Is. 9:6
Is. 9:6
[MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION] ... [MENTION=17493]KingdomRose[/MENTION] ... [MENTION=13959]meshak[/MENTION] ... [MENTION=18157]marhig[/MENTION]
What does this verse mean to you?
Isaiah 9:6 ?
Hello EE,
I've addressed and expounded on this verse from a Unitarian perspective, and was looking for my dissertations on it,...still looking, I even provided some video lectures too in my post
- First of all, I'm sure you're aware there is more than one way to interpret this verse, and given its versatility and the meanings of the words,...some intepretations are more proper, probable and contextually tenable, than others. I see a Unitarian interpretation most appropriate after one looks at all the grammatical issues involved to grant a proper exegesis. It still stands that orthodox and evangelical Christians will want to use and 'interpret' this passage as a proof text for Jesus divinity,...but since factors exist that do not support that 'interpretation', I don't think this verse is very 'strong' support for the Trinity, not necessarily speaking...although some certainly take this passage to town!
However, granted that I am eclectic and liberal, I understand one could be metaphysically inclusive enough to assign various titles and descriptions to the Messiah as being somehow divine (even God!), but do note,...the Jewish Messiah, a
man anointed by God, also bears the various names and titles of 'God'
because he is God's representative - so, this verse when you really dig down into the grammar, original language syntax,...does not necessarily support the claim that Jesus is God. Now before 'jumping the gun'....I'd look first into all the Jewish translations, language meanings and CONTEXT to see what this verse is speaking about, not just ones religious presuppositions and theological pretexting. You know religionists do that, at least those religionists who have a different 'translation/interpretation' than yours! aha
When we consider all factors, we can arrive at a most proper and logical translation. Agree?
You might also know that to me, a Unitarian or Trinitarian view, as far assuming either one is some sort of 'absolute truth' (not) is not an endeavor or contention of mine to prove,
even though I might favor one view over another at any point in time. Its just a point of view, and I have to remind myself of that...to me what is most fascinating is all the factors and nuances involved in 'intrepretating' texts.
That's the fun! - and I try not to be dogmatic about anything, beyond what the facts show, and those elements that may affect our 'interpretation'. I'm sure you follow.
I'll keep looking for my former commentary and post the links, but
here is a snippet from daqq and my response to him here, on this wonderful passage, actually from this thread here earlier. Please catch some key points there. More to come