Did Jesus say he was God???

[LioneDea]

And this is talking about situation Israel was facing during a specific time. The sign to the non-believing King (Ahaz) was a sign he would see in his day. This is why I said read Isaiah all the way through into 8. Look at verse 8:7-8.

Yeshayahu - Chapter 8 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
Therefore, behold the Lord is bringing up on them the mighty and massive waters of the river-the king of Assyria and all his wealth, and it will overflow all its distributaries and go over all its banks and it will penetrate into Judah, overflowing as it passes through, up to the neck it will reach; and the tips of his wings will fill the breadth of your land, Immanuel.


Do you now see what the KJV has done? The verse isn't talking about (a person) as the KJV says (he shall.....). What justification do they use for rendering those words to include (he and his?). None whatsoever. It is talking about the King of Assyria and his army against kings Rezin and Pekah

Isaiah 8:1-22 | Werner Bible Commentary
"Septuagint: therefore, look! The Lord is bringing up over you the mighty and abundant water of the River — the king of the Assyrians and his glory. And he will go up on every valley of yours and on every wall of yours.

In the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, “my Lord” appears above the main line of text. Immediately below the correction, only the topmost strokes of the letters of the text are preserved. The divine name (YHWH) appears to have been present in the main text.

Commentary
YHWH would let the people of the kingdom of Judah suffer from Assyrian aggression, which would result in devastating the land as would the strong, swiftly moving current of the Euphrates River at flood stage. This would occur because they had rejected him as the dependable source of aid and turned to Assyria for help in dealing with the threat from kings Rezin and Pekah. The Assyrian king’s glory may be his military force in which he took pride and by means of which he attained the victories that provided the basis for his boasting. In the Septuagint, the focus is on the military campaign, with the invaders marching over all the valleys and scaling the walls of cities to conquer them."

As you can see the story is less to do about a boy being born to a supposed virgin 750 years later and more to do with what was happening in Israel during (that) time.



Again, I'm not sure what your question is here. The sign given was to Ahaz and all of the people of Israel. It was a sign that Ahaz and the people would see come to fruition in their time. It wasn't a prophecy that was to occur 750 years later.


Isaiah 7:13-14
And he said, "Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well? Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

Now do you see it? Isaiah was delivering the prophecy that the Lord (YHWH) would give the house of David a sign and it would be one they would see.

Lione D’ ea: You mentioned this recently, saying:

Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin
And this is all wrong. Taking a verse out of context, especially when trying to apply Old Testament stories/prophecies to future people/events, sets you up for failure if you don't understand the context of the story you're taking the quote from. Isaiah is no different. The prophecy was meant for King Ahaz and not talking about something that would supposedly happen 750 years later. This becomes quite clear when you read and understand the WHOLE story/context of Isaiah. It definitely becomes clear when you get to Isaiah 8:8 and 8:10. (03-23-2012, 10:53 PM)


Lione D’ ea: We have no problem in your given passage, I only asked you, if he is Immanuel mention there, because of your beliefs, it means to Ahaz, So, he is the sign that the Lord will deliver in Israel, So, I said to myself, if that Ahaz mentioned sign and name Immanuel that the Lord will deliver in Israel, why there in passage of the 12-14 of Isaiah he said:

But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.

13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Lione D’ ea: Thus, passage of this to you, if this prophecy is for Ahaz, if not for Ahaz, then who is the sign(the child Immanuel) in that DAY you mention in chapters and verses, what is that support that waiting in that day given by God to Ahaz if he is not the sign?

If we looked at it either way with the assumption it was Isaiah's wife then she was a young woman that was not a virgin because they had already had a son.

Yes because if it is talking about Isaiah's wife, which it appears to me that it just may be the case, then she was no virgin.

Lione D’ ea: I only asked, is the young-woman is virgin, in her youth before she concieved, as said in Isaiah 7:14 is this:

“Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.”

Lione D’ ea: This referred here is a young-woman will conceive a CHILD with her bosom, meaning this is her first-born, my question only is the young-woman there in cited is a virgin BEFORE she conceived?

I didn't say Solomon was the wisdom that is spoken of in 8:22. I said the Proverbs are (The Proverbs of Solomon). I said "wisdom" in Proverbs is personified as a female and the fact of the mater is..it is (see: Woman Wisdom: Bible | Jewish Women's Archive).

Lione D’ ea: Brother do not just changed your answer, because we are talking here is, who is this wisdom, so your answer was, in Proverbs 1:1, it is wrong, because not placed there, Solomon is wisdom in cited, this is my question again, prove that Solomon is the Wisdom that existed before the earth created according in Proverbs 8:22-23?


(end.)

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Lione D’ ea: You mentioned this recently, saying:

Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin
And this is all wrong. Taking a verse out of context, especially when trying to apply Old Testament stories/prophecies to future people/events, sets you up for failure if you don't understand the context of the story you're taking the quote from. Isaiah is no different. The prophecy was meant for King Ahaz and not talking about something that would supposedly happen 750 years later. This becomes quite clear when you read and understand the WHOLE story/context of Isaiah. It definitely becomes clear when you get to Isaiah 8:8 and 8:10. (03-23-2012, 10:53 PM)


Lione D’ ea: We have no problem in your given passage, I only asked you, if he is Immanuel mention there, because of your beliefs, it means to Ahaz, So, he is the sign that the Lord will deliver in Israel, So, I said to myself, if that Ahaz mentioned sign and name Immanuel that the Lord will deliver in Israel, why there in passage of the 12-14 of Isaiah he said:

But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.

13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Because Ahaz and others were non believers in YHWH. Then Isaiah proceeds to deliver the prophecy that Ahaz and all the house of David would receive a sign. The sign would be that a child would be born and that child being born would mean that "God" was with Judah and the enemies would be defeated. Isaiah's prophecy was for an immediate future. Receiving a prophecy that would occur 750 years later would have meant nothing to a kingdom about to go to war with two neighboring kingdoms. The context of the situation and the prophecy extends all the way into chapter 9.

Immanuel - "God with us" - "God is with us" - "with us is God"

Is seen at Isaiah 7:14, 8:8, 8:10. We see similar expressions in a few places in your scripture.

Lione D’ ea: Thus, passage of this to you, if this prophecy is for Ahaz, if not for Ahaz, then who is the sign(the child Immanuel) in that DAY you mention in chapters and verses, what is that support that waiting in that day given by God to Ahaz if he is not the sign?

Yeshayahu - Chapter 7 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
Isaiah 7:13-14
And he said, "Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well? Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

This meant that Ahaz and the people of Judah were given this prophecy. It was meant for them. They would be a witness to it. (Listen House of David. The Lord shall give you a sign). The sign to them that "God" would be with them in their struggles against the two kings would be the birth of a child. You get even more of a sense of the struggle when reading chapter 9.

Lione D’ ea: I only asked, is the young-woman is virgin, in her youth before she concieved, as said in Isaiah 7:14 is this:

“Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.”

But the translation is incorrect. I've listed the correct translation above. But like I said, even if we're to assume the young woman had not conceived the child but was to conceive the child I see this child as the second son of Isaiah when we read into chapter 8. Since I see that as the case then the wife of Isaiah may have been a young woman but certainly not a virgin seeing as though they had a son (Is. 7:3).

Lione D’ ea: This referred here is a young-woman will conceive a CHILD with her bosom, meaning this is her first-born, my question only is the young-woman there in cited is a virgin BEFORE she conceived?

Unfortunately that is not at all what the Hebrew says in that verse. It's not even how the word is predominately used throughout the OT. You won't get the full context if you're reading the KJV (which is rendered from the LXX). The KJV is basically taking the bible that was translated into Greek then translating it into English. In my opinion this is worse than if you went from Hebrew to English. Neither are a substitute for the original language.

Lione D’ ea: Brother do not just changed your answer, because we are talking here is, who is this wisdom, so your answer was, in Proverbs 1:1, it is wrong, because not placed there, Solomon is wisdom in cited, this is my question again, prove that Solomon is the Wisdom that existed before the earth created according in Proverbs 8:22-23?

I don't think you're quoting me accurately. This is what I said.....

-->(http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2854121-post6115.html)
".....The beginning of the book tells you right off the cuff that it is the (Proverbs of Solomon). It's not "God" talking to Yeshua nor is it Yeshua speaking in Proverbs. I will say this though, it, in context, is stating "God" (created) him...whomever the speaker is. We see this at Genesis 14:22."

I wasn't saying that Solomon is the "wisdom" that is being spoken of in Proverbs. Although 1 Kings 4:32-34 seem to suggest Solomon is a man of wisdom. I was only saying the "wisdom" is personified in the feminine. We don't find anything about Yeshua being described in a feminine way (personified).

 

[joneyjolly]

hmmm therz just one small thing i need to ask,sorry if i hurt anyone unintentionally.so u say jesus is/was god but how come god was running while romans were chasing him with swords.at the end they catch him n crucify him.now that raizes hell lot of doubts,

 

[LioneDea]

Because Ahaz and others were non believers in YHWH. Then Isaiah proceeds to deliver the prophecy that Ahaz and all the house of David would receive a sign. The sign would be that a child would be born and that child being born would mean that "God" was with Judah and the enemies would be defeated. Isaiah's prophecy was for an immediate future. Receiving a prophecy that would occur 750 years later would have meant nothing to a kingdom about to go to war with two neighboring kingdoms. The context of the situation and the prophecy extends all the way into chapter 9.

Immanuel - "God with us" - "God is with us" - "with us is God"

Is seen at Isaiah 7:14, 8:8, 8:10. We see similar expressions in a few places in your scripture.




Yeshayahu - Chapter 7 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
Isaiah 7:13-14
And he said, "Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well? Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

This meant that Ahaz and the people of Judah were given this prophecy. It was meant for them. They would be a witness to it. (Listen House of David. The Lord shall give you a sign). The sign to them that "God" would be with them in their struggles against the two kings would be the birth of a child. You get even more of a sense of the struggle when reading chapter 9.





But the translation is incorrect. I've listed the correct translation above. But like I said, even if we're to assume the young woman had not conceived the child but was to conceive the child I see this child as the second son of Isaiah when we read into chapter 8. Since I see that as the case then the wife of Isaiah may have been a young woman but certainly not a virgin seeing as though they had a son (Is. 7:3).





Unfortunately that is not at all what the Hebrew says in that verse. It's not even how the word is predominately used throughout the OT. You won't get the full context if you're reading the KJV (which is rendered from the LXX). The KJV is basically taking the bible that was translated into Greek then translating it into English. In my opinion this is worse than if you went from Hebrew to English. Neither are a substitute for the original language.

Lione D’ ea: (1) So correctly speaking, Ahaz is not the sign, but the child carrying of young woman who wife of Isaiah is the sign and that child is God, therefore did he already exist there at that time before I respond in answer, do you have any information in Bible can we read to prove the Immanuel there appeared in that time?

(2) Just clear, you said that this is second child, does indicate Immanuel is not the first-born, why not said in verse 14 the term Mother if she turned this second child which is Immanuel was her second-born?

I don't think you're quoting me accurately. This is what I said.....

-->(http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2854121-post6115.html)
".....The beginning of the book tells you right off the cuff that it is the (Proverbs of Solomon). It's not "God" talking to Yeshua nor is it Yeshua speaking in Proverbs. I will say this though, it, in context, is stating "God" (created) him...whomever the speaker is. We see this at Genesis 14:22."

I wasn't saying that Solomon is the "wisdom" that is being spoken of in Proverbs. Although 1 Kings 4:32-34 seem to suggest Solomon is a man of wisdom. I was only saying the "wisdom" is personified in the feminine. We don't find anything about Yeshua being described in a feminine way (personified).

Lione D’ ea: This is the proof, I asked you last time, the said

@ (03-22-2012, 10:03 PM)

Quote: Originally Posted by LioneDea
Lione D' ea: can you prove that is Solomon, what is your basis, if you prove that is Solomon I admit my lose, but if you cannot testify do you accept you lose?

Proverbs 1:1
The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel;

We find the same in Revelation. We know it's the Revelation of Yeshua which Yahweh gave to him to show John through the angel. (Rev. 1:1)

Lione D’ ea: This is what I asked you only, where can you read as fact that Solomon is the wisdom, so I said earlier, where it written Solomon is wisdom, why proverbs of Solomon stated, and not wisdom?


(end.)

 

[garrydons]

Aside from what is written in the Bible, there were also other historians during the time of Jesus that wrote about him like Josephus and others.

 

[LioneDea]

hmmm therz just one small thing i need to ask,sorry if i hurt anyone unintentionally.so u say jesus is/was god but how come god was running while romans were chasing him with swords.at the end they catch him n crucify him.now that raizes hell lot of doubts,

Lione D' ea: Did not such written in the Bible he was running to the Romans while chasing happens, thanks for the unintentionally you said, somehow proof that the scriptures be fulfilled in us.



(end.)

 

[joneyjolly]

lion sorry mate may i ask u something in plain english u really think hez god en that he was crucified.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Aside from what is written in the Bible, there were also other historians during the time of Jesus that wrote about him like Josephus and others.

This thread is not challenging the historicity of Yeshua. What's being challenged is the notion the biblical Yeshua "is God" or "said he was God".

As far as historicity is concerned, the only contemporary of Yeshua was Saul/Paul but her never met the living Yeshua. We have to take his word that Yeshua spoke to him "in spirit". All others that wrote about Yeshua we born after the supposed death/resurrection of Yeshua. I'm not saying Josephus and others are invalid but they don't really come into play as this is a theological debate.

 

[Reverend Rick]

"Forgive them Father for they know not what they do". You would not pray to yourself would you?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Lione D’ ea: (1) So correctly speaking, Ahaz is not the sign, but the child carrying of young woman who wife of Isaiah is the sign and that child is God,

The child himself was not "God" rather due to his birth he was a sign to the people of Judah that "God was with them" throughout their struggles in a time of war.

therefore did he already exist there at that time before I respond in answer, do you have any information in Bible can we read to prove the Immanuel there appeared in that time?

Chapter 8 says that Isaiah's wife had a child. Now the question would be...(Why was it so important to mention his child being born if the the prophecy was given to Ahaz and Judah?). In chapter 9 it says a child has been born to us. KJV mistranslates the verse. I'm saying this is the prophesied child and that was the reason for mentioning his birth. In my opinion it couldn't have been any child of Ahaz because, and I would have to check this again, he didn't have any more children and his youngest was about 9 year old.

(2) Just clear, you said that this is second child, does indicate Immanuel is not the first-born, why not said in verse 14 the term Mother if she turned this second child which is Immanuel was her second-born?

You're making the assumption it has to say mother. Remember, a young woman can be a wife and she can have a child. To be called (almah) doesn't mean you had to be a virgin. Even after the birth of Yeshua, Mary was still a young woman. Some estimate that she was a pre-teen/teenager of 12 or 13 when she gave birth. She was still a young woman. Moreover, it wouldn't really make any sense the say ('the mother will giver birth to a son'). The focus wasn't on the fact that she already had a son rather it was to focus on a child being born as a sign to the people of Judah.

Lione D’ ea: This is the proof, I asked you last time, the said

@ (03-22-2012, 10:03 PM)

Lione D’ ea: This is what I asked you only, where can you read as fact that Solomon is the wisdom, so I said earlier, where it written Solomon is wisdom, why proverbs of Solomon stated, and not wisdom?

You can't because I never said that Proverbs says Solomon is the wisdom. The beginning of Proverbs says it is "The Proverbs of Solomon to know wisdom and discipline, to comprehend words of understanding. To receive the discipline of wisdom, righteousness, justice, and equity." Wisdom in Proverbs isn't a person.

 

[Shermana]

You can't because I never said that Proverbs says Solomon is the wisdom. The beginning of Proverbs says it is "The Proverbs of Solomon to know wisdom and discipline, to comprehend words of understanding. To receive the discipline of wisdom, righteousness, justice, and equity." Wisdom in Proverbs isn't a person.

Here I disagree with you DP, I think "Wisdom in Chapter 8," was being described as an actual personified being, as well as in Wisdom of Solomon, not just a metaphor for Wisdom but an embodiment, serving as Co-creator, explaining why all things were made "through" the word. To "know" Wisdom may in fact be more of a "willingness to receive Wisdom" and to be blessed by this apparently spirit of Wisdom with it, that it's not something one can achieve without it's will. To actually be acquainted with it as a personified living spirit.

 

[wubs23]

"John 10:33 ... thou being a man makest Thyself God"

So he doesn't say HE is God.
He says we are ALL God.

 

[Shermana]

"John 10:33 ... thou being a man makest Thyself God"

So he doesn't say HE is God.
He says we are ALL God.

First off, I don't see how you'd draw that conclusion under that trinitarian interpretation, but I've also addressed this several times, it should in fact read "makest thyself A god" with the indefinite, it's an anarthrous Theon, Trinitarian translations ignore this and act as if the article is there for the sake of their audience over grammatical honesty. What the Israelites perceived was that he was declaring himself to be a god (notice his response in John 10:34 which he says "Is it not written in your Law ye are gods".

 

[wubs23]

well.. i'm a man.

he says: "being a man makest thyself god"

so im a god.

just like jebus!

 

[URAVIP2ME]

well.. i'm a man.
he says: "being a man makest thyself god"
so im a god.
just like jebus!

Are you a god like the gods of Psalm 82 ?_________

 

[LioneDea]

The child himself was not "God" rather due to his birth he was a sign to the people of Judah that "God was with them" throughout their struggles in a time of war.



Chapter 8 says that Isaiah's wife had a child. Now the question would be...(Why was it so important to mention his child being born if the the prophecy was given to Ahaz and Judah?). In chapter 9 it says a child has been born to us. KJV mistranslates the verse. I'm saying this is the prophesied child and that was the reason for mentioning his birth. In my opinion it couldn't have been any child of Ahaz because, and I would have to check this again, he didn't have any more children and his youngest was about 9 year old.

The prophecy was meant for King Ahaz and not talking about something that would supposedly happen 750 years later.(@ 03-23-2012, 10:53 PM)

Lione D' ea: It does not matter, who the children of Ahaz are, the important was, to whom rests the prophecy, can you elaborate to whom this prophecy really means, to Ahaz or to the child Immanuel and?

Because Ahaz and others were non believers in YHWH. Then Isaiah proceeds to deliver the prophecy that Ahaz and all the house of David would receive a sign. The sign would be that a child would be born and that child being born would mean that "God" was with Judah and the enemies would be defeated.

Immanuel - "God with us" - "God is with us" - "with us is God"

Is seen at Isaiah 7:14, 8:8, 8:10. We see similar expressions in a few places in your scripture. (@03-26-2012, 10:32 AM)

(2) If the child himself was not God, why in 9:5 of Isaiah said: "For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace." Also you quoted "God", the questions is, did the verse tell us the born child is God or not, if not why the verse state, the mighty God?

(3) According in the prophecy above, again did he already exist there at that time, do you have any information in Bible can we read to prove the Immanuel, the child appeared in that time?

You're making the assumption it has to say mother. Remember, a young woman can be a wife and she can have a child. To be called (almah) doesn't mean you had to be a virgin. Even after the birth of Yeshua, Mary was still a young woman. Some estimate that she was a pre-teen/teenager of 12 or 13 when she gave birth. She was still a young woman. Moreover, it wouldn't really make any sense the say ('the mother will giver birth to a son'). The focus wasn't on the fact that she already had a son rather it was to focus on a child being born as a sign to the people of Judah.

Lione D' ea: (1) I did not any state a young-woman CANNOT be a wife and she CANNOT have a child, if you remember also, I said:Just clear, you said that this is second child, does indicate Immanuel is not the first-born, why not said in verse 14 the term Mother if she turned this second child which is Immanuel was her second-born?, (2) To be called (almah) doesn't mean you had to be a virgin., I did not state to be called almah is to had to be a virgin, because the verse tell us the young woman is Virgin, what is the proof, 9:5 of Isaiah Read your scripture, "For a child has been born to us, a son", Plural or singular, therefore my question again in Isaiah 7:14, before the young-woman conceive, is she a Virgin?

You can't because I never said that Proverbs says Solomon is the wisdom. The beginning of Proverbs says it is "The Proverbs of Solomon to know wisdom and discipline, to comprehend words of understanding. To receive the discipline of wisdom, righteousness, justice, and equity." Wisdom in Proverbs isn't a person.

Lione D' ea: (1) Wisdom in Proverbs isn't a person, I agree because, the word SHE does not mean in human only, it also personified in something also, because the word SHE or HER in 1:1-3 of Proverbs is denoting the word wisdom, and (2) not mean, he was wrote, he is the wisdom, why did you post that answer, if you reject your proof, meant to say you are lose?



(end.)

 

[LioneDea]

Comparing Greek to Hebrew is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. The torah contains no vowels. We don't even know if the Hebrew was really Ayeh Asher Ayeh. It could be read a variety of ways.

Also consider the astrology of the matter. The time of Moses straddles Aries (keyword I AM) with Taurus (the bull) which is symbolized by regressing to build a Golden Calf when Moses does not return from his encounter with Burning Bush (Aries as Fire).

Jesus goes back and forth between the I AM of Aries and all the Water metaphor of Pisces throughout the text. See the Aquarian Gospel for even more "fish stories."

BTW - the only name given in the Tanach of God's Appointed or Anointed One was Cyrus in Isaiah 45:1 (Not that I don't view Jesus as embodying the Christ Consciousness as arrives into that office as an adult). Even the verse in 11:1 considering the root of Jesse is messed up by most theologists who assume it is David that is referenced. Jesse is Yisai which is spelled Yud-Shin-Yud which makes the letter Shin the root of Yisai. Shin means the eternal flame. It is connected with the Tree of Life and the feminine Goddess aspect called the Shekinah. It is a universal principle that is being developed here - not a reference generational prophecy. The gospels spend a lot of time trying to conform to what they think Isaiah says instead of what the hidden meanings are.

I AM is a declaration of Presence (another word for the Shekinah). Here am I is what they said in the Age of Taurus.

The Christ is a meditative principle which links heaven to earth - justice to mercy. It is the Sefirah of Tifert which means beauty and is representative of the Sun/Son. Jacob/Israel also is associated with this sefirah. The Adam Kadmon is the template/model that is attempting to be represented in this new expression of religiosity.

Lione D' ea: Case was, the Christ is not man, wherefore in John 8:58 indicates no man can live 4,000 years to say he see Abraham.

 

[LioneDea]

lion sorry mate may i ask u something in plain english u really think hez god en that he was crucified.

Lione D' ea: Let us read first brother in John 1:1-3,14 as our basis it reads:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

14 And the Word was made flesh, (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: I simply ask you a question brother, do you think God of the Bible will made a FAKE body and crucified in the cross which not feel the pain according in above?



(end.)

 

[LioneDea]

"John 10:33 ... thou being a man makest Thyself God"

So he doesn't say HE is God.
He says we are ALL God.

Lione D' ea: John 10:35-36 Read:

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?


Lione D' ea: Therefore He is God also.

(end.)

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Lione D' ea: It does not matter, who the children of Ahaz are,

Yes it does. It's important enough to theologians to the point of trying to determine whether the prophecy is talking about Mahershalalhashbaz or Hezikiah.

the important was, to whom rests the prophecy, can you elaborate to whom this prophecy really means, to Ahaz or to the child Immanuel and?

The prophecy is meant for King Ahaz and the people of Judah. I've elaborated plenty to this fact with scripture and independent commentary. The child born, in my opinion, was Mahershalalhashbaz. This was the sign that (God was with the people of Judah).

(2) If the child himself was not God, why in 9:5 of Isaiah said: "For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace." Also you quoted "God", the questions is, did the verse tell us the born child is God or not, if not why the verse state, the mighty God?

You don't understand the verse. I find that most Christians don't. I'll break the verse down.

Isaiah 9:5 --> (Yeshayahu - Chapter 9 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible)
For a child has been born to us, a son given to us

At this point the child has already been born. This isn't a future prophecy. It had already occurred (see Isaiah 8:3).


Isaiah 9:5 --> (Yeshayahu - Chapter 9 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible)
and the authority is upon his shoulder

He has been given authority.


Isaiah 9:5 --> (Yeshayahu - Chapter 9 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible)
and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father

In this structure it is saying that "God" (called him, the child that was born, The Prince of Peace)

Isaiah 9:5 --> (Yeshayahu - Chapter 9 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible)
called his name, "the prince of peace."

Even if we viewed the verse in KJV (LXX) format,
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.

A case can be made that the "mighty God" rendered there can mean (mighty god) or (mighty power) see: Psalms 81:9, 82:1, Ezekiel 31:11 etc . There are other verses that are on point with such renderings. So just because we see the capital ("G") in the KJV in English of Isaiah 9:5 does not mean the word should have been rendered that way considering the word can be used for (God, gods, angels and men).

The rendering provided at the link(s) above flow much better when you read beyond Isaiah 9:5. The context plays a big part here.

Lione D' ea: (1) Wisdom in Proverbs isn't a person, I agree because, the word SHE does not mean in human only,

I agree as well.

it also personified in something also, because the word SHE or HER in 1:1-3 of Proverbs is denoting the word wisdom,

True. And we never refer to Yeshua in the feminine concerning him being the "wisdom of God". Not to mention that Proverbs 8:22, 24 and 25 appears to be talking about something that was (created).

(2) not mean, he was wrote, he is the wisdom, why did you post that answer, if you reject your proof, meant to say you are lose?

I don't understand your English here. Can you clarify what you mean?