i asked them.

  • Thread starter Thread starter jersen05
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jersen05

Guest
i asked some INC members (manalo). about this.

why cant you call Jesus mighty god like stated in the bible?

–"a child will be born unto us and he shall be called Mighty god…–

they answered be using this.

–“Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abis-ad-sar-shalom”. the verse u used states that “That is, Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace.”–

was their answer correct?
 
So the complete verse is, “and a child is born unto us, That is, Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace.” That makes little sense.

I found this commentary from CatholicCulture.Org
Code:
The chapter opens with a cheerful prediction of the coming of the Messiah. The people who have been in darkness in the territories of Zabulon and Naphtali and the northern part of Naphtali, with its heavy gentile population, hence called "Galilee of the gentiles", will see a great light, the Messiah. For He is to grow up in Galilee, and do much of His public preaching there. The joy of the people will be great, like that of men at the harvest, or of men who divide the spoils of war. Formerly the boots of warriors trampled the land. Now the great light will come.
“For a child is born to us, a son is given us, and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called ‘Wonderful Counselor, Mighty-God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.’”
Here the Septuagint omits the greatest title: “A child is born to us, and a son is given to us, his government is upon his shoulder, and his name will be called messenger of the Great Council.”
But the great title is found in the Targum Jonathan: “A child is born to us, a son is given to us, and his name has been called from of old Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, He who lives forever, Messiah in whose day peace shall increase for us.”
The sense of the Targum is disputed. We have rendered it substantially as does J. F. Stenning (The Targum of Isaiah,Oxford, 1949). However Samson Levey (The Messiah. An Aramaic Interpretation, (Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, 1974) turns the sentence structure around so as to read: “his name has been called Messiah… . by the Mighty God.” The difference hinges on the Aramaic words min qedem which can mean either “by” or “from of old”. As to the words “Mighty God” which the New American Bible renders God-hero - that version is not defensible, for the Hebrew El gibbor in the Old Testament always means only Mighty God, never God-hero. Levey makes a similar change in sentence structure for the Hebrew: “the Mighty God… has called his name ‘Prince of Peace’.” That translation raises the question of which terms belong to whom.
The Septuagint, which omits mighty God, testifies to the Jewish discomfort. We recall that the LXX since Qumran is thought to be in general a careful translation of the Hebrew, but of a Hebrew text differing from our Masoretic text, for the text then had not yet been stabilized.
It seems that the ancient Jews considered the Messiah to be God. Maybe you’re friends are better at interpreting ancient Hebrew than the ancient Hebrews? 😉
 
This further comes from CatholicCulture.Org
Code:
Naturally, the ancient Jews, with their emphasis on monotheism, would have difficulty calling the Messiah God. Yet there are some other OT passages that could indicate divinity of the Messiah:
Psalm 80. 15-18: God is asked to visit this vine “which your right hand has planted… . Let your hand be upon the man of your right hand, upon the son of man whom you have strengthened for yourself.” Samson Levey (The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation) here comments: “It would appear that the Targum takes the Messiah to be the son of God, which is much too anthropomorphic and Christological to be acceptable in Jewish exegesis.” He notes that neither the earlier nor the later rabbis took up this interpretation by the Targum. Rather, he says that some of the later rabbis “carefully steer clear of any messianic interpretation " by the Targum here. (In passing: we note that here the Messiah is called Son of Man!)
Psalm 45. 7-8: “Your throne, O God, is ever and ever… . God your God has anointed you with the oil of rejoicing.” Even though some think the Psalm was occasioned by a royal marriage, the Targum saw it as messianic. Levey even remarks that the Hebrew word for king, melech, in verses 2, 6, 12, 15, and 16 is understood as God.
Ezekiel 34. 11: God Himself said: “For thus says the Lord God: Behold I, I will search out my flock and seek them out.” We notice the repeated “I”, which seems to stress the thought that God Himself would come. But in verse 23 of the same chapter: “I will set one shepherd over them, my servant David.” The Targum Jonathan does treat the psalm as messianic. Of course this is far from clear, but there could be an implication that the Messiah, called here “my servant David” would be God Himself.
Jeremiah 23. 3: God said: " And I myself shall gather the remnant of my flock from all the lands to which I have driven them.” But in verse 5:“I will raise up for David a righteous branch.” That word “branch” is often taken by the Targums to indicate the Messiah. Hence Targum Jonathan on verse 5 does use “a righteous Messiah” instead of “branch”. Then, surprisingly, in verse 6: "And this is the name which He shall call him: “the Lord is our righteousness.” In the later Midrash, Lamentations Rabbah 1. 51 we read: “What is the name of the King Messiah? R. Abba b. Kahana said: 'His name is ‘the Lord’”. In the Hebrew text of that passage, the word for Lord is Yahweh! It is astounding to find a later rabbi doing such a thing. (cf. Levey, op. cit., p. 70).
Jeremiah 30. 11: “For I am with you - oracle of Yahweh - to save you.” The Targum clearly calls this passage messianic. Levey notices this, and comments: “in v. 11 the apparent anthropomorphism of God being with Israel, in the physical sense is softened by the use of the word Memra” - Memra is a puzzling word in the Targums, which seems in general to refer to the complex interplay between God’s constancy and the fickleness of His people - but at times, it seems to mean God Himself. (On Memra cf. Bruce Chilton, The Isaiah Targum, Glazier, 1987, p. lvi).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top