Seventh Response to Dalton Lifsey

Seventh Response to Dalton Lifsey


First; a word on the purpose of this discussion.

You are quick to accuse me of using “circular reasoning”. You seem to be under the assumption that the only reason I do not “see” what you see in the text of Isaiah is because of my “predisposed suppositions” that have no foundation in the teaching that we received from God.

You realize, of-course, that I could throw that accusation right back at you. I could argue that the only reason you see what you see in the text is because of your “predisposed suppositions”. But the purpose of this discussion is to put facts on the table – and let the audience decide which one of us is using circular reasoning. That is the difference between persuasion and education.

The one argument of mine that you chose to address in your previous post (- my assertion that the incarnation is like saying that good is bad) is not based on a “predisposed assumption” as you assert. Please read the following posts and address them or retract your accusation.

Concerning Isaiah 9:6

You missed the entire point of my post concerning this passage.

My point was that it is on your shoulders to prove without any doubt that this passage teaches us to direct worship to one who possesses all of the properties of a man. You completely failed to do that.

I showed you that there are two ways of translating the verse that utterly negate your interpretation. I also showed you that even according to your translation (which I actually accept as the most logical), the verse is not teaching what you would have it say. Yet you accuse me of “putting all my eggs into one basket”?! How do you justify such an accusation? Did you at all read what I wrote?

My point with showing alternative translations was that there are other viable ways of reading this passage. If you want to argue that these translations are bizarre and absurd, you will have to acknowledge that they are far less absurd and bizarre than the belief that a man can somehow be God.

You want me to read Isaiah 9:6 in context of Isaiah 10:21 – no not 10:21 – but two words that you cherry picked out of 10:21 – yet you want me to ignore all of the contextual evidence that I presented to you in my fifth post?

If you read this verse in context – you are left with no question that it is talking of Hezekiah. The prophet made that abundantly clear. You have your own little problems with what the prophet said – you cannot fathom how it is that King Hezekiah fulfilled these prophecies. That doesn’t give you a right to tamper with the words of the prophet.

(As an aside – If you believe that a man can be God – and you also believe that the only way that this prophecy can be fulfilled is by having a man be God – than how do you know that Hezekiah isn’t that “mystery god-man” that the prophet was referring to?)

In any case, your lack of appreciation for Hezekiah’s career and your exaggeration of Jesus’ career needs to be put in perspective.

Assyria was the most powerful nation of the time. It was the scourge of the land. In one night the world’s greatest superpower became a banana republic. Their entire army dies in one night and the city it threatened with annihilation is saved. On the same day, the sun goes back in the sky and turns afternoon into morning. How does this compare to the healing of a few lepers and some questionable sightings of a crucified man?

“Oh, but that was in the world of objective reality – I was talking about the influence that Jesus had on the subjective minds of men” – you say.

Yes; I recognize that Jesus was the most influential man on earth, but is that something to be proud of? The Crusades, the Inquisition and the holocaust were only the apex of years of oppression and pain – is that the influence that you are pointing to? And what Jesus did to the Jews was nothing compared to what he did to the Gentiles. The Jews were physically oppressed in his name – but the Gentiles had darkness poured into their souls. The Jews suffered the holocaust – the followers of Jesus perpetrated it.

“But that was not the “real” Jesus” – you protest. The “real” Jesus loves the Jewish people.

For argument’s sake – I’ll buy your story (- just don’t try it in a court of law – the jury will never accept the argument: “that wasn’t the real me”.) So we have two incarnations of Jesus; the “fake” Jesus and the “real” Jesus. Which one of these two was more influential? For many dark centuries, no-one ever heard of the “real” Jesus. The blood-soaked pages of history should tell you that it was the fake Jesus who was far more influential than his brother.

One more point on the world of subjective reality.

You seem to be under the impression that Jesus’ career somehow “eclipsed” the miracles that God performed on behalf of Hezekiah. I actually agree with you – and let me explain.

An eclipse is when a body of darkness obstructs the light. It sometimes allows some light to shine through – but after everything is said and done – an eclipse is an obstruction of light. – That, my friend, is Jesus for you.

Since you seem to enjoy verbosity – I will take the liberty to elaborate.

The greatest light is God’s truth. The greatest happiness of humanity is to receive that light – and God promised that humanity will one day merit to receive that light (Isaiah 60:3). At the time of creation, God planted certain basic truths into the hearts of human beings. This is our ability to sense right from wrong, to enjoy truth and to be repulsed by falsehood. God also chose a nation for Himself, and He planted certain truths into the heart of this nation (Deuteronomy 4:35). For many centuries the Jewish people walked with this truth, but their Gentile neighbors did not appreciate it. The miracles that God performed for Hezekiah represented a turning point in history. From that point on, the Gentile nations began to seek the God of Israel (Isaiah 19:18). The phenomena of Gentiles seeking the God of Israel continued to grow – until the time of the eclipse.

Christianity came and rode the light in order to spread the darkness.

Christianity is not entirely evil, if it would be, it wouldn’t be so evil. If Christianity were completely evil, no-one would give it a second glance, and it would have harmed no-one. Christianity took some of the truths that God gave the world, and claimed them for herself. There are some truths, or half-truths, that Christianity does share with the world, but it wants the world to credit her; Christianity, as the source of light. It is like someone who steals all of your money and wants you to be his eternal slave when he returns some of it back to you.

There are three primary truths that Christianity twisted for the detriment of all men; the witness nation, the Messianic hope and the relationship that God shares with every one of His creations. (There are actually several more, but I will try to keep it brief.)

The Jewish people are God’s witness nation. There is no question that we disappointed God time and time again, but God’s purpose can never be thwarted. God taught us who it is that we are to worship, and who it is that all of mankind will one day worship (Deuteronomy 4:35, Isaiah 54:5). After more than 3000 years, the word; “Jew”, is still associated with the worship of the One Creator of all – and the word; “Jew” is still associated with a repudiation of the worship of any other entity.

The world began learning this truth from us – particularly after the spectacular destruction of the Assyrian army.

Along came Christianity and taught the world that the Jewish people are “false witnesses”. The Jewish people testify that they were taught by God who it is that we are to worship – but Christianity declares – “Don’t believe them”. Christianity rode the reputation of our prophets, but Christianity shut the mouth of those who ratified the authenticity of those same prophets. Christianity rode the glory that was added to David’s throne through Hezekiah, but they taught the world that Hezekiah was a failure.

That is the first eclipse of Christianity – they eclipsed the testimony of God’s witnesses.

The next truth distorted by Christianity is the Messianic hope. God told the Jewish prophets that He has a plan of peace for all mankind (Zephaniah 3:9). The Jewish prophets planted a seed of hope in the heart of mankind – a hope that inspired many to persevere through the greatest trials. This hope is God’s love for all mankind.

Along came Christianity and usurped that hope for itself. Christianity invented a concept of a “new election” – an election that the prophets said nothing about (and I challenge you Dalton, show me ONE verse from the Jewish Scriptures which indicates that there will be a new election on the basis of devotion to an individual). Christianity taught the world that if you want the Messianic hope – you must worship our Jesus. Christianity stole the hope that rightfully belongs to all of mankind and tries to persuade people that the only place it can be purchased is in their store.

(It always struck me as odd, that the election of Israel according to the Bible means greater responsibility and greater punishment (Amos 3:2), while the Christian “election” is a free ticket to “eternal life”.)

That is the second eclipse of Christianity – Christianity eclipsed the universal truth of the Messianic hope.

The most important truth that Christianity eclipses is the relationship that God shares with every one of His creations.

When Jesus said: “No-one comes to the Father, but through me”, it seems like he was saying something about himself, but he was not. Jesus was making a statement about you and about me and about every man and woman that inhabit God’s earth.

Jesus was teaching that you cannot have a direct relationship with your Creator. Jesus falsely taught that there is a barrier between the Creator and His creations – and he offers himself as the only way to overcome this otherwise “insurmountable barrier”. This teaching is false.

The deepest need of every human being is the need for a relationship with God. The inner core of our being yearns to connect to its Creator. Our Creator knows this (obviously). Just as He provided for our physical needs; we have air to breath, water to drink and food to eat – He provided us with our deepest need. All we need to do is to open our hearts a little. We would then recognize in every beat of our hearts – a caress from God. We would feel every breath as an embrace, and we would recognize that He carries us constantly as a mother cradles her infant. After all, it is He who gave us existence to begin with, it is He who designed our heart and keeps it beating and it is He who constantly and lovingly sustains every aspect of our lives. There is nothing closer to us than our Creator. All we need to do is to recognize these truths and call upon Him with sincerity – but Christianity came and eclipsed this truth.

Now Dalton, I recognize that you may find it difficult to reject the man who taught you to see it as if all of your inalienable rights are coming from him. But I am not asking you to reject him. Just do what the Jewish people have been doing for the past 2000 years – ignore him. If you ignore him long enough – he will go away. He only thrives on your attention. In fact, as it is with every idol, his entire existence is only the product of the attention that the worshipers pay to him.

Dalton, I encourage you to join the swelling ranks of Jews and Gentiles who direct all of their religious devotion to our common Creator and to Him alone. We stand together, Jew and Gentile, with one heart, a heart filled with a pure and unadulterated love for God that is not eclipsed in any way. A dedication that is predicated on God’s universal principles of justice and charity -Jeremiah 9:23; 22:16; Micah 6:8; Isaiah 9:6 (7). The Jewish prophets predicted that eventually all of mankind will stand shoulder to shoulder in service of the One God of Israel. There is no reason for you to wait. It is your inalienable right.

Sincerely yours


If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

This entry was posted in Correspondence, The Ultimate Truth. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Seventh Response to Dalton Lifsey

  1. Thomas says:

    Yehuda’s response on dalton’s blog was excellent, if you haven’t seen it. There are multiple options for interpreting isaiah 9:6 from our perspective, including seeing the names as applying to God alone, and not the child, to seeing them as hyperbolic, and these certainly appear to carry far more weight in scholarly circles than the christological one proposed by dalton. Just as with isaiah 49, it is he – not us – who is proposing a strict reading of these texts, and putting his faith in a singular interpretation which is increasingly rejected by evangelicals.

    • Peter says:


      Both you and Yehuda are failing to see the plain meaning of the text of Isaiah 9:6. In doing so, you are forcing yourselves to come up with alternative meanings that are not supported by the text, context, book of Isaiah, and entire Bible. Read the verse again. It is about a child. The child is a son. He sits on the throne of David over an everlasting Kingdom. His name is called four names in this verse, one of which is “Mighty God”. The Hebrew for this name is “El-Gibbor” which is also used in Isaiah 10:21 and Jeremiah 32:18 as a name for God. Your refusal to acknowledge this plain fact is tantamount to stupidity born of willful blindness. If we are willing to acknowledge facts, then we can actually get somewhere.

      • Peter
        Before you go accusing people of wilfull blindness – go to my fifth post and read all of the contextual evidence that makes it clear that the passage is talking of Hezekiah – either respond to ALL of them or hold your peace

    • Thomas says:

      Peter, with due respect, but if your interpretaion of 9:6 is so obvious, why do most scholars reject your interpretation (including many evangelicals)? Is blindness or ignorance really the reason?

      • Thomas says:

        And I did mention this in another thread, but you didn’t address it at the time, but do you not see a gaping hole in dalton’s logic, namely that hezekiah could not have been the promised ‘godman’ because he did not bring about eternal peace for israel from her enemies, but of course neither did jesus. I’m told the solution is in a ‘second coming,’ and even if I thought there was scriptural support for that, it does nothing whatsoever to mitigate the problem that at this point, according to the logic of dalton (and the christological interpretation in general), jesus has not fulfilled this prophecy- so the divine titles cannot apply to him until he does accomplish it. So it really makes no difference either way, peter.

      • Peter says:


        All evangelical scholars ascribe Isaiah 9:6-7 to Jesus, the Messiah. That is precisely what makes them “evangelical”. There are also liberal scholars that deny this, which is what makes them “liberal”, or outside of commonly accepted orthodoxy. Within the entire body of biblical scholarship you will find a range of opinion concerning every verse in the Bible. If you sample it for any given verse, you will find a general consensus and a few alternatives. I assure you, the vast majority of evangelical scholarship posits the birth of Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ-Child of Isaiah 9:6-7. My Expositor’s Bible Commentary links Is. 9:6-7 to the promise of the sign of a virgin’s conception of a Son to be called “Immanuel”, or “God with us” in Is. 7:14. This is an obvious link. In Isaiah’s time, the King of Assyria would invade northern Israel like a river overflowing its banks; coming up even to the neck of Jerusalem, says the prophet Isaiah to the land of Israel, “O Immanuel”. But then he calls for the shattering and breaking of the invading Assyrian army, for “God is with us” (Isaiah 8:8-10). This is the antitype for the end of the age invasion of the final confederacy of nations that will trample Israel before the return of Messiah that I discuss in my response to Yisroel’s previous post on this blog. This is the final Day of Lord envisioned by the Hebrew prophets before the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom in which Messiah reigns from Jerusalem over the nations of the earth.

        The prophecy of Isaiah 9:6-7 will be completely fulfilled at the Second Coming of Jesus the Messiah, in which Is. 2:1-4 and Is. 4:2-6 and Is. 11-12 will also be fulfilled. That is what we await. Isaiah was pointing to something much, much greater in Is 9:6-7 than King Hezekiah. That should be abundantly obvious from the text itself.

      • Yehuda says:


        My initial inclination was to ignore your having attributed “stupidity born of willfull blindmess” to me.

        At this point, however, I’d really like to know the nature of your reading impairment.

        You have made cvery clear what you belive I9:6 to be talking about.

        We get it.

        Now why don’t you get that until you address

        1) Rabbi’s B.s substantive issues of context – all of them
        2) Thomas’ questions about an abundent body of Christian scholars who disagree with you, largely because of contextual evidence along the lines of Rabbi B’s (The fact that you label them liberal as a consequence, is irrelevant sematics. They believe in Jesus. They just don’t think I9:6 has anything to do with him. )

        your insistence that your understanding of I9:6 is “abundantly clear from the etxt itself” is empty rhetoric.

        If I didn’t know better I would attribute it to stupidity born of willful blindness.

      • Thomas says:

        Peter, thanks for your response. You write: “The prophecy of Isaiah 9:6-7 will be completely fulfilled at the Second Coming of Jesus the Messiah.” Well, until that happens, and following your reasoning, this passage remains unfulfilled by anyone, including Jesus, and thus, these titles cannot be applied to him. I’m not even discussing the topic of the second coming – merely that this promise simply has not been fulfilled, and thus, there is no justification from Isaiah 9:6 to apply these titles to someone who has not yet fulfilled them.

        As for evangelical scholars, it is noteworthy that a significant number *have* rejected the interpretation you provide- along with most Jewish & other “mainstream” scholars. Michael Rydelnik (messianic) wrote in the book ‘The Messianic Hope:’ “Many more examples could have been presented because evangelical scholarship has so readily rejected direct predictions of the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible.” Clearly he’s making an over-generalized statement, but he’s not making it up. I’m not going to dwell on this, but it is relevant.

        In that vein, you are correct that there is frequently (and on Is. 9:6) a large range of opinions, and I never claimed otherwise, but in this case, such a dramatic wide range is strong evidence against your claim- that this is a clear prophecy of a God-Man.

        The fact that such wide disagreement exists proves only to disprove your assertion there- and in my personal observations, it does seem clear that while there is a wide range of opinions, it is NOT the most common view that this child spoken of is literally God- some say hyperbolic or exaggerated; some say the names refer to God, not the child; some say the ‘divinity’ of the child refers to their special role as king, but they are still indisputably not God. Which is the most widely-accepted? From my research, I think it’s probably the hyperbolic view, but not the view that suggests this ideal king would be God. But the original point stands: Is 9:6 is one of a small handful of proof texts for the messiah’s deity in the OT, and to have a rare proof text rejected by so many scholars, including many conservative Christians, should be worth a pause- perhaps it’s not as “obvious” as you think.

  2. naaria says:

    Excellent post. A great summary of how or why Jesus/Yeshua or Christians view the GodMan substitutionary idea differently from the Tanakh’s or Jewish view of the God-to-Man direct relationship teaching. This is from one of those Gentiles raised & taught as a Christian who as in your last paragraph, stands not only with Jews and the modern nation of Israel (for the right reason, not the typical “evangelical” reason), but with them with a religious devotion to a common Creator and to Him alone.

    I liked what was said about an idol. That is why I have challenged other Christians, that if Jesus equals God, do not say Jesus or Yeshua, or Son, and only read Torah or “OT”, for 30 days. They will begin to see things differently; eventually the man-god idol goes away, but God as One alone stays.

    I tried the other day to express what was wrong with the Christian idea of “foreshadowing”. It is a blockage of light. The word I was looking for was “eclipse”, and you expressed the idea much better.

  3. Blasater says:

    R’ Blumenthal said: Concerning Isaiah 9:6

    “You (Dalton) missed the entire point of my post concerning this passage.
    My point was that it is on your shoulders to prove without any doubt that this passage teaches us to direct worship to one who possesses all of the properties of a man. You completely failed to do that.”

    Exactly…Dalton seeks to overturn the P’shat or plain meaning of these:

    Exodus 20:2-3 The first of the Ten Commandments
    I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, and of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me. (see also Deuteronomy 5:7)

    Deuteronomy 4:11-12
    You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness. Then the Lord spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no image; there was only a voice.

    Deuteronomy 4:35
    You are the ones who have been shown, so that you will know that God is the Supreme Being, and there is none other besides Him!

    Deuteronomy 4:39
    Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that the Lord, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other!

    Deuteronomy 6:14
    You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you!

    Deuteronomy 32:39
    See, now, that I, I am He — and no god is with Me.

    I Samuel 2:2
    There is none holy as the Lord, for there is none beside Thee; neither is there any Rock like our God.

    I Kings 8:27
    For will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee, how much less this house that I have built?

    I Kings 8:60
    So that all the nations of the earth may know that the Lord is God and that there is no other!

    II Kings 19:19
    Now, O Lord our God, deliver us from his hand, so that all kingdoms on earth may know that You alone, O Lord, are God

    Isaiah 40:18
    To whom then will you liken God? To what likeness will you compare unto Him?

    Isaiah 40:25
    “To whom then will you liken Me, that I should be his equal?” says the Holy One.

    Isaiah 42:8
    I am the Lord, that is My name, and My glory will I not give to another. Neither My praise to graven images!

    Isaiah 43:10-11
    “You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me no god was formed, nor will there be one after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no Savior.”

    Isaiah 44:6-8
    This is what the Lord says, Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty, “I am the first and I am the last; apart from Me there is no God! Who then is like Me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before Me . . . . Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

    Isaiah 44:24
    Thus said the Lord, your Redeemer, the One who formed you from the womb, “I am the Lord Who makes everything, Who stretched forth the heavens alone, Who spread out the earth by Myself.”

    Isaiah 45:5-6
    I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God; I will strengthen you . . . . In order that they know from the shining of the sun and from the west that there is no one besides Me; I am the Lord and there is no other!

    Isaiah 45:21-22
    . . . Who announced this from before, who declared it from the distant past? Is it not I, the Lord, and there is no God apart from Me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other!

    Isaiah 46:5
    To whom shall you liken Me and make Me equal and compare Me that we may be alike?

    Isaiah 46:9
    Remember the first things of old, that I am God and there is no other; I am God and there is none like Me.

    Isaiah 48:11
    . . . My honor I will not give to another.

    Hosea 13:4
    I am the Lord your God, Who brought you out of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no god but Me, no savior except Me!

    Joel 2:27
    You shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and I am the Lord your God, there is no other; and My people shall never be ashamed.

    Malachi 2:10
    Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why should we betray, each one his brother, to profane the covenant of our forefathers?

    Psalm 73:25
    Whom have I in heaven but You? Earth has nothing I desire besides You.

    Psalm 81:8-9
    Hear, O My people, and I will admonish you; O Israel, if you would listen to Me! Let there be no strange god among you; nor shall you worship any foreign god.

    Nehemiah 9:6
    You alone are the Lord; You made the heavens, the heaven of the heavens and all their host, the earth and all that is upon it, the seas and all that is in them, and You give life to all, and the heavenly host bow down before You.

    I Chronicles 17:20
    O Lord, there is none like You, neither is there any god beside You, according to all that we have heard with our ears!

    Dalton and the church would have us overturn the plain meaning of all that, because Isaiah 9 lists “mighty God” in an enigmatic fashion, of which the church then offers the midrashic “opinion” that it must be Jsus since they assert “God” has come as a man and “tabernacled” among us. It is sophmoric (like all of Daltons work IMHO) biblical analysis.

  4. naaria says:

    Comments from the Harper Collins Study Bible (Christian). Isaiah 9.1–7 This passage served originally as an oracle for the coronation of a Judean king, probably Hezekiah. It celebrates the accession of the new king with the traditional ideals of Davidic kingship (see 11.1–9 ). And in, Isaiah 9.6. Child, son. The divine birth or adoption of the king was announced on his coronation day (see Ps 2.7 ). As in the Egyptian coronation oracles…”

    Being named is not the same as being something. Or else, there are quite a few living Jesus’es in my neighborhood. And was the 6th book of the bible named for Jesus or was Jesus the reincarnation of Joshua/Yehoshua? Isaiah 9.5. gives us the throne name of the royal child. And Semitic names often consists of sentences or phrases that contain a name of God (-el, -iah, or -yah) or that describe God. So according to those unfamiliar with the bible, Isaiah the prophet would be “the Lord that saves” and Hezekiah is “the lord that strengthens” and Elijah is “Yah is my God” or if taken literally, the prophet Elijah is “the Lord God”. So why don’t you worship Eliyahu according to your rules of interpretation of 9.5. But, human names with a name of God (or an attribute of God) in it, do not describe the person, but instead honors the god or God that the parent worships. If that were not true, then start counting the many dozens or hundreds of times that “God” was reincarnated,”manifested in the flesh”, and walked on earth as a good or an evil King or an ordinary or a sinful person. Kings like David were officially and publically given a title of “begotten Son of God”. So there were many “Gods” and begotten Sons of God, but Jesus never became one of them, because he was never anointed, he was never crowned a King (except in some peoples mind”.

  5. Peter says:


    The names of Is 9:6 belong to the Child who is anticipated in Is 7:14. They are not hyperbole, or exaggeration, but names of God attributed to a Child. El means El, which is God, plain and simple. To say anything less is denial. His Name is Immanuel, which is God With Us, who is the Mighty God in human flesh.

    I don’t require a scholar to prove the obvious. You can trot out the name of a scholar to try to prove anything under the sun. It doesn’t change what the text says. An attentive reader should be able to form his or her own conclusions.

    • Yehuda says:

      The only thing abundantly clear at this point Peter, is that you insist on reading Isaiah 9:6 as if it is the only verse in Isaiah

      Actually that’s not true, your bible also has Isaiah 7:14 and I’m sure it has I saiah 53 as well.

      You have been asked repeatedly to deal with the issues of context and all you consistently ignore it. All you do do is come back and repeat your insistence that the only way to read the verse is the way YOU think is obvious. If you consider that responsive, hey, it’s free country. I will trust the objective reader of this exchange to make an informed decision.

      You keep repeating how El means God. You continue to refuse to acknowledge that Rabbi B agreed with you on this point but that context dictates thyat naming here means something else.

      Speaking of informed decisions, your response to the issue of scholarship here is that since you can find a scholar who says anything therefore they can ALL be ignored. What you refuse to answer is why so many CHRISTIAN scholars don’t see what you consider obvious. I will again trust the objective honest reader to see where your logic fails.

      But you know what, you seem to be hung up on reading this verse literally. Ok, the verse says the child WAS born PAST TENSE plain and simple. How do you get from there to Jesus?

      • Peter says:


        I am happy to focus in on one verse in this debate because it is so highly relevant to the discussion of the Incarnation: that God put on flesh and made His dwelling among us. If you have seen my other posts, you should realize that I am well aware of the context of the Assyrian invasion of northern Israel in Isaiah and how I’ve also stated that this is an antitype for an eschatological invasion of Israel that most of the other Hebrew prophets spoke of, such as Ezekiel, Zechariah, Joel, and Daniel.

        I am glad that you acknowledge El Gibbor is Mighty God but neither you, nor Yisroel has given me enough reason to conclude it means anything less than God in this context.

        I didn’t say all scholarship should be ignored. Some of it is brilliant and quite helpful. I have a masters degree in theology and I realized quite quickly in my studies that there is a lot of chaff amongst the wheat in the world of Biblical scholarship.

        You mention that Is 9:6 is phrased in the past tense. What translation are you using? I just checked around 10 of the most popular English translations on my iPhone app and every single one of them is phrased in the present tense…unto us a Child IS born.

        Can you see how see how Is. 9:6-7 can be easily connected to Daniel 7:13-14, Psalm 72:17-19, and Genesis 49:10? Jesus the Messiah is all through the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms. Hallelujah!

    • Blasater says:

      Peter- Were there two virgin births then in history? And if “God” became incarnate. Having God nature only before, then taking on human nature, becoming a hypostatic union, how is that not a change? God WAS God nature only, now he is bi-natured? How is that not according your NT “God in whom there is no variation or shifting shadow”?

      The Judaica Press version, Chabad online: 5. For a child has been born to us, a son given to us…..

      • Yehuda says:


        1) So as regards the contextual evidence, you acknowledge it, but have no real response to it other than to continue to ignore it and insist that this verse is a foreshadowing, for which your only evidence would appear to be your belief that it is so. That is circular. I am happy to leave this point at that, with my confidence in the abilities of the judicious reader.

        2) The evidence that El Gibor is being used in a naming context outside of the literal is the very contextual evidence that Rabbi B. provided – the contextual evidence you continue to ignore without explanation.

        3) Your comment about scholarship continues to be nothing more than an evasion of the the question. I’ll ask it again. Why do so many CHRISTIAN scholars not see in this verse what you believe is so obvious? Surely there is more to this collection of scholarship than just “chaff”.

        4) As for the past tense of the word יֻלַּד
        of course you are going to see a collection of christian translations that all say “is born”. Most probably derive for the KJV.

        a) What needs to be done is consider the usage of that word elsewhere and see how those same christian translations translate it in those instances. Here are some others you should check. I’d be curious to know what you find. Genesis 4:26 , 2Samuel 21:20, Jeremiah 20:15, Psalms 87:4, Psalms 87:5, Psalms 87:6, Ruth 4:17

        b) As it happens, Young’s Literal Translation uses “hath been born”, My knowledge of YLT is that it endeavors to use as literal a meaning of the words as possible without rendering the text unreadable. Thus in the case of “Yulad”, Young clearly thinks its literal meaning is past tense.

        c) Thus, unless you claim that “yulad” means future tense, which no one claims, than your argument is no longer based on simple literal meaning as you insist it is. You would be required to appeal to the the prophetic perfect tense in order to tie this verse to Jesus born 800 years later. That would be an opinion requiring contextual evidence which you do not have, not a literal reading.

        5) Hallelujah indeed. Remember who the “Jah” is in that word. Remember how that word was understood by everyone who heard it when David wrote so many times.

    • Tsvi Jacobson says:

      Thomas: You and many others seem to miss one obvious point. You are argueing with the New Testament itself. Please notice. The New Testament doesn’t even use Isaiah 9:6 as evidence that you seemed happy to use. Why? because even the writers knew that it didn’t have anything to do with their argument. The NT had no problem misusing Isaiah 7:14 and others…..but Isaiah 9:6 is nowhere to be found. think thomas it doesn’t hurt. Tsvi

  6. Peter
    You are missing Thomas’ point entirely.
    No scholar on earth – not a Hindu, not a Moslem, not Christain and not a Jew ever explained exodus 20:3, Deuteronomy 4:15 or 4:35 as irelevant to the Bible’s prohibition against worshiping idols. On the other hand – many scholars – from many persausions – did say that Isaiah 9:6 is teaching NOTHING about an incarnation. Inother words – you CANNOT “trot out the name of a scholar for anything under the sun” – goback to my fifth post and see the contrast between Isaiah 9:6 and Exodus 20:3, Deuteronomy 4:35

    • Peter says:


      You do well to point out that we should have no other gods before Yahweh. But you forget to consider the uni-plurality of your own God.

      The Bible starts with: “In the beginning, God [Elohim~plural] created [singular] the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) And then later God says, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.” (Genesis 1:26) Who is “Us”? And how are we made in Their likeness? Right from the start, we are given hints in the Bible that there is more to God than meets the eye. In fact, no one has seen Him fully yet. But we are given glimpses. I’ve mentioned the visions of the Hebrew prophets. Have you considered Isaiah’s throne room experience? He “saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up”. (Isaiah 6:1) The newly redeemed Hebrew slaves “saw no form” of God on the day that He spoke to them out of the midst of the fire at Horeb, but one day we will all see Him face to face.

      My hope is whether Jew or Gentile, we will all come to know Jesus of Nazareth as our risen Lord and Savior, of whom the Law and the prophets testify. Because as Zechariah says, one day the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem will look on Him whom they have pierced, and mourn for Him as one mourns for an only Child.” (Zechariah 12:10)

      The fact is, the kind of rigid monotheism you represent is not supported by the entire counsel of the Tanakh. There are many passages that imply the divinity of a Glorious Man who will rule and reign from the throne of David over a new heavens and a new earth.

      • Peter
        Your hope is that everyone will come to know Jesus. My hope is the same as Zechariah’s hope – that everyone come to know the God of Israel. If Zechariah’s God is too “rigid” for you, or too “fuzzy” for Dalton – we are married to Him and Isaiah promised that it is those loyal to Him who will be vindicated (Isaiah 25:9).
        I address every single one of your arguments in The Couuncil of My Nation – please read it

  7. Richard says:

    Shalom, I have publically stood against a lot of Dalton’s teachings, especially his views on Israel and the Jews – yet the one thing I do agree with him on, is Christ is the Messiah of Scripture.

    I want to respond to some issues raised above….

    Yisroel stated: “If you want to argue that these translations are bizarre and absurd, you will have to acknowledge that they are far less absurd and bizarre than the belief that a man can somehow be God.”

    Man is not God, and neither can “somehow” become God, but if you state that the infinitely powerful Creator of all existence cannot become a man – you have denied Him His authority and majesty over creation. The God of Scripture is not subject to the vain limitations of man’s imagination, nor the scope of man’s reason. The God of Scripture is a God who does what He wills, when He wills and for His glory – and if that glory includes Him taking on the form of humanity, who are you as a mere creature to declare to your Creator that it is inconceivable, or even absurd?

    Yisroel stated: “And what Jesus did to the Jews was nothing compared to what he did to the Gentiles. The Jews were physically oppressed in his name – but the Gentiles had darkness poured into their souls. The Jews suffered the holocaust – the followers of Jesus perpetrated it.”

    The followers of Jesus Christ did not perpetrate the “holocaust”, the followers of the Luciferian Adolf Hitler perpetrated the “holocaust.” In fact, many true followers of Jesus Christ suffered under the Nazi regime for helping and hiding those of the Jewish religion. Who funded the despot of Germany? Any true intellectual would refrain from perverting history to justify their position.

    Yisroel stated: (It always struck me as odd, that the election of Israel according to the Bible means greater responsibility and greater punishment (Amos 3:2), while the Christian “election” is a free ticket to “eternal life”.)
    The election of Israel, which includes “all” who have faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and it does mean greater responsibility and greater punishment:
    For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? (1 Peter 4:17)

    For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. (Hebrews 12:6)
    My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. (James 3:1)

    Yisroel stated: When Jesus said: “No-one comes to the Father, but through me”, it seems like he was saying something about himself, but he was not. Jesus was making a statement about you and about me and about every man and woman that inhabit God’s earth.

    Actually, Jesus Christ is referring to Himself:
    “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6)
    And again Jesus Christ states: “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” (John 3:18)

    I understand why you, a self-professed Pharisee, is anti-Christ – for you reject the only Savior and stand condemned (according to the Lord Jesus Christ, that is)….

    • Richard
      Is it a denial of God’s sovereignty by saying that He cannot become stupid? get alzheimers, become “not God”?
      The holocaust was perpetrated in a continent that was saturated with hatred for the Jew/Pharisee – courtesy of the Christian Churches – if you say they were following Lucifer – they say they were following Jesus
      The election of Israel does not include “all” who believe in the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob and it certainly doesn’t include those who see Him as too small/fuzzy without the services of the man from Nazareth
      Of-course Jesus was talking about himself – but he was intimating something false about you.
      Finally – I am not “anti-Jesus” – I am pro-God – if Jesus feels left out that is his problem

      • Richard says:

        …the Bolshevik Jews slaughtered up to 66 million white Russian Christians…but, I guess that doesn’t matter, because they were “goyim” – or the Lithuanian genocide, Armenian genocide? Clearly that is of no consequence to you, all you are interested in is trying to blame the actions of the German despot Hitler, on Christians. You see, I’m not ignorant of history and neither am I ignorant of your “anti-Christ” religion, and for being “pro-God” that is laughable, you are not “pro-God”, you deny the Son, therefore you deny the Father:

        Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22)

        You are the very reason for people like Dalton, who have been deceived by the yeast of the Pharisee; they believe the lie that the “Jewish” people are God’s chosen people. I see straight through it, as the Lord Jesus Christ said:

        Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (John 8:44)

        May God grant you repentance, lest you find yourself where we all belong…

  8. Yehuda says:

    Ooh. I feel the love again.

    • Richard says:

      Love rejoices in truth, not deception.

    • Larry says:

      Yehuda: Dont go feeling all singled out now. If you put Richard onto a web site with catholics it would sound the same. Many christians have that rare “holier than thou” disease.

      • Richard says:

        You’re right in a sense Larry, I preach exactly the same message to Jews, Catholics and Muslims – it is not a “holier than thou disease” but rather we all have the “unholy disease of sin.” And this is why the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ for our sins is the very message of the Gospel.

  9. Yehuda says:

    Quote: “I preach exactly the same message to Jews, Catholics and Muslims ”

    Really now, Rich. Do you also tell Catholics that they are the children of their “father the Devii?

    Now of course, I’m being somewhat rhetorical, because I realize that being the lover of truth that you are, you couldn’t do that if you were trying to faithfully quote the book of John. John reserved that particular epithet for the Jews, didn’t he? And it is the book of John that informs your general feelings about Jews isn’t it?

    • Larry says:

      Quote: “I preach exactly the same message to Jews, Catholics and Muslims ”
      Jesus also said.
      John 8:40- “As it is, you want to kill me, a man who has told you the truth as I have learnt it from God; that is not what Abraham did”.–This would appear to be prophesy, christ was stating an event that was to happen in the near future.
      As as ex christian I can understand why Jesus could pass judgment on those who he was talking with. “Ye are of your father the devil”. Richard, when you do the same thing are you pretending to be like Jesus, God? How is it you so easily put your self in his shoes? This is why you argue and are get judgemental with christians, muslims and Jews. Somehow you claim the knowledge of christ and insert his words into your conversations. Like John 8:40, people here simply want to share the truth as they have learned it. Nobody wants to kill you.

      • Larry says:

        My apologies Richard, I apparently missed diagnosed you with ” holier than thou disease”. It’s worse than I thought. Yep, you have the “God Complex”. Now, go see a Rabbi and check back with me in the morning.

    • Richard says:

      …well, historical protestantism declares the “Pope” the very anti-Christ and “man of sin” – so if Catholics call him their “holy father” – I guess, that does in a sense, make them “children of their father the devil.”

      • Yehuda says:

        I stand corrected. There is in fact more Devil-spawn in Richard’s world than I thought. Thank you for the clarification.

        So just to be clear. Am I and my children, children of the Devil?

  10. naaria says:

    Immanuel -God is with us, including anyone named Immanuel. Did the parents think the baby they feed, bathed, and spanked was God? Hiw many songs were sung & psalms & biographies were written by those who seen God daily as an ordinary person? How many books were written? Did the enemy of the Jews surrender without a fight when they seen God walk around as an ordinary man? If someone is named Immanuel and that person sinned, was the God with us also an unsaved sinner who will go to “hell”? When Immanuel said his own name, who was he referring to; which God was with “God is with us”? Who were the people who were “us” with God? Were they also Gods?

  11. naaria says:

    “Devil” is a concept that came from Babylon (the harlot) not one that came from Jerusalem. If there are children “of the devil” father, is there 2 Creators, 2 Father Gods, and is that what is meant by pluralities (aka polytheism as in the Babylon “church”)? Where does the devil father fit in the trinity? Since a holy spirit is separate from a father or son (they are not holy spirits? Or holiness is not part of our spiritual father & son?)? What if the father chose not to have a son? Other than the nations of humans, Israel & Judah. There would be no father, but God would exist as One? Or would God be incomplete? God can do anything including not have a son like the heathen gods. The pagans had better ideas about a god than God? It is highly possible for God not to lie and not to contradict His previous words and commandments. If God chooses to be a liar, should we not have the guts or the love of God to say “hey wait a minute”, “something is wrong here or splain it to me, a simple minded man, God”.? Abraham & Moses were blessed by God because they asked “what will the nations say about you God?”. If God chooses to be a small, un-biblical god, a godman, should we reject that pagan styled, humanistic god or should we choose to follow the ORIGINAL God of Israel, a Glorious God not a perverted one?

    Is it better to follow clear commandments or to “build our house” with weak foundations of vague, shadowy, hints, & mysteries? God & the prophets of the Israel came before Jesus, they had an audience and they had a lot more to say then a few verses taken out of a chapter. Some say there is only one way to God, but since their “truths” rests upon “hints”, there is great division and thousands of “one ways” & different “true churches”. Division & confusion is of the “devil” not of God, right? Or does the “devil” want unity & it is God that wants division and everyone to be a “self-proclaimed prophet”, so that they can build or return to the “true church”, the “true one way”? Why do some speak as “shyster lawyers” searching through scripture looking for hints, analogies, loop-holes, difficult words, mis-spellings, poor translations, words that can be taken out of context of a sentence, or a sentence that can be taken out if context from the paragraph? Like trying to put man’s words & ideas into God’s “mouth”? Take some things as analogies but others as literal to promote our beliefs. That makes God small; a mouthpiece for the theologian? Maybe Jesus was a punishment sent to the Romans? God created an enemy for backsliding Israel, but God will then destroy that enemy & take Israel back? I guess Jesus had no problem with Constantine until today when it just happens there is a new Israel? The Prophets of Israel came first; if they were wrong Jesus is wrong. If they were right, Jesus was wrong.

  12. F Miller. says:

    You see, things like this, make me feel like throwing my Bible in the fire, and walking away with utter disgust. You all claim to be Christians, teacher of the faith, and are here, like dogs at each other’s throats. And yet you have the balls and the arrogance to go out and attempt to talk to unbelievers to do .. what ? convert to a faith of rabid dogs that cannot agree on a single sentence in a book of a thousands pages ? Non believers are fully aware that wars gave been waged for much less. And they want NOTHING to do with a faith whose sons and daughters cannot even talk to each other. What or who do we serve ? God ? Really .. ? Really ? Or our own pride and arrogance ? Makes me vomit. 2000 years and we are still hammering those nails in that cross.
    For nothing. I am leaving.

  13. Richard says:

    More limp-wristed Christianity, the Judas kiss, not willing to draw a line but embrace compromise for the sake of emotion.

  14. Linda says:

    this is the most profound statement I have ever heard/read,,,thank you so much for this article/blog…..again I believe this statement >> “An eclipse is when a body of darkness obstructs the light. It sometimes allows some light to shine through – but after everything is said and done – an eclipse is an obstruction of light._– – That, my friend, is Jesus for you.”

    Is it like the moon is light but that light is the light of the sun shining/reflecting off it? To say the moon is shining of it’s own will, is not truth.Though, it appears very bright during nighttime it does not have its own light. The sunlight falling on the Moon illuminates it, making it to look bright . The Moon doesn’t produce its own light, but looks bright because it reflects light from the Sun. In summary
    .. The Moon is not a light source, it does not make its own light. The moon reflects ..

    Lunar eclipse occurs when the moon aligns in between the earth and the sun. It blocks out the light because, since the moon is closer, it appears larger.

    If the Moon happens to cross the ecliptic at the exact spot the Sun is, the Moon will block out the Sun’s light, …The moon blocks the light of the sun and a shadow of the moon is cast over the earth’s surface… The moon also changes it shape..emm does that make the story of Jesus into a shape shifter????????? As well as the blocker of the true light source, he can be whatever man needs him to be, as in mythology, folklore, and fairy tales????

    I will comment more but for now I want to go back and read the blog again.
    Thank you for your time

  15. Pingback: Response to Line of Fire 13 – Dispelling A Myth | 1000 Verses

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.