, coeternal, persons yet the third one doesn't know the first two. That's a contradiction.

I'm not saying that either.

We have approximately 6000 years of history, 4000 of those years were before Christ. God conversed with Moses and all of the Prophets. So, we have 4000 years of God communicating with man and in all of that time no one understood the Spirit of God as a separate distinct person. Why didn't the Jews see two persons in God? What about Moses? God talked with Moses on a regular and Moses witnessed the Spirit, why didn't he see two persons in God? Why didn't the Prophets see two persons in God.

Why didn't the Jews know that the Messiah must suffer, die, and be raised after three days for their salvation and the salvation of the world? I'm sure we could figure out a number of things that they didn't know, due to ignorance for one reason or another.

In all of human history, people didn't see three persons in God until several hundred years into the Christian faith. We don't even see Jesus or the Apostles talking about a trinity. If this is the end of all of the Christian faith how come there's nothing in the record until the Catholic Church.

Outside of Scripture, believers saw more than one person as seen in writings from the second century onward. It's precisely why the doctrine of the Trinity was eventually formulated as true biblical doctrine.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Carry_Your_Name


Hi Carry,
We were derailing that other thread, so here's my answer regarding Jesus not being just a man...
The other thread was about God's attributes.

I'm not sure I understand you.
Do you know about the hypostatic union?
Jesus is 100% God and 100% man.
This was decided by the early church when it was trying to make sense out of exactly who or what Jesus was.
He certainly wasn't just a man.
He certainly didn't know everything as God would have.
So what was the explanation?
Jesus was both God and Man. But not 50, 50.
He was FULLY GOD and FULLY MAN.

So I don't know what you mean by "He can't be both".

What can’t be both is not Jesus, but the definition of “person” in the “three coequal persons” doctrine. Of course Jesus is fully God and fully man, but God himself is only fully God in heaven, he’s not bound by time and space, he has no physiological needs. If “person” therein is referring to the Father, then it can’t be applied on Jesus who’s fully man; but if “person” therein is referring to the Son, then it can’t be applied on God. This is like you can’t call a man and a robot “two persons”, this is a fatal flaw in the Trinity doctrine.

 

[Free]

I've not presented a straw man. I've presented the Trinity as you yourself have. Here is your quote.

Free---"What it's always been: three divine, coeternal, coequal, consubstantial persons within the one Being that is God. It's worded specifically to avoid three persons in one person or three Gods in one God, as those are contradictions."

Three persons in one being.

Yes, that is what I said, but that is not what you presented.

The words person and being are synonymous. They are interchangeable.

And therein lies the problem. No, they are not interchangeable where the doctrine of the Trinity is concerned. Again, the language and wording of the doctrine of the Trinity is precise. “Person” doesn’t fully convey what is meant but is the closest word in English that conveys the meaning.

So, saying three persons in one person is synonymous with what you said.

No, it is not. Please familiarize yourself with the historical, orthodox doctrine.

It is illogical to claim that three persons can exist as one being or person. It's not a straw man, it's an illogical doctrine.

It is illogical and it is also a straw man. If you want to debate the Trinity, then you must debate the actual doctrine, not a straw man.

Your statement in a non-sequitur.

Which statement, I made several?

Also, I'm not being fallacious or assuming that God is one being. In all of our experience, one being is one being. We have no examples anywhere of one being consisting of other beings.

Of course we don’t, and I’m not saying otherwise.

Secondly, the Bible states plainly that God is one. The Shema states it and Paul stated it. John also tells us God is one. We could verify that in Scripture in many places.

Of course, and I fully agree. It’s a statement of monotheism, which is one of the foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity. John also says that “the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” both of which are essentially repeated by Paul.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

And therein lies the problem. No, they are not interchangeable where the doctrine of the Trinity is concerned. Again, the language and wording of the doctrine of the Trinity is precise. “Person” doesn’t fully convey what is meant but is the closest word in English that conveys the meaning.

Well, there're plenty choices of word, "manifestation", "incarnation" or "presence" are among the better options.

 

[Free]

Not at all. I think you missed something in verse one, the word "was". John said, and the Word "was" God. He didn't say, and the word "Is" God. Yes, the Word, was God, in nature, before, as Paul says, 'He emptied Himself.'

The “Word became flesh.” John is contrasting the eternal preexistence of the Word with his entry into time. It doesn’t follow that the Word ceased to be God.

And, again, the emptying was done by adding human nature, as the text clearly states—“by” cannot be ignored—not by removing deity. It makes no rational sense to say that God can cease to be God, otherwise he would cease to be.

I don't see the word essence in the passage.

It doesn’t need to be. God is one essence, or substance; the nature that is God.

Also, you said God cannot cease to be God. Scripture tells us that God is immortal. He cannot die. How then did Christ die if He is in fact God?

Because he is also truly man.

Ther's no problem here. When Jesus reigns He is Lord of Lords and King of Kings.

It doesn’t say when, it says he is.

However, as I pointed out, Paul said that the one who no man can see is the only or ultimate, king of Kings and Lord of Lords. But there comes a time when Jesus will no longer reign and that title will belong strictly to the Father.

You’re adding the word “ultimate.” Where does that appear in the text?

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be tdestroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 1 Co 15:23–28.

Again, a distinction between God and the Son.

It’s interesting that you acknowledge the distinction between the Father and the Son but not the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Also, notice they are not coequal.

If Jesus is truly God, and he is (just as he is also truly man), then he is necessarily equal to the Father. If not, then we have multiple gods, in direct contradiction to monotheism. Like every anti-Trinitarian, you’re conflating difference in function with inferiority of nature. Phil2:5-8 adds a lot of clarity on this issue.

Jesus often spoke for God in the first person.

2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. 3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. 4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. 5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. 6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ex 3:2–6.

There are lots of places where Jesus speaks in the first person for God. That many seem to miss this fact is one of the reasons this three in one concept continues.

I’ve spoken on this many times. Jesus is being faithful to monotheism by saying that the Father is God, yet he not only never denies he is God, he explicitly and implicitly claims to be.

During His reign. The Father has given all authority to the Son. The Son then is the ultimate authority, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords as we saw. However, as we saw, that is temporary. One day the Son will relinquish that authority back to the Father. However, the Father is never Subject to the Son.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be tdestroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 1 Co 15:24–28.

Again, the use of “ultimate.” Where does that appear in the text?

That's a false dichotomy. I've already explained how Jesus is exempted from the one God statement while the Father is not exempted from the one Lord Statement.

You said it was the case, but you haven’t at all proven that it is the case. Contextually, it cannot be the case.

 

[Free]

Well, there're plenty choices of word, "manifestation", "incarnation" or "presence" are among the better options.

No, manifestation is a much worse option, as that confuses things too much with the error of the unitarian view of God in Oneness theology. Incarnation and presence don’t at all convey the idea of personality or personhood. One or more persons of the Trinity could end up being a mere power, like in the error of JWs.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

No, manifestation is a much worse option, as that confuses things too much with the error of the unitarian view of God in Oneness theology. Incarnation and presence don’t at all convey the idea of personality or personhood. One or more persons of the Trinity could end up being a mere power, like in the error of JWs.

But that's the choice of word in the bible, at least in NKJV (1 Tim. 3:16, 1 Jn. 1:1-2).

 

[Free]

But that's the choice of word in the bible, at least in NKJV (1 Tim. 3:16, 1 Jn. 1:1-2).

Yes, in contexts where "person" clearly wouldn't work. They're talking about something or someone made manifest to us, that is, revealed to us.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Yes, in contexts where "person" clearly wouldn't work. They're talking about something or someone made manifest to us, that is, revealed to us.

No it doesn't. God is not necessarily a person in the flesh, Jesus is God manifested to us as the descendant of king David in the flesh, see Rom. 1:3.

 

[Free]

No it doesn't.

No, "what" doesn't? I don't know what you mean, as your statement doesn't make grammatical sense based on what I've written.

God is not necessarily a person in the flesh, Jesus is God manifested to us as the descendant of king David in the flesh, see Rom. 1:3.

Jesus is God the Son in human flesh. But, again, I don't see how this relates to what I've said.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

No, "what" doesn't? I don't know what you mean, as your statement doesn't make grammatical sense based on what I've written.

"Person" clearly wouldn't work, as you said.

Jesus is God the Son in human flesh. But, again, I don't see how this relates to what I've said.

I don't see what we're arguing about since you acknowledge Jesus as God in human flesh.

 

[GodsGrace]

Your argument leads to a contradiction. Once again, if "one God, the Father" precludes Jesus from ever being God, then it necessarily follows that "one Lord, Jesus Christ," precludes the Father from ever being Lord. You want to have your cake and eat it too by arguing both ways, that Jesus can't be God but the Father can be Lord; but proper hermeneutics don't work that way.

And also, once again, if "from whom are all things" speaks of the eternal nature of the Father, then it necessarily follows that "from whom are all things" speaks of the eternal nature of Jesus (as the Son). In other words, Jesus is truly God in the same way that the Father is truly God. And that is also consistent with the Father also being Lord, just as Jesus is Lord.

Your position contradicts both points Paul makes here.


I already have: John 1:1-18; 5:18; 8:58; 1 Cor 8:6; Phil 2:5-7; Col 1:15-17; Heb 1:2, 8-12; 2:10; the use of the title "Son of God;" Jesus's use of titles that God uses of himself--"King of kings and Lord of lords," "the Alpha and the Omega," "the beginning and the end;" etc.


That is what the passage clearly states; that is what you need to actually address.


Yes, it does. Judaism and Christianity are monotheistic at the core--there was, is, and ever will be only one God; God himself says so. If the Son is God in nature, then he must also be the same being, although he is distinct from the Father; it cannot be otherwise.


Exactly. That is the most basic definition of the Trinity.


Where, specifically?


Everywhere in the NT, as I have shown with Scripture. The continual distinction would, at best, be an exercise in futility, but it would be deception.


Yes, it would be. The Father and the Holy Spirit are always spoken of distinctly, which only makes sense if they actually are.


The Bible does say how, it just says that that is the case.


Again, no it is not. The doctrine of the Trinity is worded specifically to avoid contradiction. Three persons in one person, as you have stated, is a contradiction; as is three Gods in one God or three beings in one being.


How, exactly, is that a contradiction?


I'm not saying that either.


Why didn't the Jews know that the Messiah must suffer, die, and be raised after three days for their salvation and the salvation of the world? I'm sure we could figure out a number of things that they didn't know, due to ignorance for one reason or another.


Outside of Scripture, believers saw more than one person as seen in writings from the second century onward. It's precisely why the doctrine of the Trinity was eventually formulated as true biblical doctrine.

Hi Free, I know you know this,,,
this is really for Butch5 although I may not be joining this thread....

The correct statement would be:
ONE BEING
THREE PERSONS

Three PERSONS in One Being.

I seem to notice that many on these threads don't really understand the term PERSON as having to do with the Trinity.

Maybe I'll start a thread on that.

 

[GodsGrace]

What can’t be both is not Jesus, but the definition of “person” in the “three coequal persons” doctrine. Of course Jesus is fully God and fully man, but God himself is only fully God in heaven, he’s not bound by time and space, he has no physiological needs. If “person” therein is referring to the Father, then it can’t be applied on Jesus who’s fully man; but if “person” therein is referring to the Son, then it can’t be applied on God. This is like you can’t call a man and a robot “two persons”, this is a fatal flaw in the Trinity doctrine.

OK I know what you mean now.
The real question, then, is what does PERSON mean in relation to the Trinity.

God Father is not a man, but He is a Person.
God Son was a man, but He is still a Person.
God Holy Spirit is a Person.

There is only One Being.
This One Being consists of 3 Persons.

Each Person has His own qualities and job to do.

If you care to, you could confirm this and in the meantime I'll try to find some links.

 

[daninthelionsden]

Isaiah 9:6 (part 1)

Isaiah 9:6 (From my personal studies)

Many (but not all) trinitarians will tell you that Is. 9:6 proves that Jesus is God.

Is. 9:6 says –

“For 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 shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” - NASB.

All Christians, I believe, accept this son as being the Christ. Some will tell you that since the meaning of this symbolic name includes the words “Mighty God, Eternal Father,” then Jesus is the Mighty God and the Eternal Father”

But there are at least two other ways this personal name has been interpreted by reputable Bible scholars. (1) The titles within the name (e.g., “Mighty God”) are intended in their secondary, subordinate senses. (2) the titles within the name are meant to praise God the Father, not the Messiah.

First, there is the possibility that the words (or titles) found in the literal meaning of the name apply directly to the Messiah all right but in a subordinate sense. In other words, Christ is “a mighty god” in the same sense that God’s angels were called “gods” and the judges of Israel were called “gods” by God himself (also by Jesus - John 10:34, 35), and Moses was called “a god” by Jehovah himself. This is the interpretation of Is. 9:6 by the WT Society at this time (1986).

Yes, men and angels were called gods (elohim - Hebrew; theos - Greek) in a proper, but subordinate, sense by Jehovah and his inspired Bible writers (see the DEF and BOWGOD studies). Although they were given this elevated title in a proper sense (not false gods), it was obviously with the clear understanding that it in no way implied a comparison with the Most High, Only True God. (A bank employee calling his boss, the head of the bank, “the president” would certainly not imply an equality of position, power, etc. with “The President” [of the USA].)

The word “god” as understood by those who used that term simply meant a “mighty one” - see Young’s Concordance. In fact the word “Mighty” as found at Is. 9:6 (Gibbor in the original Hebrew) is also applied to the angels at Ps. 103:20 (see a modern concordance such as the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible).

It is interesting that the ancient translation of the Old Testament that Jesus frequently quoted, the Septuagint Version, renders Is. 9:6: “and his [the Messiah’s] name is called the Angel [ἄγγελος, messenger] of Great Counsel.” (And a footnote in Zondervan’s Edition adds that the Alexandrine text renders it, “Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty One, Potentate, Prince of Peace, Father of the age to come.”) The very early (ca. 160 A.D.) Christian Justin Martyr quoted Is. 9:6 also as “The Angel of mighty counsel” - “Dialogue With Trypho,” ch. LXXVI.

So, just as “Lord” was applied to anyone in authority: angels, masters over servants, husbands, etc., so, too, could “god” be applied to anyone (good or bad) who was considered a “mighty one.” Of course only one person could be called the “Most High God,” or the “Only True God,” or the “Almighty God”!

In the same way, “Eternal Father” could mean that the Messiah is one who has been given eternal life and through him God has brought eternal life to many others. (We might make the comparison that the Heavenly Father has brought men to life in this world through their earthly fathers.) This would be intended in a clearly subordinate sense and not to take anything away from the ultimate honor, glory, worship, etc. due the Most High God and Father in heaven - Jehovah.

At any rate, even most trinitarians do not confuse the two separate persons of the Father and the Son. They do not say the Son is the Father. They say the Father and the Son are two separate individual persons who are equally “God”!

Therefore, since we obviously cannot take “Eternal Father” in the literal sense to mean that Jesus is the Father, we cannot take the rest of that same name (esp. ‘Mighty God’) in its literal highest sense and say that Jesus is Mighty God, etc., either.

In addition to the distinct possibility of the use of the secondary subordinate meanings of the titles such as “God/god” as explained by Bible language scholars (see the BOWGOD study), we can see by the actual renderings of some trinitarian Bible translators at Is. 9:6 that they believe such subordinate meanings were intended by the inspired Bible writer.

Instead of “Mighty God,” Dr. James Moffatt translated this part of Is. 9:6 as “a divine hero;” Byington has “Divine Champion;” The New English Bible has “In Battle Godlike;” The Catholic New American Bible (1970 and 1991 revision) renders it “God-Hero;” and the REB says “Mighty Hero.” Even that most-respected of Biblical Hebrew language experts, Gesenius, translated it “mighty hero” - p. 45, Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon.

Also, The NIV Study Bible, in a f.n. for Ps 45:6, tells us:

“In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his ‘splendor and majesty’ (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called ‘god’ as a title of honor [cf. Isa 9:6].” (Bracketed information included in original footnote.)

In addition, Rotherham has rendered “Eternal Father” as “father of progress,” and the New English Bible translates it: “father of a wide realm.”

The above-mentioned Bible translations by trinitarian scholars which apply the words in the name at Is. 9:6 in a subordinate sense directly to Jesus clearly show that they do not believe this scripture implies an equality with Jehovah the Father.

But, some may ask, if ‘a mighty god’ were intended in this name, why is “God” given a capital ‘G’ in most translations of this name?

The answer is that in English translations of names we often find the major words within a name (or title) are capitalized. This is similar to the way book titles, names of buildings, ships, etc. are written in English. ‘The Lord of the Rings,’ ‘The World Trade Center,’ ‘The Empire State Building,’ ‘Allure of the Seas’ (cruise ship), etc., are modern examples.

So Thomas was a fool when he said "My Lord and my God"? Why would Jesus just stand there and let him commit blasphemy? Angels never let people continue bowing to them or worshipping them. Why did Jesus allow it?