The Holey Trinity - Is a Mighty God the Almighty God? Isaiah 9:6

Right up there with John 1:1 in the Trinitarian bag-o-tricks is Isaiah 9:6. There are many aspects of this verse that Trinitarian's need to misinterpret in order to benefit their doctrine. So let's start bringing these errors to light.

"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, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." - Isaiah 9:6 (ASV)

Here, Isaiah is prophesying of Jesus. He cannot be talking about Jehovah for the simple fact that Isaiah specifically says he "shall be" called those things, not he "already is called...". Isaiah is grammatically speaking of a time in the future. Jehovah has already been called a "Mighty God" at this point. Obviously if Jehovah is 'Almighty' (Exodus 6:3) then certainly he would be 'Mighty'.

"The Mighty One, God, Jehovah, hath spoken, And called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof." - Psalm 50:1 (ASV)

"The Mighty One, God, Jehovah, the Mighty One, God, Jehovah, he knoweth; and Israel he shall know: if it be in rebellion, or if in trespass against Jehovah (save thou us not this day,)" - Joshua 22:22 (ASV)

Of course as has been proven several times, simply being given the same title as Jehovah does NOT make him the same as Jehovah. The very fact that Jesus won't be called a "Mighty God" until a point in time AFTER Jehovah is already called a Mighty God proves they cannot be the same. Which is really a ludicrous claim anyways.

It is also very possible the Christ being referred to as Mighty God is applied to him in a subordinate sense. He is mightier than all of those who are called Gods:

"34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods?35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken)" - John 10:34,35 (ASV)

It would not make sense for the Son of God to be equal to humans that are called God. Nor would it make sense for the Son of God to be equal to his Father the Almighty God. Mighty God, in that sense, is a very appropriate title for Jesus.

Also, Lexicon's give these definitions of the Hebrews word "'el", which in this verse is rendered as "God". Strong's defines this word as "god, god-like one, mighty one, mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes, angels, false god, mighty things in nature, strength, power". In certain instances this word also refers to Jehovah. It cannot be said, however, that in this case it could also be rendered as "he shall be called...Mighty Jehovah". As we know from the Bible, Jesus was never called Jehovah. Therefore, an acceptable rendering would be more along the lines of being called a Mighty God.

"...to Hebrews this word ['el] would present the notion of strength and power." - Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon

Additionally, notice the way others have rendered this verse:

"...The Mighty One..." - Jubilee Bible 2000

"...divine hero..." - Dr. James Moffat

"...divine champion..." - Byington

"...In Battle Godlike..." - New English Bible

"...God-hero..." - New American Bible (1970 and 1991 revision)

"...Mighty hero..." - Revised English Bible

""In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his 'splendor and majesty' (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called 'god' as a title of honor [cf.  Isa 9:6]." - The NIV Study Bible

"Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty One, Potentate, Prince of Peace, Father of the age to come." - Footnote in Zondervan's Version

The oldest existing manuscripts of the Septuagint are dated from the 4th century; Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. They both render Isaiah 9:6 as:

"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 [or 'Angel' - aggelos] of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him."

Interesting that Jesus was called an "Angel of great counsel", isn't it?
It was not until the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century, after the Trinity was formulated, when we started seeing Isaiah 9:6 rendered as found in our English Bibles today.

So, with that misconception cleared up, we move on to the next part of the verse that is misinterpreted. Which is where Jesus is called "Everlasting Father". Now, this is very easily disputed by the Trinity doctrine itself. It teaches that the Son is not the Father. Obviously then, this cannot be used to prove that Jesus is the Father. If we cannot take this "name" given to Jesus to be literal and mean that Jesus is the Father, we cannot take the rest of the name (Mighty God) literally either. Yet, somehow it is. Trinitarians make this mean that Jesus had no beginning and has no end. Well, let's take a closer look at the context and the original Hebrew.

Contextually, Isaiah says that Jesus "shall be called" this. Therefore, he is not currently (at the time Isaiah was writing this) "everlasting". Certainly Jesus existed at this time. So why would he not be called "everlasting" until a future time? Because Jesus died after he was sent to earth. One cannot be everlasting and yet die, can they?

"knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death no more hath dominion over him." - Romans 6:9 (ASV)

"and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades." - Revelation 1:18 (ASV)

So it was not until after Jesus was resurrected that he received the gift of everlasting life. This is not something that can be said of the Almighty God Jehovah. Paying close attention to the Hebrew language in this verse, the word rendered as "everlasting" is "'ad" and it never denotes "from eternity", only "to eternity". Strong's Concordance says it means "perpetuity, for ever, continuing future". This same word is used to describe mountains at Habakkuk 3:6 and a "world without end" at Isaiah 45:17. We know that the earth had a beginning and so did mountains.This word "'ad", only denotes they will last forever. Calling Jesus "everlasting Father" does not demand the meaning that he is without beginning, just that at some point in there future he will not have an end.

So what does Isaiah mean when he said Jesus will be known as the "Everlasting Father"?

"In the same way, "Eternal Father" could mean that the Messiah is one who has been given eternal life and through him God has brought eternal life to many others.  (We might make the comparison that the Heavenly Father has brought men to life in this world through their earthly fathers.)  This would be intended in a clearly subordinate sense and not to take anything away from the ultimate honor, glory, worship, etc. due the Most High God and Father in heaven - Jehovah." - ExaminingTheTrinity.Blogspot.Com

Additionally, Joseph Rotherham renders this as "father of progress" and the New English Bible says "father of a wide realm". Both of these translations by Trinitarian scholars apply these words in a sense of subordinate sense to Jesus. Which means, they do not believe this verse implies an equality with Jehovah.

While this research is lengthy and extensive, it is also quite clear. Isaiah 9:6 does not mean Jesus is the Almighty God, just a Mighty God. It is a quite appropriate title for the Son of God, the one anointed by God and directly created by Him.

I found an interesting explanation of what exactly a "logical fallacy" is:

"Logical fallacies are unsubstantiated assertions that are often delivered with a conviction that makes them sound as though they are proven facts" - Clinical Psychologist Rian McMullin

As we are finding out, the Trinity fits this definition perfectly. Its' followers sure do deliver that ideology with conviction enough to make it sound like it is a proven fact. But with the more we learn, these things that they claim to be facts are indeed unsubstantiated assertions. Good stuff.