Isaiah 9:6 comment

[rosends]

May I ask you whether Anti-Christianity is (an essential) part of Judaism?

Judaism wants to be left alone, but when others misuse or misrepresent it, Judaism crafts responses. Left to itself, Judaism would never have anything to do or say about Christianity. Though Judaism takes a proactive stance against idolatry, it is a broad position and it isn't clear whether Christianity is counted as classical idolatry.

I try to understand the energy that fuels today's extensive action against Christianity and to clear my confusion. If I understand it correctly, it is an understandable reaction to the centuries-old injustices of so-called Christians (I doubt they were). Each persecution had its reaction and result in Jewish literature and tradition, and that adds up and adds up and adds up to this day.

My conclusion (which may be wrong) is that the Jewish response to Christian efforts today (mostly non-violent) does not correspond to the current situation, but is a response to many experiences you have had in your history. Now a point that may be controversial: Could it be that the former victims have now become perpetrators, energywise? For example, as I have experienced in my life, early trauma does not necessarily lead to an understanding and kind attitude towards certain people and one can be much more aggressive than they deserve.

The Jewish response to Christianity today isn't unified because neither Judaism nor Christianity is monolithic -- some Jews welcome certain elements of Christian connection (especially parts of Christian Zionism) while others are more than wary because some sects of Christianity still practice evangelism.

[TheWordIsOne-777]

Here is the correct translation.

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: And the government shall be upon his shoulders: And he shall be called Wonderful Counselor of the Mighty God and Everlasting Father; (שַׂר / minister-ing) in peace.


שַׂר ministeriah 49

https://context.reverso.net/translation/

https://www.bing.com/Translator

Greetings
Isaiah 49: 22 

[robrecht]

... Here is the correct translation

"The prophet said to the house of David, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and he has taken the law upon himself to keep it. His name is called from before Him who is wonderful in counsel, the mighty God who liveth to eternity — the Messiah whose peace shall be great upon us in his days."

I imagine you're interpreting the meaning here as "Messiah" because of the following verse, where it speaks of 'David’s throne and kingdom being firmly established in justice and in equity now and evermore'. Is that right? But the word "Messiah" does not actually appear in Isa 9,5, right? So, while this may be your correct interpretation, it's not really a translation, right?

[rosends]

... Here is the correct translation

"The prophet said to the house of David, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and he has taken the law upon himself to keep it. His name is called from before Him who is wonderful in counsel, the mighty God who liveth to eternity — the Messiah whose peace shall be great upon us in his days."

I imagine you're interpreting the meaning here as "Messiah" because of the following verse, where it speaks of 'David’s throne and kingdom being firmly established in justice and in equity now and evermore'. Is that right? But the word "Messiah" does not actually appear in Isa 9,5, right? So, while this may be your correct interpretation, it's not really a translation, right?

It is as much a correct translation as any other that was claimed on this thread. It happens to be an exact translation of an explanation of the verse, which is what others have presented.

[robrecht]

It is as much a correct translation as any other that was claimed on this thread. It happens to be an exact translation of an explanation of the verse, which is what others have presented.

I wasn't arguing for any other translation in this thread, just making sure I understood why you used the word "Messiah" in your translation. I think we agree it's an explanation/interpretation rather than a literal translation of the text.

[rosends]

It is as much a correct translation as any other that was claimed on this thread. It happens to be an exact translation of an explanation of the verse, which is what others have presented.

I wasn't arguing for any other translation in this thread, just making sure I understood why you used the word "Messiah" in your translation. I think we agree it's an explanation/interpretation rather than a literal translation of the text.

It is a literal translation of one interpretation of the text which is exactly the same as what was earlier presented as "correct."

[JudaicChristian]

Here is the correct translation.

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: And the government shall be upon his shoulders: And he shall be called Wonderful Counselor of the Mighty God and Everlasting Father; (שַׂר / minister-ing) in peace.


שַׂר minister

https://context.reverso.net/translation/

https://www.bing.com/Translator

The fact that you call it 9:6 and not 9:5 speaks volumes

Here is the correct translation

"The prophet said to the house of David, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and he has taken the law upon himself to keep it. His name is called from before Him who is wonderful in counsel, the mighty God who liveth to eternity — the Messiah whose peace shall be great upon us in his days."

The question is "translation of what?"

Your scripture is part of a oral tradition, and it does not even agree with the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah 9:6.

Your understanding is part of a Christian tradition and does not agree with the Hebrew. Why do you assume the DSS is somehow authoritative. Are you not familiar with the geniza theory?

The DSS are hundreds of years older

[Yahya Sharif]

Hebrew (Transcribed from DSS 1QIsaᵃ):
כי ילד יולד לנו
בן נתן לנו
ותהי המשרה על שכמו
ויקרא שמו
פלא יועץ אל גבור
אבי עד שר שלום
 English Translation (Literal):
For a child is born to us,
a son is given to us,
and the government is upon his shoulder;
and his name shall be called:
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.



His name will be called—not that he himself will be all those things. We know from Psalm 2 that G-d will call HaMashiach His son, saying, "You are My son; today I have begotten you." The title "Everlasting Father" refers to G-d, who is the eternal Father of HaMashiach, according to standard Jewish interpretations.

The phrase "His name shall be called…” can also be understood as “G-d’s name shall be called…” when you mention someone will be called you use the pronoun" his" instead of his name so: his...  instead of G-d's.... "Prince of Peace" is one of the names attributed to HaMashiach, symbolizing his role. The government being upon his shoulder reflects that he is a ruler—a prince, which by definition is the son of a king. This reinforces the idea that HaMashiach is a son, not a deity. Notice these names everlasting father, mighty G-d,... are not separated by" and" which means the last name " prince of peace" is for HaMashiach who is the son who "was given to us"

According to Christian doctrine, the verse refers to the birth of the Son of G-d, who is then also called "Everlasting Father" and "Mighty God." This creates a theological paradox: he is both the Son and the Father at the same time, and also both the Mighty God and the Son of the Mighty God. Jesus has misled only his followers through such confusing claims.

[Yahya Sharif]

It can be rewritten:
His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, His name shall be calle Mighty God,
His name shall be called Everlasting Father, his name shall be called Prince of Peace.
His: G-d's
his: HaMashiach's
Multiple prounouns were omitted.