Twinky

And furthermore: The gospel of Luke is fairly bland on the naming of Jesus. All it says (Luke 2) is: Gospel of Matthew has a little more detail: That's a verse from Isaiah 7:14 - https://biblehub.com/kjv/isaiah/7.htm This is how Strong's describes the name Immanuel: So how come this child was named "Jesus" (God our Saviour) and not "Immanuel" (God with us)? [ note that -el suffix, as discussed in my above post. Again, it wouldn't mean that the bearer of the name was God]. Did the angel get confused, or get the names mixed up? Seems unlikely! Were Joseph and Mary disobedient? Also seems unlikely. Did the baby have more than one name? Again, seems unlikely. There are records of males and a few females being given new names in both OT and NT, but they are at specific times when some great thing is about to happen in that person's life. Perhaps Jesus was named Jesus at his birth and circumcision, and the name Immanuel was only from his baptism at the start of his ministry? But then, all the gospels continue to call him Jesus. And all the records of what people called him - also Jesus. Never Immanuel. It's clear the name was never anything like the immensely long name, or any part of the name, recorded in Isaiah 9. And perhaps Isaiah 7:14 is not as prophetic as Christians would like to believe?

Just thinking about names generally in the OT and NT, we know very, very many names include -el or El- (God/Elohim) or Je- (God/Jehovah). Just about any page you open a Bible, you'll find a name in this format. Examples: Daniel is a masculine given name and a surname of Hebrew origin. It means "God is my judge" (cf. Gabriel—"God is my strength") From the Hebrew name דָּנִיֵּאל (Daniyyel) meaning "God is my judge", from the roots דִּין (din) meaning "to judge" and אֵל ('el) meaning "God") Elisabeth from Heb 'elishebha` (Elisheba), "God is (my) oath," i.e. a worshipper of God), Elijah (a double-God name!), Elishah... and many more. Doesn't mean that any of these people were God. Then we get "Jesus." Taken to mean "God our Saviour" and therefore that the bearer of the name was himself God. The name Jesus is a contraction, common at the time Jesus our Saviour was born. It's a contraction of Jehoshua - God our Saviour - which itself became shortened to "Joshua." The name Jesus is much the same as the older name Joshua and the even older name Jehoshua. Nobody thought that Joshua, Moses's most faithful and loyal aide, and later the leader into the promised land, was God. Just calling someone by any of these names doesn't indicate that the child so named was God, any more than naming your own child Daniel or Elisabeth makes that child God. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_(name) What's clear is that Jesus wasn't given (as far as we know) any name or contraction of any name that appears in Isaiah 9:6.

Bolshevik, you probably knew DWBH. I slightly edited my post, but your "quote" is still good.

For those recently arrived here, "R" is the former poster here under the name DontWorryBeHappy. He was very high in TWI circles. And was kicked out, unceremoniously, for challenging the adulterous behaviour going on, especially by Craig Martindale - but DWBH took with him a headload of knowledge of the inner workings at top level.

Very honest post, OldSkool. Thank you.

Mike's said this on a number of occasions.

That seems like an unnecessarily aggressive response from Mike to a reasonable question from Charity. But setting the aggression aside, it might be the most interesting and illuminating response ever, from Mike. Him as a person, not him as a mouthpiece. Shows he might think a little.

Interesting article. Never knew anything about her before.

I can understand payment on a "need" basis - as long as it applies to everyone - especially those at the helm! Can you see VPW, Craig or Rosalie living on a need basis? Or the other head honchos? Nah, me neither. Can't speak for Vern; he was on staff and thus paid on a "need" basis. And the "need" needs to be fully costed - including provision for current needs (reliable cars, family time including ability to visit distant family) - and future needs, especially retirement planning. God gives generously. Therefore, there is no need to pay stingily. Such is not reflective of God's abundance.

Perhaps it's time for someone to access their public financial accounts again. See what their current reserves/cash in hand are, and what's been paid out in salaries.

Or this one. The kid wants to teach you the sounds.

If that's for the intermediate class, this must be for the AC.

Not bothered, just a thought. Mods can decide if they wish. I'll watch the podcast this evening. Sounds interesting.

No time to listen right now (going to work!) but wouldn't this be better in Open or Doctrinal?

The NT, is, as you say, a lot of re-contextualising of what Christians call the OT. But then, the NT is kicked off by a lot of re-contextualising by Jesus himself. Luke 4:21 is a great example: “This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears..." , which, as it happens, is from Isaiah 61.

Still doing some checking on this. At T-Bone's recommendation, I've been rummaging around in the Complete Jewish Study Bible, which can be downloaded as a PDF. It's not very searchable, as there are no hyperlinks. (I have become so intrigued by this JSB that I might well buy a copy.) Anyhow, I eventually found this commentary. First, their translation of vv 5-6: For a child has been born to us, A son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named "The Mighty God is planning grace;' The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler"­ In token of abundant authority And of peace without limit Upon David's throne and kingdom, That it may be firmly established In justice and in equity Now and evermore. The zeal of the LORD of Hosts Shall bring this to pass. And now the commentary: 9.1-6: The ideal Davidic king. Isaiah describes liberation from some form of adversity (perhaps the Assyrian conquests of Israelite territory described in the previous vv., or Syro-Ephraimite pressures on Judah). The verbs are in the past tense. Some interpreters view them as examples of the "prophetic past," which predicts future events using the past tense because they are as good as done. Thus it is not clear whether the Davidic king whose birth and rule are described (vv. 5-6) has already been born (if the verbs are a regular past tense) or will be born in the future (prophetic past). If the former, the v. probably refers to Ahaz's son Hezekiah, as many modern and rabbinic commentators believe (though other possibilities exist depending on the date of the passage). Most later readers (both Jewish and Christian) understood the passage to describe an ideal future ruler, i.e., the Messiah. 5: "The Mighty God . . . ruler": This long sentence is the throne name of the royal child. Semitic names often consist of sentences that describe God; thus the name Isaiah in Hebrew means "The LoRD saves"; Hezekiah, "The LoRD strengthens"; in Akkadian, the name of the Babylonian king Merodach-baladan (Isa. 39.1) means "the god Marduk has provided an heir." These names do not describe that person who holds them but the god whom the parents worship. Similarly, the name given to the child in this v. does not describe that child or attribute divinity to him, contrary to classical Christian readings of this messianic verse.

C'mon, Mike. Your inability to pay attention to small details like people's names is --- rather telling about your attention to detail elsewhere. And your ability to conflate experiences and opinions shows you just don't care, despite your protestations otherwise. Wouldn't matter if we all sat around here in the Cafe with paper bags on our heads and drinking our coffee through straws. You'd still hear the different voices and opinions, and manage to distinguish those.

I picked this up from Quora. It's a little way down the page: https://www.quora.com/How-do-Jewish-people-interpret-Isaiah-9-6 https://qr.ae/prr3If Susan Krakowsky M.A. in Near Eastern Languages, Ph.D. in Mass Communication Author has 6.8K answers and 1.4M answer views2y Related Some believe Isaiah 9:6-7 is speaking in reference to King Hezekiah, and most Messianic Jews and Christians believe its about Jesus; what is the correct way of reading this and could there be a parallel? Not one single verse of our Jewish scripture whatsoever refers to Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Huitzilopochtli, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy or any leader or central figure of any other non-Jewish system. Of course, if you know of some religious leader who bore the name in Isaiah 9:6, “Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” instead of being named Jesus, Mohammed, Huitzilopochtli or whatever, maybe you will have a candidate. Let us know. CORRECTION: I made a mistake in depending on a Christian translation. That Christian translation changed the tenses from past to future [Twinky's emphasis] I have now looked at the Hebrew. The passage is in the past tense. It is not a prediction. It is a report. It is about a name that a person has already been called. In the Hebrew, the verse explicitly says, in the past tense: “A child was born to us. A son has been given to us. Government (or authority) is on his shoulder. And his name has been called, ‘God-plans-a wonder-God-is-wonderful-Mighty-Eternal-a-Peaceable Ruler” Isaiah 9:6.(The JPS translation is almost exactly this, also.) Sorry, I should have looked at the Hebrew earlier. A lesson to us all about Posting in Haste! My final paragraph still stands, where I said that of course Mary, in the New Testament, does not name her child Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace [or anything like ‘God-plans-a wonder-God-is-wonderful-Mighty-Eternal-a-Peaceable Ruler,” either]. Nobody I can find in the whole New Testament ever addresses Jesus by any such name or any other name that is a long sentence, either. Consulting the Hebrew takes care of any attempts to apply the verse to Jesus, about eight centuries after Isaiah’s time, even assuming that somebody thinks they can find an example in the New Testament where Jesus’ name is a long sentence about God being eternal and wonderful, peaceably planning miracles - or any other long sentence.

Have you ever tried looking on their website? It tells you who the BoD are and gives contact details. Not hard, Mike.

I asked (emailed) my Jewish friend. If she says anything helpful, I'll let you know.

Here's a different translation: https://mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et1009.htm 5 For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom; 6 That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even for ever. ( I don 't think they mean "Pele the footballer)

This verse, commonly read in late December, has always been a total puzzle to me. Conventional Christian theory takes a part of this and then applies the whole of it to Jesus, assuming it's a prophecy of his birth. I was going to ask a Jewish friend for the conventional Jewish understanding but did a bit of research myself on Jewish sites. Chabad is quite well recognised ; I found this site on a recommendation from a former poster here. Authorised ("King James") version: 6For 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. 7Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. Here's another version of the whole chapter, and if you don't like this, you can easily choose a different version at the top of the page: https://biblehub.com/bsb/isaiah/9.htm Chabad.org explains it thus: https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15940/jewish/Chapter-9.htm 5For 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." הכִּי־יֶ֣לֶד יֻלַּד־לָ֗נוּ בֵּן נִתַּן־לָ֔נוּ וַתְּהִ֥י הַמִּשְׂרָ֖ה עַל־שִׁכְמ֑וֹ וַיִּקְרָ֨א שְׁמ֜וֹ פֶּ֠לֶא יוֹעֵץ֙ אֵ֣ל גִּבּ֔וֹר אֲבִי־עַ֖ד שַׂר־שָׁלֽוֹם: This makes complete sense to me. And some further background is here: https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/can-you-give-a-reason-why-jews-say-isaiah-96-does-not-refer-to-jesus In particular, the last 3 sentences of this article sum up my "puzzle" exactly. Does anyone have any further thoughts, background knowledge, other sources?

I wondered that, too, Charity. What with abbreviations and Mike's own unique and very curious Mikespeak, it gets a little difficult at times.

To you, too, Penworks. Nice to see you paying a visit. A couple of topics here might catch your attention.

This reminds me of something that happened when I was out street-pastoring in the city. This drunk male approached our team of four. We were all from different churches, and three different denominations. He started sounding off about how terrible the Christian message is. He said: "You all believe ..." Us: "Actually, no we don't. We believe..." Then he said: "You all believe ..." And we said: "Actually, no we don't. We believe..." And during our 20 minute encounter, with one voice (but separately) we proclaimed God's love, the Lord Jesus, the grace that's given to us, and other good news. The drunk male ambled off after a while. And the team went the other direction, chuckling at this man's ramblings, misunderstandings, accusations, etc. Because we were all solidly of one heart and mind in being within, and expressing, God's love. Quit with the rigid theological tramlines, Mike. Explore a bit. Get out of the box. If you are in some theological box with God, your God is way too small. Or maybe, "Way too small." "Meditate on the scriptures" - you can look up your own Bible verses on that, but here's your starter-for-ten: But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart (Luke 2:19). So you see: Mary, Jesus's mother, "pondered," considered, allowed herself to think deeply. You are not "out of fellowship" or destined for a fall ("like Eve") if you think, consider, ponder, meditate, try to understand (like Mary). You might even find yourself more deeply in fellowship - with God.