Yep.
Jesus SEPARATE from Jehovah; calls Jehovah "my God."
- Thread starter KingdomRose
- Start date
- Status
Yep.
Is that why they removed one of the commandments--
Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
LA
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
You don't remember me saying Catholics get some things right?
They might only be enough to fit on a pinhead.
Although that suit yourself part of her statement is a little more sobering, no?
The same thing it meant when I responded to this twenty pages back in this same thread:
For instance, Jerry, just because you read this in most translations does not make it true:
Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart
All this explains what we read here about the Lord Jesus:"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" (Isa.9:6).
The Everlasting Father is the Mighty God, and the Mighty God is JHWH, as witnessed by what is said here:
While I still do not totally agree with the Young's Literal Bible Translation at least he was not afraid to render it for what it truly says in the most critical portion, and this is shown by how the same word form is rendered in many, many, other places:
Isaiah 9:6 YLT
6 For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power [הַמִּשְׂרָ֖ה] is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name [וַיִּקְרָ֨א שְׁמ֜וֹ] Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.
That is indeed what the text says, "HE CALLS HIS NAME", and this changes the whole meaning of what the Prophet is saying because the one who is on the neck or shoulder of the son who is given, (on his neck means, "his yoke"), is Ha-mSARah, that is, the Arche, the Empire, the Dominion, the Head, the Beginning. In other words the son that is given has Ha-mSARah on his neck or shoulder, (and his yoke is χρηστος-chestos-gracious just as he says), and HE CALLS HIS NAME the title or titles which follow in the passage, which are also not likely rendered correctly because of inaccurate vowel pointing in the Masorete Hebrew Text done by those who rejected the Messiah, (אביעד = "my father-progenitor of testimony" - "My Testimony Progenitor-Father", i.e. "the Progenitor of my Testimony", [or עד may even mean "witness" just as it is often rendered]).
PS - "Abiy" is "my Father", (not just "Father" as the English versions like to imagine).
Go ahead and see if you can prove me wrong. :duh:
Notice that word is El, (El Gibbor, Mighty El).Originally Posted by KingdomRose
There is going to be a King appointed by God to rule the earth---"the government will come to be on his shoulder," and there will be no end of peace. That King is Jesus Christ, "mighty god," NOT Almighty God. He is a powerful, important individual, and that is what "god" means. It doesn't say that he is the Most High God.
And the same is used in Immanu·El, ("El is with us").
Also, Kingdom Rose:
VaYikra (Leviticus) - "And He called" . . .
Last edited:
Thus:
Isaiah 9:6
9:6 כִּי־ ki- [For] יֶ֣לֶד yeled [a child] יֻלַּד־ yulad- [is born] לָ֗נוּ la·nu [unto us] בֵּ֚ן ben [a son] נִתַּן־ nitan- [is given] לָ֔נוּ la·nu [unto us] וַתְּהִ֥י va·tehi [and will rest] הַמִּשְׂרָ֖ה ha·misrah [the princely empire power] עַל־ 'al- [upon] שִׁכְמ֑וֹ shikm·ow [his neck-shoulder] וַיִּקְרָ֨א va·yikra [and he shall call] שְׁמ֜וֹ shem·ow [his name] פֶּ֠לֶא Phele [too wonderful] יוֹעֵץ֙ yo'etz [counsel-counselor] אֵ֣ל 'el [El] גִּבּ֔וֹר gibbor [Mighty] אֲבִיעַ֖ד 'avi'ad [my Father-Progenitor · Testimony-Witness-Everlasting] שַׂר־ sar- [Prince] שָׁלֽוֹם׃ shalom [of Peace].
Isaiah 9:6
9:6 For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us, and the Princely Empire Power shall rest upon his shoulder: and he shall call his name, Pele-Yoetz-El-Gibbor-Abiad-Sar-Shalom.
The son that is given calls the Princely Power upon his shoulder all those things.
If one might begin with Pele then see Judges 13:18, (Peli - "too wonderful").
Judges 13:18
18 And the Malak of YHWH said to him, Why ask you thus for my name? It is Peli!
Peli ~ secret, too wonderful, wondrous, wonder working, (Palmoni, Dan 8:13 YLT).
Last edited:
By the way, Kingdom Rose, that link was simply to show why the book of Leviticus is called VaYikra to begin with; for that is the opening phrase, and it is the same phrase under discussion and debate in Isaiah 9:6.
Thus:
Isaiah 9:6
9:6 כִּי־ ki- [For] יֶ֣לֶד yeled [a child] יֻלַּד־ yulad- [is born] לָ֗נוּ la·nu [unto us] בֵּ֚ן ben [a son] נִתַּן־ nitan- [is given] לָ֔נוּ la·nu [unto us] וַתְּהִ֥י va·tehi [and will rest] הַמִּשְׂרָ֖ה ha·misrah [the princely empire power] עַל־ 'al- [upon] שִׁכְמ֑וֹ shikm·ow [his neck-shoulder] וַיִּקְרָ֨א va·yikra [and he shall call] שְׁמ֜וֹ shem·ow [his name] פֶּ֠לֶא Phele [too wonderful] יוֹעֵץ֙ yo'etz [counsel-counselor] אֵ֣ל 'el [El] גִּבּ֔וֹר gibbor [Mighty] אֲבִיעַ֖ד 'avi'ad [my Father-Progenitor · Testimony-Witness-Everlasting] שַׂר־ sar- [Prince] שָׁלֽוֹם׃ shalom [of Peace].
Isaiah 9:6
9:6 For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us, and the Princely Empire Power shall rest upon his shoulder: and he shall call his name, Pele-Yoetz-El-Gibbor-Abiad-Sar-Shalom.
The son that is given calls the Princely Power upon his shoulder all those things.
If one might begin with Pele then see Judges 13:18, (Peli - "too wonderful").
Judges 13:18
18 And the Malak of YHWH said to him, Why ask you thus for my name? It is Peli!
Peli ~ secret, too wonderful, wondrous, wonder working, (Palmoni, Dan 8:13 YLT).
Moreover the above is no doubt why the Kohanim and Yhudim who rendered the LXX-Septuagint rendered at least the first portion of the passage, (in bold and bold italics), in the following manner:
Esaias 9:6 (9:5) OG LXX-Septuagint
9:6 (9:5) οτι παιδιον εγεννηθη ημιν υιος και εδοθη ημιν ου η αρχη εγενηθη επι του ωμου αυτου και καλειται το ονομα αυτου μεγαλης βουλης αγγελος εγω γαρ αξω ειρηνην επι τους αρχοντας ειρηνην και υγιειαν αυτω
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/23_009.htm
Isaiah 9:6 OG LXX-Septuagint
9:6 (9:5) For a child is born unto us, and a son is given unto us, of whom the Arche shall be upon his shoulder: and he shall call his name, Messenger of Great Counsel, for I will bring peace upon the princes; peace and health by him.
Last edited:
KingdomRose
New member
Raven, you are a grown man. You can understand what I'm speaking---it's English. How is it that you haven't understood what I have told you already?
What is a "god"? In John's day a "god" was any powerful, important person. The people knew what John was saying when he said that "the Word was a god." He, the Word, was a powerful, important person.
"God" with the article equivalent to "the" (ho theos) is God Almighty. "The" God. The Word was WITH "the God," and the Word was "a god."
"The God" = the Father, Jehovah.....He gets all the worship as the Almighty.
"a god" = the Son, Jesus.....he gets respect but not worship as God Almighty.
Do you understand or should I draw a chart with colored pictures and balloons?
KingdomRose
New member
Yes. And "El Gibbohr" means "mighty god," or, an important, powerful being (not God Almighty). God Almighty is denoted by the title "El Shaddai." No one else in the Bible is referred to as "El Shaddai," not Jesus, not anyone except Jehovah.
And HOW is "God With Us"? By sending His Son to REPRESENT Him. Jehovah isn't LITERALLY with us, because He wouldn't want the earth to burn to a cinder by His presence. After all, He is the Source of power that went into the creation of the sun and the stars. Can we get close to them?
KingdomRose
New member
I guess you need some lessons in Bible Understanding 101. Jesus was quoting Deuteronomy 6:13 when he said what he did at Matthew 4:10. In the original Hebrew language, which the Old Testament is written in (or Aramaic), the Tetragrammaton YHWH appears wherever "the LORD" appears (in uppercase letters) in the KJV. Upon quoting from Deuteronomy, Jesus would have spoken it as it appears in the Hebrew text:
"It is Jehovah your God you should fear, and him only you should serve."
Got it?
KingdomRose
New member
Then explain how Jesus HANDS BACK the Kingdom TO Jehovah. How will he do that?
"Next the end, when he [Jesus] HANDS OVER THE KINGDOM TO HIS GOD AND FATHER [JEHOVAH], when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. For he [Jesus] must rule as King until God [Jehovah] has put all enemies under his feet." (I Corinthians 15:24,25)
So how will Jesus do that IF HE IS JEHOVAH?
KingdomRose
New member
LOL!!!! Oh dear.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Isaiah 9:6 Reviewed........
Isaiah 9:6 Reviewed........
~*~*~
Continuing our Study on Isaiah 9:6 -
We again review the Septuagint rendition of the passage -
6 For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. 7 His government shall be great, and of his peace there is no end: it shall be upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgment and with righteousness, from henceforth and forever. The seal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this.
No name or title of 'God' in this rendition, but he is the Messenger(Angel) of Great Counsel because he is God's Anointed. There is NO indication of this messenger of the LORD being deity. None whatsoever. Unnecessary. We might note as well, that no NT writer ever even mentions this prolific verse (if so important) as a supporting verse to prove Jesus divinity. (hmmmm,....wonder why) - well, if they were using the Septuagint ...that might help explain?
The Jewish translations we've read so far,
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."
...speak of 'God' calling this special son The Prince of Peace,....God called his name this...the Prince of Peace. This is an acceptable translation. BUT even if we take the Christian translation, these special titles do NOT by any means indicate that the 'person' is 'God'. Many Jewish commentators as well believe the King being spoken of is Hezekiah, not some person who is to come many centuries later, since the child/son was already given (past tense).
Rashi writes:
For a child has been born to us: Although Ahaz is wicked, his son who was born to him many years ago [nine years prior to his assuming the throne] to be our king in his stead, shall be a righteous man, and the authority of the Holy One, blessed be He, and His yoke shall be on his shoulder, for he shall engage in the Torah and observe the commandments, and he shall bend his shoulder to bear the burden of the Holy One, blessed be He.
and… called his name: The Holy One, blessed be He, Who gives wondrous counsel, is a mighty God and an everlasting Father, called Hezekiah’s name, “the prince of peace,” since peace and truth will be in his days.
We would note some significant points from a Jewish perspective as they interpret their own scriptures, which are made clear by Rabbi Skobac in his video presentation below -
1) The passage is speaking of a child/son already born (past tense).
2) The passage according to the greater context points to this person as very probably being King Hezekiah. - the miraculous victory and era of peace gained by Hezekiah spanned thru a century, a very impressive reign as to bringing about an era of peace. Now as to the Messiah's reign being 'forever', well...this must include a lineage of messiah-kings along Davids line, as it represents God's reign of peace and righteousness thru God's government. Obviously Hezekiah's reign or that era of peace may have not lasted 'forever'. But even considering this being a 'double prophecy', as including the coming of another messiah (Jesus) in the future....there was no reign of peace in Jerusalem or the world with Jesus ministry, so he didnt fulfill or satisfy the major requirements laid down from Jewish scripture and tradition, hence their rejection of him as THEIR Messiah. See Jewish Messiah Wanted. - the Jewish Messiah in any case is supposed to bring about world peace and conversion of all to the law of God. What is the state of the world today? Can we blame the Jews for rejected Jesus as their Jewish Messiah? A sincere and honest question.
3) Even if this passage is held in the way Christian translators translate it,...these titles or names of 'God' would not necessarily mean, claim or identify that the child-son is 'God' himself. This would not enter in the minds of any orthodox Jew ever, since God is not a man. God is so ineffable as to be an omnipresent, both immanent and wholly transcending space, time, matter. He is so holy as to be careful of even the mention of his name, which was replaced in many places by a mere title of 'Lord' (Adonai) or 'Ha Shem'. The Messiah-Son in any case is 'elohim', even as the great judges, kings and rulers of old were they being men acting under the sanction of God's authority in the earth-realm (Psalm 82).... and the Son of YHWH-Elohim, who alone is the Most High. No problem here whatsoever from a Jewish Unitarian perspective.
Now for trinitarians or Oneness folks who choose the 'christianized' translation of the above passage, and by it attribute God-hood to the person being described or some kind(degree) of 'divinity',...that is your perogative. But do know a perfectly Unitarian translation is most feasible and appropriate here as well, true to Judaism.
As noted before, I share a Unitarian view in our discussions for the sake of contrasting and creative dialogue. I'm not necessary limited to such a view, since my theology is quite multi-dimensional anyways, being a student of universal religion and philosophy (truly 'eclectic'). 'God' is not limited to any one religious cult or tradition. All opinions, perspectives and points of view are being considered Christologically speaking. Each are free to research the data available and make up their own minds on any given subject. Each are responsible for their own view, and what they choose. Yes,....this implies 'free will'
Isaiah 9:6 Reviewed........
~*~*~
Continuing our Study on Isaiah 9:6 -
We again review the Septuagint rendition of the passage -
6 For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. 7 His government shall be great, and of his peace there is no end: it shall be upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgment and with righteousness, from henceforth and forever. The seal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this.
No name or title of 'God' in this rendition, but he is the Messenger(Angel) of Great Counsel because he is God's Anointed. There is NO indication of this messenger of the LORD being deity. None whatsoever. Unnecessary. We might note as well, that no NT writer ever even mentions this prolific verse (if so important) as a supporting verse to prove Jesus divinity. (hmmmm,....wonder why)
- well, if they were using the Septuagint ...that might help explain? The Jewish translations we've read so far,
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."
...speak of 'God' calling this special son The Prince of Peace,....God called his name this...the Prince of Peace. This is an acceptable translation. BUT even if we take the Christian translation, these special titles do NOT by any means indicate that the 'person' is 'God'. Many Jewish commentators as well believe the King being spoken of is Hezekiah, not some person who is to come many centuries later, since the child/son was already given (past tense).
Rashi writes:
For a child has been born to us: Although Ahaz is wicked, his son who was born to him many years ago [nine years prior to his assuming the throne] to be our king in his stead, shall be a righteous man, and the authority of the Holy One, blessed be He, and His yoke shall be on his shoulder, for he shall engage in the Torah and observe the commandments, and he shall bend his shoulder to bear the burden of the Holy One, blessed be He.
and… called his name: The Holy One, blessed be He, Who gives wondrous counsel, is a mighty God and an everlasting Father, called Hezekiah’s name, “the prince of peace,” since peace and truth will be in his days.
We would note some significant points from a Jewish perspective as they interpret their own scriptures, which are made clear by Rabbi Skobac in his video presentation below -
1) The passage is speaking of a child/son already born (past tense).
2) The passage according to the greater context points to this person as very probably being King Hezekiah. - the miraculous victory and era of peace gained by Hezekiah spanned thru a century, a very impressive reign as to bringing about an era of peace. Now as to the Messiah's reign being 'forever', well...this must include a lineage of messiah-kings along Davids line, as it represents God's reign of peace and righteousness thru God's government. Obviously Hezekiah's reign or that era of peace may have not lasted 'forever'. But even considering this being a 'double prophecy', as including the coming of another messiah (Jesus) in the future....there was no reign of peace in Jerusalem or the world with Jesus ministry, so he didnt fulfill or satisfy the major requirements laid down from Jewish scripture and tradition, hence their rejection of him as THEIR Messiah. See Jewish Messiah Wanted. - the Jewish Messiah in any case is supposed to bring about world peace and conversion of all to the law of God. What is the state of the world today? Can we blame the Jews for rejected Jesus as their Jewish Messiah? A sincere and honest question.
3) Even if this passage is held in the way Christian translators translate it,...these titles or names of 'God' would not necessarily mean, claim or identify that the child-son is 'God' himself. This would not enter in the minds of any orthodox Jew ever, since God is not a man. God is so ineffable as to be an omnipresent, both immanent and wholly transcending space, time, matter. He is so holy as to be careful of even the mention of his name, which was replaced in many places by a mere title of 'Lord' (Adonai) or 'Ha Shem'. The Messiah-Son in any case is 'elohim', even as the great judges, kings and rulers of old were they being men acting under the sanction of God's authority in the earth-realm (Psalm 82).... and the Son of YHWH-Elohim, who alone is the Most High. No problem here whatsoever from a Jewish Unitarian perspective.
Now for trinitarians or Oneness folks who choose the 'christianized' translation of the above passage, and by it attribute God-hood to the person being described or some kind(degree) of 'divinity',...that is your perogative. But do know a perfectly Unitarian translation is most feasible and appropriate here as well, true to Judaism.
As noted before, I share a Unitarian view in our discussions for the sake of contrasting and creative dialogue. I'm not necessary limited to such a view, since my theology is quite multi-dimensional anyways, being a student of universal religion and philosophy (truly 'eclectic'). 'God' is not limited to any one religious cult or tradition. All opinions, perspectives and points of view are being considered Christologically speaking. Each are free to research the data available and make up their own minds on any given subject. Each are responsible for their own view, and what they choose. Yes,....this implies 'free will'
Kingdom Rose, What am I speaking, English. Why do the JW's add the a before God in John 1:1. It is an unauthorized addition and not accepted by orthodox Christianity. The Word of God contains a strong admonition for unauthorized additions to the Word. Why did the JW's stray away from use of the KJV. Something from the heretical watchtower maybe?
Last edited:
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Jesus as God's Son, or a 'god' (elohim).........both apply
Jesus as God's Son, or a 'god' (elohim).........both apply
Indeed, only One True God exists,...all else is but the offspring of the One God.
In a Unitarian Christology, Jesus is NOT a 'false god',..because he is not 'God'. Only 'God' can be 'God'. He is the begotten Son of God. Also, there is no problem IMO with interpreting John 1:1 as the 'logos' being 'a god', or 'divine', since the 'logos' is begotten out of 'God'. The logos originates with-in God, being distinct from 'God' (no matter if one believes they are of 'like' substance (homoiousia) or the very 'same' substance (homooúsios) - which church theologians and councils butt heads over for so many years! ). I also still see no problem with an historical Arian view either, since Jesus still holds his special and unique status and role as God's Son and Christ! He may not be of the exact same essence (does it really make a difference?), and he may not be 'God Almighty',...but he as the Son of 'God' is still 'elohim' (god/divine). - we can split hairs over metaphysics here, but the hierarchal order and divine government operates pretty much the same anyways. :idunno: - and to think so many decades went into battling all the micro-details. - to what avail?,...just so that in the end the church-state and powers that prevailed, SETTLED for an 'orthodox' explanation, sealed it in a few 'creeds', stamped it 'official', so 'church' could continue on with an unchallenged 'program'....to keep peace, law and order in the kingdom.
One can strain at gnats here, but Jesus is still God's Son, the Messenger-Angel of Great Counsel . He serves as a 'Michael' (one who is like God) as well, in the heavenly order of things. Is 'God' diminished in anyway from a Unitarian or Arian view? Why would he be? This is the assumption of some religionists, mostly trinitarians who DEMAND that Jesus must be 'God',.....but the big question is why? Why is such a 'belief' necessary? 'God' remains 'God',...no glory diminished, the gospel remains the same, God's grace avails, God's Son continues to be Messiah, revealing the goodness, glory and mercy of God for all people.
Jesus as God's Son, or a 'god' (elohim).........both apply
Indeed, only One True God exists,...all else is but the offspring of the One God.
In a Unitarian Christology, Jesus is NOT a 'false god',..because he is not 'God'. Only 'God' can be 'God'. He is the begotten Son of God. Also, there is no problem IMO with interpreting John 1:1 as the 'logos' being 'a god', or 'divine', since the 'logos' is begotten out of 'God'. The logos originates with-in God, being distinct from 'God' (no matter if one believes they are of 'like' substance (homoiousia) or the very 'same' substance (homooúsios) - which church theologians and councils butt heads over for so many years! ). I also still see no problem with an historical Arian view either, since Jesus still holds his special and unique status and role as God's Son and Christ! He may not be of the exact same essence (does it really make a difference?), and he may not be 'God Almighty',...but he as the Son of 'God' is still 'elohim' (god/divine). - we can split hairs over metaphysics here, but the hierarchal order and divine government operates pretty much the same anyways. :idunno: - and to think so many decades went into battling all the micro-details. - to what avail?,...just so that in the end the church-state and powers that prevailed, SETTLED for an 'orthodox' explanation, sealed it in a few 'creeds', stamped it 'official', so 'church' could continue on with an unchallenged 'program'....to keep peace, law and order in the kingdom.
One can strain at gnats here, but Jesus is still God's Son, the Messenger-Angel of Great Counsel . He serves as a 'Michael' (one who is like God) as well, in the heavenly order of things. Is 'God' diminished in anyway from a Unitarian or Arian view? Why would he be? This is the assumption of some religionists, mostly trinitarians who DEMAND that Jesus must be 'God',.....but the big question is why? Why is such a 'belief' necessary? 'God' remains 'God',...no glory diminished, the gospel remains the same, God's grace avails, God's Son continues to be Messiah, revealing the goodness, glory and mercy of God for all people.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
What verse or verses from the Scriptures teach that the Lord Jesus is "begotten" in that sense?
lain: It's not that "Catholics get things right," it's that Catholicism is the yardstick against which everything else is measured. Catholicism is the One Christian faith (Eph4:5KJV), because the Catholic Church is Jesus' Church (Mt16:18KJV); He built her, on Peter.Meshak is absolutely a monster, everything about Meshak is sobering.They might only be enough to fit on a pinhead.
Although that suit yourself part of her statement is a little more sobering, no?
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Good question, perhaps you can butt heads with the theologians of old who battled this one out
- you can start by going into the original greek on the word it translated into english as 'begotten',...then flesh that out a bit, but put some metaphysical/philosophical sense into while you're at it. Then look over John 1:18, a peculiar one to throw in the mix - Jesus being a 'begotten' god? - in any case, if Jesus is BEGOTTEN of God,...God is his FATHER. A Son comes out from a Father, - a 'son' has an orgin! (we wont get into all the issues of 'time' here, but a father usually last time I checked exists before a son comes into existence). - the only way they got outa this one, to make Jesus the same being or essence as God,....was to say he is ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN. - well, that sounds wonderful.....Jesus the Son being in an eternal state of generation. This can be metaphysically assumed,...to imply some eternal generation arising in the effulgence of God's Being,...this being the eternal Son, which as the 'logos' philosophically speaking would be a logical principle or 'reason' that abides in the MIND of GOD,...as much as God is a conscious Being,...so the 'logos' in this sense could be said to be eternal with God. And we could go on from there. Ready to tackle it? According to the Septuagint those who rendered the phrase "El Gibbor" seem to have understood "El" here as "Messenger", (El Gibbor, "Great Messenger" or "Mighty Messenger"), in much the same way that occasionally, in other places such as the Psalms, (cf. Psa 8:5, Heb 2:7, 9), Elohim is/are understood as Messenger/Messengers, (Angels). That seems to be where their understanding of αγγελος-angelos herein is derived, that is, "Messenger", coming from the word for El, (אל). Thus they did not read yoetz as "a counselor" but simply as counsel:
פלא יועץ אל גבור
pele yoetz el gibor : mighty messenger of wonderful counsel
μεγαλης βουλης αγγελος
megales boules aggelos : mighty messenger of (wonderful) counsel
This is likely the reading which the Apostolic authors also had before them because the "tampering charge" certainly does not fit in this instance; for certainly no "Trinitarian scribe" would have come along and changed the reading to make it say this!
- Status