Jesus Increased in Wisdom

For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be on His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6  

The Trinity?

Jesus increased in wisdom    A simple look at these words tells us that Jesus is not God and therefore not part of the supposed Trinity.  How could the omniscient (all-knowing) God increase in wisdom?

Jesus increased in stature and in favour with God and man. Luke 2:52.   A troubling question does pop up: if Jesus is God how could He increase in favour with God?  Jesus was not born a “superman.” He developed as He grew. Guzik. 

Theologians tell us that that statement is made about Christ's human nature and not His divine nature.  This teaching is referred to as "the two natures of Christ". 

There is absolutely nothing in Luke 2:52 that even hints at that possibility. Rather than believing that Christ had a split personality, with its associated traits, why don't we go with what the Bible says about Him - He never was and never will be "God of very God". 


Theologians bend the scriptures to prove a point which the Bible nowhere makes!

                                                  

 A short note on Isaiah 9:6.

For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be on His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isa 9:6

These words were spoken by Isaiah about 700 years before Christ was born.  As we studied in the blog called "Spaceship Theology", Isaiah was speaking of his son which was soon to be born. We also learned that many statements that were made pertained to the time in which they were spoken but they also had a prophetic content.

Matthew applied those words to the birth of Christ. However, a little bit of digging will show that he did not say that Christ would be The mighty God, The everlasting Father. 

Isaiah 9:6 refers to Christ, and if Christ is equal to the Father, as Trinitarians tell us He is, then, our mighty God was born in Bethlehem. If our God was born in Bethlehem than He is on par with the Greek, Zeus; and the Hindu, Vishnu who is the second member of the Hindu Trinity. The God who maintains the order and harmony of the universe. Wikipedia.

These functions are also attributed to Christ by those who hold the doctrine of the Trinity.  Do we really compare our God with Zeus or Vishnu?

Is this the likeness of the God we worship?

You would need to look long and hard before you would find any theologian in the Christian church who would admit that our mighty God was born in Bethlehem.  Yet that is exactly what our preachers tell us when they insist that the special child, born in Bethlehem, "is the second person of the Godhead"; "God of very God".

So, was the church's mighty God born, or not?

The Mighty God

Matthew took the words of Isaiah 9:6

and applied them to Christ.  So we, of course, have been taught, that Christ is a mighty God.  In contrast, note that The leading Hebrew lexicon records that the word “god” used by Isaiah is applied elsewhere in Scripture to “men of might and rank,” as well as to angels. Who is Jesus.  Anthony F. Buzzard, See also Psalm 82:6; Isaiah 41:23; John 10:34. 

In the Hebrew language the word for Jehovah is "Adonai" but the word for god, where it means, a man of might and rank, is "adoni".  

With that in mind, we can see that just because Matthew quoted that verse, from Isaiah, it does not mean that he thought of Jesus as a mighty God.  In as far as the prophecy applied to Jesus, it meant only that He would be a man of might and rank.  It should be remembered that Matthew wrote his gospel years after Christ was crucified, so Matthew already knew that Christ had been a man of might and rank.

The Septuagint, the Hebrew Old Testament translated into everyday Greek, was begun in the 3rd century BCE and was completed by 132 BCE. Wikipedia. The Brenton version (translated from the Septuagint in 1851) does not even include the phrase, a mighty God.  This is what it says in Hebrew: 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. Isa 9:6. 

Many of the newer translations capitalize both words, Mighty and God.  The purpose, seemingly, is to try to add weight to the feather-light doctrine of the Trinity. 

The Eternal Father 

As for “eternal father,” this title was understood by the Jews as “father of the coming age.” Who is Jesus.  Anthony F. Buzzard, 

In Hebrew the words are Father-of-future. scripture4all.org./  To change those words into Everlasting Father completely, and erroneously, translates the Bible passage; again, probably, for the purpose of pushing the doctrine of the Trinity.  

If we read this, as it is in the Hebrew Bible, the phrase takes all the strength out of the argument that Isaiah was writing about a God that would be born in Bethlehem; a God that would abide eternally.  According to Matthew, Isaiah was speaking of Christ, but the most that Isaiah said, and the most Matthew understood Isaiah to mean, was that Christ would be a man of might and rank and that he would rule in the future.

In writing about the Trinity Anthony Buzzard quotes Soren Kierkegaard, "Christendom has done away with Christianity without being quite aware of it". (cited in Time magazine, Dec. 16, 1946, p. 64).

It is incredulous that many of those evangelical theologians who admit that the Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity, believe it anyway.  

For more on this topic see 
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1427739990392964732#editor/target=post;postID=3776231736584874428;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=41;src=link

The reformers made great strides when they left the Roman Catholic church, but for them to reject all the unbiblical Roman Catholic tenets of faith, at once, may have been more than we should expect.

But, come on, that was five hundred years ago.  Why do our theologians still cling to the traditions which were designed, without following the teachings of the Bible?

Perhaps we can, grudgingly, forgive the Roman Catholic teachers for their false teachings because they accept tradition as an acceptable guideline.  However, there is no forgiving those who say that all our doctrines must be based on what the Bible teaches (sola scriptura - Latin for scriptures only) and then blatantly still follow that false, unbiblical teaching that was developed in the so-called Christian church, in the third and fourth centuries.

Wise Men and Shepherds

And she shall bear a son, and you shall call His name JESUS: for He shall save His people from their sins.  Now all this happened so that might be fulfilled that which was spoken of the LORD by the prophet, saying, "Behold, the virgin shall conceive in her womb, and will bear a son. And they will call His name Emmanuel," which being interpreted is, God with us. Mat. 1:21-23  

The Birth of Christ

By Matthew:

Matthew's gospel is the only one that mentions the coming of the wise men and their return home by a different route.  It seems curious that if King Herod was so worried about a new king who was born in Bethlehem, that he would not have sent a group of soldiers with the wise men "just to make sure" that he got an honest report.

That Christ's birth was a special birth is indicated by the fact that there was a star that the wise men followed.  The fact that the wise men brought gifts to Jesus is not very surprising; it was the custom of the East to bring gifts to a king.

*

   

Some will have these (three) gifts to be emblematic of the Divinity, regal office, and manhood of Christ. Clarke.  However, these gifts do not in any way suggest that Christ is divine.  They only indicate that the wise men thought Christ was the future king of Israel.

Following the story of the wise men is the story of Joseph and his family hastening into Egypt for safety.  I think it would be safe to assume that other parents when they saw that King Herod was killing all baby boys, would have made, or tried to make, the same trek.  

Many did not succeed; A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not (they are no longer alive). Mat 2:18.  Rachel was Jacob's wife, and in this case, the name "Rachel" is symbolic of the offspring of Jacob (the posterity of Abraham).  

Ramah, also spelt Rama, was a town about five miles south of Jerusalem.  When there was a loud noise in Jerusalem, the Jews might use this proverb, It was so loud it could be heard in Ramah. Fausset's Bible dictionary.

After Herod died, Joseph returned to Israel, but Archelaus, Herod's son, was ruler over Southern Israel at that time.  Joseph did not feel safe there so he moved north to Nazareth so that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He (Jesus) shall be called a Nazarene. Mat. 2:23.  

By Luke

Whereas Matthew is the only gospel writer who mentions the wise men, Luke is the only one who mentions the shepherds in the Christmas story.  

She wrapped him in swaddling clothes. Luke 2:7 KJV.  Modern translations don't use the word swaddling anymore.  That is a good thing because nobody knows what it means anyway.  I mention it here only to explain that it means, Swaddling clothes are snugly wrapped strips of cloth. Clarke.

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.  MKJV

Glory to God in the highest: and on earth peace to men of good will.  Luke2:14. Douay-Rheims version.  

I mention these two translations because it seems that the second one is, by far, the better translation because it is the people of "good will" who are much more likely to have peace within. 

when the days of her purification according to the Law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought Him to Jerusalem, to present Him to the Lord. Luke 2:22.  According to the law of Moses the time of purification, after a male child was born, is 40 days.  During those days the mother was not allowed to enter the tabernacle because she was considered to be unclean. 

When she was finally allowed to go, she needed

to bring a lamb for a burnt offering, and a turtledove or a young pigeon for a sin offering.  If she could not afford a lamb, the mother had to bring another turtle dove or young pigeon; and, if even this was beyond her means, then a portion of fine flour. Guzik.

Luke tells this story: Christ's parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. Luke 2:41. As it happened, when Christ was 12 years old He went with them, and when the parents were finished feasting they set out for home. 

After they had travelled one day they realized that their son was not among the bunch of youngsters that were going home with the multitude of parents.  So His parents had to return to Jerusalem to find their boy, and, on the third day they found Him; there he was, in the temple, conversing with the elders and the religious leaders of His time.

And it happened that after three days they found Him in the temple.  And seeing Him, they were amazed. And His mother said to Him, Child, why have you done so to us? Behold, your father and I have looked for you, greatly distressed.  And He said to them, Why did you look for Me? Do you not know that I must be about My Father's business? Luke 2:46+49

It is interesting that instead of, about My Father's business, the Syriac and Persic versions render it, in my Father's house. Guzik.  Or, in other words, Why did you spend three days looking for me all over Jerusalem?  Didn't you know that I would be in my Father's house?

Still, they did not know what he was talking about; they did not understand the word which He spoke to them. Luke 2:50.  Perhaps they assumed like most parents do, their son would follow in his "father's" footsteps and become a carpenter.  

He went (home) with them and came to Nazareth, and He was subject to them, (He obeyed His parents). Luke 2:51.

Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. Luke 2:52.  We will look at this verse in detail in the next post.

* all pictures from Pixaby.com

A Unique Birth

Parthenogenesis

While questioning old theological doctrines and bringing forth new theories, there are, of course, many unthought-of questions and many seeming contradictions. Most of these problems can be solved though if a person is willing to lay aside many age-old suppositions and narrow-minded prejudices. It becomes necessary to remove from one's thinking many of the basic and unscriptural teachings of the church.

As a Christian, one wants to be careful not to disparage anything concerning Christ’s personality or holiness. Yet, if one insists that the Lord of the Jews, Jehovah, is an ET and that Christ is His son, then one must also believe that Jesus Christ is the son of an ET. The following statements may sound sacrilegious, but they are not meant to be.

In speaking of Christ, I should probably repeat here that I do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity. It is obviously a doctrine created by the Roman Catholic Church about three hundred years after the death of Christ. 

I know of three different theories concerning the immaculate conception of Christ.  Here, of course, I exclude those theories that say the story is based on lies, or that Mary was not aware of, or did not admit, her past activities.

1. The word used for this theory is parthenogenesis, it is simply the Greek way of saying virgin birth. 

This theory simply states that a female body has all the chemicals needed to produce a child by itself.  In a blog called "Slate", Melinda Wenner Mayer wrote, "So, while it is possible for a human baby to be born of a virgin mother, it's very, very unlikely..." She placed the likelihood of that happening at much less than one in a billion.

Den Poitras in a post called, PARTHENOGENESIS: women’s long-lost ability to self-conceive, on the blog, World Mysteries, wrote, It is said that Buddha's mother conceived her son when in a state of blissful meditation under a banyan tree. Mary conceived Jesus in more or less the same way. It's also been said that Leonardo Divinci, possibly Joan of Ark, ... and scores more geniuses, visionaries and healers throughout history are claimed to have come about this way.

If many of the lower species can, and do, conceive Parthenogenetically, I don't think it's too shocking to assume that humans also can.

In that same post, Mr Poitras quotes Dr Raymond Bernard, Some...dermoid cysts, sometimes mistaken by surgeons for tumors, ...really are embryos, ...similar in all respects to the products of gestation, containing bones, hair, teeth, flesh, glands, portions of the scalp, face, eyes, ribs,—–in short, all the organs of the human body—what else could they be but virgin embryos in the process of development?”

Theologians have, ever since the days of Saint Paul, argued that sin entered the human race through Adam, not through Eve. He wrote, Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world. Rom. 5:12.  Eve was deceived, and so, not at fault, but Adam knew what he was doing, therefore he is to blame.  Isn't it reasonable then, to argue that if a child is born to a virgin, that child would not be burdened with all the negative aspects imparted by a sinful human father?

If this theory holds any interest for you, I strongly recommend that you read Mr Poitras's post.

http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/parthenogenesis-womens-long-lost-ability-to-self-conceive/

2. The teaching that the church has held for about twenty centuries. The holy spirit came upon the virgin, Mary, and she became pregnant.  Mary asked the visiting angel, How can this happen? I am not married!  The angel answered, The Holy Spirit will come down to you, and God’s power will come over you. So your child will be called the holy Son of God. Luke 1:33-35.

That teaching leads us directly into the third theory with which I will continue in my next post.