Understanding the Trinity as a doctrine.

Why would you assume that I do not study the scriptures? If I have said what you are putting forward has problems as I see ti then you can be sure that is because I have studied the scriptures like a Berean. But thanks for the suggestion.

when you hear a Christian say :

as per "Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges" (biblehub),
his name shall be called] The name of the Messiah consists of a series of honorific titles,...
Wonderful, Counseller] Since each of the other names is compounded of two words, these expressions are also to be taken together as forming a single designation—Wonder-Counseller....
The mighty God] (’êl Gibbôr) either “God-like Hero” or Hero-God...
The everlasting Father] lit. Father of Eternity. The translation “Father of booty” ...




It might as well be an agnostic saying it. it is true that the Word of God is inerrant and inspired by the Spirit of God.


The improper application of the "a word" translation to mean "Father of booty" taken from the context of The Everlasting Father "
is one of the most foolish things I have ever seen in my 40 years of being a Christian.

The Everlasting Father comes from the Hebrew text in Isaiah 9:6 means in the context.

1. for ever (of God's existence)

in the first time seen in the scripture found in Genesis 9:16 the word is ôlām = in reference to the Rainbow God made as a covenant that he would no longer flood the earth because of man. This word is not in context to God but what God said will not happen.

In Isaiah 9:6 this world is specifically speaking about Gods' Eternal existence. ad the Hebrew word "AD comes from "Ad" which root word is ʿāḏâ which is to adorn. Ada which is a verb leaves too much flexibility in the translation, the word has stronger translation which helps clarify what Ever Lasting means in context to God His Nature and God is power

that word is bārā' which is to shape and fashion or with Genesis 1: 3 "God said" = 'āmar to speak.

what we have is : a`da ba`ra` a`mar from Everlasting Father = to Adorn the One who is Eternal and spoke everything into existence out of Nothing

it could never mean "Father of booty". That is profane. And frankly biblical error.

The main reason why is:

1. the context
2. the Prophet Isaiah would never call the Lord God " booty" or address him with such perversion.

Isaiah was describing the One true God not another god with a booty name.

He was speaking as a Prophet of GOD. and HE said :

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

If one doubts what Isaiah is meaning you can just go to Isaiah 26:4

Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength:

The word Everlasting becomes more clear as we read in the book Isaiah as the Spirit of God reveals more of Christ the prophet in the later chapter when the word of Everlasting is the same in context to Jesus found in Isiah 55:13.

completely absent from scripture. IAM that IAM is consistent with "The Self-Existent One". The One who called everything into being by Speaking. "I AM" IS what The Lord God said to Abraham Jehovah = "the existing One"

When God says IAM we need to know what IAM is ?

God said :

Gen 15:1 I am thy shield, spoken to Abram

Gen 15: 7 I am the LORD spoken to Abram

Gen 17:1 I am the Almighty spoken to Abram

I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac:

this same name IAM was said by only one person in flesh

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Jesus was saying I AM the Self-Existent One


:59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple,[fn] going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

The question is whether God was accurate in what He was trying to convey and whether He got His message across, or whether His message was so confusing that the people He was speaking to actually got the wrong message. The scribes and Pharisees were not confused, in that they understood Jesus' claim to be the everlasting Father in that He claimed to be the Son of God. It is also the interpretation of the Holy Ghost that, as scripture plainly states, the "son that was given" shall have the name of "The everlasting Father" according to Isaiah 9:6. If the Pharisees understood this, it was because God was not vague in His communication and therefore the scribes and Pharisees accurately understood what He was saying to them in what He said in Isaiah 9:6.

See my post above (#384)

Jesus was in fact claiming to be God.

No;

I was telling you to specifically study out the scriptures that I referenced in the OP...

Not that you should rely on previous studies and your preconceived idea about what is taught by holy scripture to judge what I have written in the OP.

Apparently... to some people in here, all you have to is say "I am" to be considered the same person as God.... I guess this makes Paul God too:


1 Corinthians 15:10

But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

Paul did not say, "I am that I am"...that would have been a claim to Deity.

Here, Paul was saying that he was who he was through the grace of God; the emphasis being that grace of God which was bestowed upon him.

It doesn't matter what he said... its obvious that you make up the rules as you go

No...but you apparently are trying to apply rules that in all reality do not apply.

Isaiah 45:11 much?

I will take that as a compliment, for as an agnostic has logic, you on the other hand not so much. I guess you are offended by the term "booty"? In that cases, get your mind out of the gutter. If you care to read past the ellipsis, you will find out explanation of the translation of Everlasting Father. From your actions of not reading further is telling of your 40 years spent in a church or echo chamber.

The term אֲבִיעַ֖ד is literally "father of" of "booty" (get your mind out of the gutter) or "father of" of "eternity". Once again the literality is asked to be reinterpreted by the trinitarian.

It is ironic to note that the Son being the Father is a no-no vis-a-vis the athanasian creed, but I suspect you never got the memo.

I will learn my greek and hebrew from scholars in pursuit of the truth, not someone who slavishly asks to reinterpret the bible based on his opinion. Used your mind and concentrate on the term אֲבִיעַ֖ד . Jesus is literally the "father of" "eternity". Only through Jesus can eternal life be achieved. A modern example of the term "father of" - when I want a good steak, I go to the "father of" meats. A good clothes, the "father of" suits. Eternal life? Jesus.

Once again, get your mind out of the gutter. The term is from 1900s. If I said ankle, then it would be ribald.

The message of the bible is very straightforward when read with an open heart, an insatiable hunger and a closed mind . An open heart to receive the Holy Spirit, an insatiable hunger for the flesh of the Messiah, a closed mind fed only by the blood of Christ. My worldview requires no adjustment as it is built on my faith. My intellect enhances my discernment as it is slave to my faith. Intellect driving faith is abomination.

The term אֲבִיעַ֖ד is literally "father of" of "eternity". The "father of" אבי term is used in Genesis 4:20 for example as the "first of"
"And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle."
Jesus is not the Father but the First of Eternity.

Matt. 26:63 states clearly that the charge was "Jesus was the Christ". The only authority of a mob has, is the gun. Logic and jurisprudence is not their hallmark.

Like I said אהיה "I am being" is used 43 in the OT. 12 of those are in reference to others not God. Once again slavishly asking to reinterpret the bible because of your doctrine. State clearly the principle by which "I am being" refers to God and "I am being" used to refer to others. Your opinion is not very useful and piety is not a good substitute for principled logic.

I am sure you would take it as a compliment. Yes, an agnostic has human logic formed from human understanding, not a godly one.

The term "father of the booty", has nothing to do with me having my mind in the gutter, but more of how one improperly looked at the text and came to that understanding.

Please do not by any means agree with what I am saying, but if you are as you say " I will learn my greek and hebrew from scholars",

maybe the issue is more with your understanding and not the scholars?

Again my mind is not in the gutter, the term booty also means stolen or like a trophy.

1. . שָׁלָל He has made haste to the plunder! Isaiah chapter 8 & 9
2. בִּזָה to plunder, rapine violent seizure of someone's property.

once again my mind is not in the gutter, it is the idea the term has anything to do with the Eternal Godhead.

FYI, the " echo chamber" I have been a part of speaks the truth, not of human reasoning but of Who the Lord Jesus Christ is. We not only "echo" but testify HE is God.

please try again in context. And please continue with your insults I have no issue with you just the unbiblical understanding. I am not trying to convince you of anything. Other than that, your understanding of the Godhead is limited and you cannot fully know all of God, to make an authoritative statement on HIS Divine Nature.
I think you are in the same club that Jesus has created being. Not able to comprehend how He is 100% and 100% man.

He is not referring to that definition of "booty". Let me assist:

Strong’s Definitions (Strong’s Definitions Legend)
עַד ʻad, ad; the same as H5703 in the sense of the aim of an attack; booty:—prey.

Those who seek to deny the plain meaning of Isaiah 9:6 have no choice but to change that scripture, not once, but twice, in order to come to the conclusion that they desire.

First, they change it from "everlasting Father" to "Father of eternity"...but that is still the Father...so they change "Father of eternity" to "Father of booty" and they have a "winner".

Not!

Any time you have to change the scriptures to fit your paradigm, you can be certain that your paradigm is off-base.

There is nothing in the Athanasian creed that says that the Son is not the Father; and if there is, it is not an entirely biblical creed.

For while the Father is not the Son (the Father is a Spirit without flesh while the Son is come in the flesh), the Son is the Father in that they are the same Spirit (the Father is a Spirit without flesh and the Son is the same Spirit come in human flesh); being distinct from the Father in that He is come in the flesh while the Father is a Spirit without flesh (John 4:23-24); while the Father, as a Spirit, also dwells within the Son (John 14:7-11) and is in fact the Spirit of Christ.

Hi friend, my first language was Hebrew.

https://slmedia.org/blog/deacon-structing-i-am-the-divine-name
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1515709
"
Benson Commentary
Exodus 3:14. God said — Two names God would be known by: 1st, A name that speaks what he is in himself, I AM THAT I AM. The Septuagint renders the words ειμι ο ων, I AM the existing Being, or HE WHO IS; and the Chaldee, I AM HE WHO IS, and WHO WILL BE. That is, I am He that enjoys an essential, independent, immutable, and necessary existence, He that IS, and WAS, and IS TO COME. It explains his name Jehovah, and signifies, 1st, That he is self- existent: he has his being of himself, and has no dependance on any other. And being self-existent, he cannot but be self-sufficient, and therefore all-sufficient, and the inexhaustible fountain of being and blessedness. 2d, That he is eternal and unchangeable: the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. For the words are with equal propriety rendered, I WILL BE WHAT I AM, or, I AM WHAT I WILL BE, or, I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE. Other beings are, and have been, and shall be; but because what they have been might have been otherwise, and what they are might possibly not have been at all, and what they shall be may be very different from what now is therefore their changeable, dependant, and precarious essence, which to-day may be one thing, to- morrow another thing, and the next day possibly nothing at all, scarce deserves the name of being. There is another consideration which makes this name peculiarly applicable to God, namely that he is the fountain of all being and perfection, and that from him all things have derived their existence; so that it is he alone that has life in himself: and no creature, of whatever rank or order, has so much as an existence of its own: For in him we live, and move, and have our being. And though divers of God’s attributes are, through his goodness, participated by his creatures, yet because they possess them in a way so inferior to that transcendent, peculiar, and divine manner in which they belong to God, the Scriptures seem absolutely to exclude created beings from any title to those attributes. "