that is the traditional interpretation

unless you are specifically looking for a proof of the Nazarene you will not find it in Isaiah

Brother, my respect for God's chosen ends here

Well, there have been a good few who have postulated that it did not refer to Jacob and Israel.

And they were not just on the Christian side of the fence.

such as?

@NullJager are you Catholic?

no, otherwise he would not posit that the Trinity is aspects of G-d @Alex D_rizzle

That is not Catholic teaching

No at the moment I'm non-denom.

it is not professed in the athanasian creed

Christened CoE.

The Roman Catholic church does teach the Trinity

correct, but not in the sense that NullJager professes

the idea of the persons of the trinity being aspects was condemned

@Deleted User in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit

And I'm just using the words that came to mind at the time.

They are taught as three consubstantial persons.

Yes that is the term exactly

Reinforced and taught by the Roman Catholic Church

that is what is professed in the athanasian creed correct

And are you in disagreenance with this?

i'm not a christian so like

Fair

The Catholic church also held as dogma until the 1970s that your people were personally responsible for the crucifixion of Christ

what are you talking about it still does

it's true

It was removed

In 1971 I believe

no, just because new documents came out doesn't mean old ones are invalidated

the main thing was Nostra Aetate 4

that doesn't rule out anything

It does excuse the Jewish people

At least partially

it just states that Catholics, despite the rocky history, are to respect Jews and that there is a spiritual link between the new and old covenant

not necessarily

let me re-read nostra aetate 4 one sec

also vatican ii happened in the early 60s, by the 70s Pope Paul VI was doing liturgical changes

Didn't the rewrite finally happen in the 1971

well what do you mean by rewrite? the novus ordo?

or the translations? or the documents?