Isaiah 43:10 Refutes That Men Can Become Gods?

[a-train]

Yes sir; but god ought not be mistaken for God.

Agreed.

-a-train

[Doctor Steuss]

Just wanted to add a bit more (just finding little tidbits that might be of interest -- I really need to get more organized):

"The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Elohim, the Father. He is God; of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him."

Boyd K. Packer, Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991), 293, emphasis in original.

And, as a side note, D&C 121:32 establishes that the G-d the Father is the “God of all other gods.”

[Dr T]

By that line of thinking however, wouldn't you agree, from an LDS perspective, that He is not the God of those that came before Him? That is my problem with the idea that there are God many.

[Doctor Steuss]

By that line of thinking however, wouldn't you agree, from an LDS perspective, that He is not the God of those that came before Him? That is my problem with the idea that there are God many.

This is where the LDS perspective can get a bit sticky. The KFD (and a few other statements) would lend credence to the belief that G-d has a God. However, at the same time, LDS scripture makes it clear that G-d is the "Most High," and "Almighty."

Blake Ostler has written some interesting things about re-evaluating our concept of deity and "god/God/G-d/Godhead." At times it can seem like “turtles on the back of turtles” (to use a common phrase), but outside of a few statements, there’s nothing to preclude that our G-d the Father is the “first” and that there were none before Him.

When Pres. Hinckley made his comment about “I don’t know that we teach that...,” I was at first surprised. After later spending a considerable amount of time exploring the various avenues, possibilities and implications of the KFD and/or the deification of man, I’ve realized that it is quite complex. There are so many different possibilities and avenues. For each question that is seemingly answered, a plethora of questions take its place.

[edited for grammatical error]

[prisonchaplain]

I am always confused by Trinitarians and their definitions and interpretation of scripture. For example the ancient concept and definition of “ehad” to mean one in counting singularity meant something different than one does in our modern time. In math the word “one” has specific meaning if we are talking about the counting or integer number “one” as opposed to the rational or complex number one.

In ancient times if we intend the word “ehad” to mean the singular one, then this means that such a particular “one” cannot be divided or differentiated into parts. Since the scriptures clearly give differentiation of The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost it is very misleading and creates ]

much confusion to imply singularity in one breath and to embrace differentiation in the next.

The Trinity does not defy singularity anymore than that the Father is Creator, Judge, Father, God, etc. Yes there is mystery and beauty in the oneness of the Tri-une Godhead. But we truly do have one God, eternally existent in three persons. We do not have three gods/Gods, nor do we have one person filling in three roles.

Let me give a simple example of the utter stupidity of the Trinity. Remember at the trial of Jesus when the question of Jesus being the king of the Jews came up and the Jews responded that they have no king but Cesar? Then who is Herod? The Trinity answer seems to be. Well, Cesar and Herod are one King. When the King is in Rome or doing Rome stuff we refer to him as Cesar. When in Jerusalem or doing Jerusalem stuff we call that same King Herod. They are not two kings but one king. Beside the one true king there is no other true king.

There are many kings, and it is clear that when the Jewish leaders say there is only one king they submit to, they are affirming their loyalty to Rome, not favoring the national king and rejecting the provincial king. However, to say there is more than one God (local vs. universal, etc.) is heresy. There is only one true and living God. To affirm the existence of other gods, whether they are to be worshipped or not, is polytheism.

Please – I am not stupid. There are two kings – one acting under the authority of the other, thus the authority of king is the authority of one king but there are two kings. And there are 3 G-ds, two of which act under the authority of the Father. Jesus went tried so hard to make this point, that he did not act on his own authority but the authority of his Father.

And that is why we should differentiate the 3 G-ds that are united by covenant (like marriage) in one purpose

The Traveler

BTW, the use of the "s-word," has been reacted to, and it was unfortunate, imho. Evangelicals in the academy have recognized the new sophisication in LDS theology, and are treating it with due respect. In kind, to label 2000 years of thoughtful and rigorous theological discourse about the nature of God as "stupid," is not indicative of sober reflection.

[AnthonyB]

It is this "one God" that I think is the problem when trying to understand this. (bold is mine) Just what does a person mean when saying that the three are "one God"? Give a description of this "one God". Is it a specific personage, or is it a simular to a three person corporation where the corporation is called "God"?

If each of the persons in God, is their own "god person", then God over all cannot be one specific "person". I think the trad veiw is one being with three persons. However that one being is capable of being in different places and intercommunicating and having emotions etc with each other. There is nothing on this plain of existence which we can use as an example. I think Lewis' words in "Mere Christianity" make sense to me, that it is next step up, some animals are beings without personality, more advanced animals have personality, we are one being with one person, God is one being with multiple persons. The higher being is much more able to comprehend the lower one.

However LDS use "personage" not "person"? Is that to hold to spiritual embodiement? How would you differ personage from person?

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

Yes sir; but god ought not be mistaken for God.

Agreed.

-a-train

Really? - what should it be mistaken for? Is the proper term G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost or is it g-d the Father, g-d the Son and g-d the Holy Ghost or person the Father, person the Son and person the Holy Ghost? What do the scriptures say?

The question that is ill treated is this - Why do the scriptures differenciate G-d if there is only one singular G-d?

What I do understand:

1. There is only one mediator G-d

2. Man is fallen and requires a mediator for salvation.

3. Man is fallen and cannot have contact with anyother G-d without the mediator.

4. Jesus is subbordinate to the Father (less than his Father)

5. We are subbordinate to Jesus (less than Jesus)

6. Jesus is a true mediator - he does not meadiate for us with nothing. - That would be very stupid and foolish.

The Traveler

[AnthonyB]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Yes sir; but god ought not be mistaken for God.

Agreed.

-a-train

Really? - what should it be mistaken for? Is the proper term G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost or is it g-d the Father, g-d the Son and g-d the Holy Ghost or person the Father, person the Son and person the Holy Ghost? What do the scriptures say?

The question that is ill treated is this - Why do the scriptures differenciate G-d if there is only one singular G-d?

What I do understand:

1. There is only one mediator G-d

2. Man is fallen and requires a mediator for salvation.

3. Man is fallen and cannot have contact with anyother G-d without the mediator.

4. Jesus is subbordinate to the Father (less than his Father)

5. We are subbordinate to Jesus (less than Jesus)

6. Jesus is a true mediator - he does not meadiate for us with nothing. - That would be very stupid and foolish.

The Traveler

Traveler,

Was Jesus subordinate eternally or was he subordinate only during his incarnation?

[a-train]

However LDS use "personage" not "person"? Is that to hold to spiritual embodiement? How would you differ personage from person?

Technically there is little difference between 'person' and 'personage'. The origin of the use of the term among Mormons is with Joseph Smith as in his desription of his first vision: 'When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air.'

I think the difference here is to demonstrate that the Beings he saw were human in form, but were not just two persons standing in the light like himself. The light actually came from the bodies of these Two, Their brightness defied all description.

It is interesting that he used this term because it applies in more than one way. On the one hand it is defined in one way as 'a person of distinction or importance'. But, another definition says: 'a person not meriting identification; "a strange personage appeared at the door"'

Certainly the Father and the Son are of distinction and importance, but this was also the young boy's first vision and he at first didn't recognize the images of these Two standing in the light. In one account Joseph mentioned that he feared that even the trees would be consumed by the blaze eminating from Them. Certainly these weren't just to local guys walking through the woods, but Personages with a capital P.

-a-train

[AnthonyB]

So how about....

There are three God persons in one corporate God, being of the same essence.

Any objections to that formulation from anybody? (Excepting of course that the bible never uses person, corporate or essence.)

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Yes sir; but god ought not be mistaken for God.

Agreed.

-a-train

Really? - what should it be mistaken for? Is the proper term G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost or is it g-d the Father, g-d the Son and g-d the Holy Ghost or person the Father, person the Son and person the Holy Ghost? What do the scriptures say?

The question that is ill treated is this - Why do the scriptures differenciate G-d if there is only one singular G-d?

What I do understand:

1. There is only one mediator G-d

2. Man is fallen and requires a mediator for salvation.

3. Man is fallen and cannot have contact with anyother G-d without the mediator.

4. Jesus is subbordinate to the Father (less than his Father)

5. We are subbordinate to Jesus (less than Jesus)

6. Jesus is a true mediator - he does not meadiate for us with nothing. - That would be very stupid and foolish.

The Traveler

Traveler,

Was Jesus subordinate eternally or was he subordinate only during his incarnation?

Your choice of words is interesting - perhaps some kind of game. The concept used by most concerning eternal is strangly based in temporal relationships and ideas. I believe that some of the ancient ideas of a non-temporal eternity is a better understanding of G-d. Which means that what you imply in the incarnation of Jesus pushes the limits of heresy and the divine presents that walked among men. I am somewhat in wonder that you would imply that the relationship of Jesus Christ the very Son of G-d to that G-d that sent him was in any way a temporary non-binding relationship.

The Traveler

So how about....

There are three God persons in one corporate God, being of the same essence.

Any objections to that formulation from anybody? (Excepting of course that the bible never uses person, corporate or essence.)

I object

1. The 3 G-d persons are not alone in their corporation oneness.

2. THey are not the same essence. One is the essence of Father, One the essence of Son and one the essence of Holy Spirit. Why do you think the scriptures tell us of this difference if we are not to believe it.

The Traveler

[AnthonyB]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Yes sir; but god ought not be mistaken for God.

Agreed.

-a-train

Really? - what should it be mistaken for? Is the proper term G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost or is it g-d the Father, g-d the Son and g-d the Holy Ghost or person the Father, person the Son and person the Holy Ghost? What do the scriptures say?

The question that is ill treated is this - Why do the scriptures differenciate G-d if there is only one singular G-d?

What I do understand:

1. There is only one mediator G-d

2. Man is fallen and requires a mediator for salvation.

3. Man is fallen and cannot have contact with anyother G-d without the mediator.

4. Jesus is subbordinate to the Father (less than his Father)

5. We are subbordinate to Jesus (less than Jesus)

6. Jesus is a true mediator - he does not meadiate for us with nothing. - That would be very stupid and foolish.

The Traveler

Traveler,

Was Jesus subordinate eternally or was he subordinate only during his incarnation?

Your choice of words is interesting - perhaps some kind of game. The concept used by most concerning eternal is strangly based in temporal relationships and ideas. I believe that some of the ancient ideas of a non-temporal eternity is a better understanding of G-d. Which means that what you imply in the incarnation of Jesus pushes the limits of heresy and the divine presents that walked among men. I am somewhat in wonder that you would imply that the relationship of Jesus Christ the very Son of G-d to that G-d that sent him was in any way a temporary non-binding relationship.

The Traveler

No game intended. Just a question.

I happen to be pondering the idea that eternity is a non-temporal eternity, you can do some really interesting things, if you accept that point of veiw. But it is still something I'm pondering within myself and I won't express an opinion till I've had a good look at scripture to see if contradicts God's revelation. (If I did decide to discuss that I would specify that it was a peice of wild speculation and ensure that I was not expressing my own veiws.) However it was not what I had in mind when I asked that question.

I find it unusual that you use the phrase "pushes the limits of heresy". Would that be heresy according to the LDS church or heresy according to the traditional christians. or heresy in regards to the church that I belong to, which I have never on this forum publicly articulated. (I could be a heretic and proud of it for all any of you know! The quotes in my signature come from a specific person, who lived in a time when being a labled a heretic didn't take a lot of effort, and was himself called a heretic by some.)

The question was based on Phil 2:6-10, where Jesus "made himself nothing, talking the very nature of a servant...he humbled himself". Also In John 1, the 2nd person at the beginning is called the Word and not the Son. (Having read an historical article the other day, I got to questioning the issue.) I only asked a question, was not advocating a veiw, just wanted to see what the LDS reply would be . Clearly you veiw the subordination as eternal, if you have time can you show me verses (from the Bible) that would unambigously show subordination of the Word, before he chose the course of Phil 2:6-10 and was born as the Son of God or that cannot be seen to apply to or after his chosen subordination? (I don't mean his seperate personhood but clear subordination? For me I'm not even sure Son would necessarily imply subordination.)

Since this is an LDS gospel page you probaly should put up any non-bible LDS reference to support your veiw, for other readers. (But being non-LDS I'll be interested in the biblical references, I'm not wanting a fight just asking questions. If you feel I'm being fractious then please feel free to not answer.)

[AnthonyB]

Traveller:

I object

1. The 3 G-d persons are not alone in their corporation oneness.

2. THey are not the same essence. One is the essence of Father, One the essence of Son and one the essence of Holy Spirit. Why do you think the scriptures tell us of this difference if we are not to believe it.

The Traveler

Sorry missed the second half to you post.

Essence means that they share the same God essence, are the same kind. Are you saying that the are not the same kind?

"Being not alone in their corporate oneness"

Is that an objection to being three instead of one or that it doesn't include others outside the three God persons?

[a-train]

By that line of thinking however, wouldn't you agree, from an LDS perspective, that He is not the God of those that came before Him? That is my problem with the idea that there are God many.

There is great trouble with speaking of things which we perceive to have been before the Grand Council because we have there entered a field of wild speculation only touched on by the prophets with a tiny thimble of words. The added bonus to that trouble is the issue of time and our perception and understanding of time.

You must remember for a moment that there is no ex nihilo within LDS theology. In other words, LDS do NOT believe that a God created a Son out of nothing who then became a God to a children whom He created out of nothing and so forth.

Now, we readily admit that the Saviour was born to the Father both spiritually and physically. However He has always been and always will be God. Now is the Father any different?

While on the subject, take a look at Colossians 2:2: 'to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;' Joseph Smith could have had a field day with that one! He could have said: 'See, there in the scripture we see God, then the Father, then Christ!' But, he didn't. He said the proper translation should read: 'to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of Christ, who is of God, even the Father.' (JST Colo. 2:2)

-a-train

[Dr T]

Hey A-Train,

Maybe you can explain it better for me. How does the concept of progression, from being a man to becoming a God and being created from other God parents and then them having parents before them ad infinitum, that progressed in the same way yet still holding that this God that you worship was their God too. I'm having a hard time reconciling that concept, especially when God says He is the only God and He knows of no other?

[AnthonyB]

a-train,

Are your saying that the eternal intelligence that was then spiritually born and lastly physically born as Jesus Christ, was always God; even as an intelligence. In the same way as the personage of Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost, I keep forgetting which one you use for the 3rd person.) is God even though He has never been embodied.

[prisonchaplain]

Is the proper term G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost

.

Yes.

or is it g-d the Father, g-d the Son and g-d the Holy Ghost or person the Father, person the Son and person the Holy Ghost?

No.

What do the scriptures say?

That the Father is God. That the Son is God. That the Holy Spirit is God. That there is only one God.

The question that is ill treated is this - Why do the scriptures differenciate G-d if there is only one singular G-d?

Your answer seems to be "the gods are one God of purpose." The Trinitarian answer is that "God is three persons."

What I do understand: 1. There is only one mediator G-d 2. Man is fallen and requires a mediator for salvation.

Amen.

3. Man is fallen and cannot have contact with any other G-d without the mediator.

"other" God...where did that come from? What is the meaning of this adjective "other," if there is only one God?

4. Jesus is subbordinate to the Father (less than his Father)

Objection! Jesus is co-equal with the Father. Yes, God is his Father, and so has that role of authority "over" Jesus. Yet, just as human fathers are essentially the same as their sons, so the Father and the Son are essentially the same.

5. We are subbordinate to Jesus (less than Jesus)

Amen. The created is indeed "less than" the Creator.

6. Jesus is a true mediator - he does not meadiate for us with nothing. - That would be very stupid and foolish.

I'm not sure what's being implied here, but I agree with the basic statement.

[Traveler]

I am grateful that we agree on many things - the fact that there are some points upon which we disagree may not be as important as the points upon which we agree but for what ever the reason when there is agreement there is very little to discuss and not as much interest. So, on the points upon which it appears we disagree:

Is the proper term G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost

.

Yes.

What do the scriptures say?

That the Father is God. That the Son is God. That the Holy Spirit is God. That there is only one God.

The question that is ill treated is this - Why do the scriptures differenciate G-d if there is only one singular G-d?

Your answer seems to be "the gods are one God of purpose." The Trinitarian answer is that "God is three persons."

This is exactly the problem. The scriptures identify G-d the Father - Therefore it appears to me that the Trinitarian reference to "person" is incorrect and a vain reference - to which we are commanded not to do. It is exactly the same as confusing the definition of the integer number or reference of one with the rational number or reference of one. The ancient meaning in the singularity of "ehad" is that there are no definable fractions or parts. If there is one and only one G-d then the scripture reference to G-d the Father is heresy or else the singular interpretation of "ehad" is heresy. If we understand that G-d or G-d head is corporate then that corporate is a corporate of G-ds not persons.

3. Man is fallen and cannot have contact with any other G-d without the mediator.

Objection! Jesus is co-equal with the Father. Yes, God is his Father, and so has that role of authority "over" Jesus. Yet, just as human fathers are essentially the same as their sons, so the Father and the Son are essentially the same.

Using the understanding of Jesus as G-d - there is no other G-d that man can contact without the mediator. This includes the OTHER G-ds such as G-d the Father and G-d the Holy Ghost and G-d the corporate G-d or what ever else does not matter --- our only access to any G-d is Jesus (regardless of what name he uses) unless Jesus meadiates for that Other - if there is no other then medator is meaningless.

4. Jesus is subbordinate to the Father (less than his Father)

Objection! Jesus is co-equal with the Father. Yes, God is his Father, and so has that role of authority "over" Jesus. Yet, just as human fathers are essentially the same as their sons, so the Father and the Son are essentially the same.

Jesus clearly states - as recorded in scripture he was sent (a subbordinate term) by the Father - not the corporate G-d and that he was not as great as the Father (not the corporate G-d)

5. We are subbordinate to Jesus (less than Jesus)

Amen. The created is indeed "less than" the Creator.

This reference to “created always less than Creator” has a rhetorical problem that I will someday address by starting another thread.

6. Jesus is a true mediator - he does not meadiate for us with nothing. - That would be very stupid and foolish.

I'm not sure what's being implied here, but I agree with the basic statement.

The term Mediator implies someone in the middle. If man is on one side and Jesus (the Mediator) is in the middle -- What then is separate from the mediator on the other side that is seperate from the mediator in the same way we are separate from the mediator. If the answer is nothing then the logic is broken, wrong, stupid and foolish.

The Traveler

[a-train]

Hey A-Train,

Maybe you can explain it better for me. How does the concept of progression, from being a man to becoming a God and being created from other God parents and then them having parents before them ad infinitum, that progressed in the same way yet still holding that this God that you worship was their God too. I'm having a hard time reconciling that concept, especially when God says He is the only God and He knows of no other?

Hmmmm....

I think we would both have the same answers for these questions:

Is Jesus God? YES

Did Jesus progress from being a man to being God? NO

Is Jesus now an immortal, glorified, exalted, man in form? YES

Does Jesus have a Father? YES

Was it Jesus who said: 'I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.'? YES (Remember that the next line says: 'I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.')

Now even if we WERE to apply Isaiah 43:10 to ANY god and not just those 'formed' from wood or stone. When was Jesus formed? Was He formed in the Virgin's womb? I think we both believe that the Babe in Bethlehem was none other than the Eternal God, the Holy One of Israel, the Alpha and Omega. Now He said this before that tiny body was formed in the Virgin's womb. But we must remember that Jesus is not simply that body, but He is an Eternal Spirit who took upon Himself that body. He was never formed.

Now where we get into trouble is when we say things like: 'Before the Father was God, when He was on a planet under His Father....'. The trouble are these words of 'when', 'before', 'after'. These are all tense tellers that only function in our primitive perception of the Universe we call 'time'. Plus, as I said before, we are on the very outermost fringe of revealed doctrine. We know nothing of it really.

The best answer I can give you is that the Father is the Most High God and has always been and always will be, but He does have a Father and a Grandfather and so forth and although this may seem contradictory, it is true. Just as Jesus was formed in the womb of Mary, and yet in another sense He was never formed but is Eternal, the Father can do the same.

-a-train

[prisonchaplain]

This is exactly the problem. The scriptures identify G-d the Father - Therefore it appears to me that the Trinitarian reference to "person" is incorrect and a vain reference - to which we are commanded not to do. It is exactly the same as confusing the definition of the integer number or reference of one with the rational number or reference of one. The ancient meaning in the singularity of "ehad" is that there are no definable fractions or parts. If there is one and only one G-d then the scripture reference to G-d the Father is heresy or else the singular interpretation of "ehad" is heresy. If we understand that G-d or G-d head is corporate then that corporate is a corporate of G-ds not persons.

If I understand your point correctly--and I'll rephrase it to see if I do--If God alone is God, and there is no other, than the Jewish language would rendor any adjectival phrase superfluous at best. So, if there is only one absolute God, than even saying God the Father would be contradictory. Perhaps, you are even arguing that the inclusion of such a term "God the Father" means there must be other "gods"--since such a phrase betrays Jewish singularity.

Have I understood you correctly? I'll do some digging on this, rather than trying to simply reason my way through what appears to be an important linguistic argument. (arrgh...actually have to do some study).

Using the understanding of Jesus as G-d - there is no other G-d that man can contact without the mediator. This includes the OTHER G-ds such as G-d the Father and G-d the Holy Ghost and G-d the corporate G-d or what ever else does not matter --- our only access to any G-d is Jesus (regardless of what name he uses) unless Jesus meadiates for that Other - if there is no other then medator is meaningless.

When the Bible says that Jesus is our mediator, it means that He, through his sacrificed, brought us into reconciliation with the Father. I've never understood this to mean that we never have direct relationship with the Father. Isaiah did, in chapter six of his writing.

Jesus clearly states - as recorded in scripture he was sent (a subbordinate term) by the Father - not the corporate G-d and that he was not as great as the Father (not the corporate G-d)

Yes, the Son honors his Father, and is in a subordinate role. Such does not mean that Jesus is a lesser being than the Father, however.

[CrimsonKairos]

Now even if we WERE to apply Isaiah 43:10 to ANY god and not just those 'formed' from wood or stone. When was Jesus formed? Was He formed in the Virgin's womb? I think we both believe that the Babe in Bethlehem was none other than the Eternal God, the Holy One of Israel, the Alpha and Omega. Now He said this before that tiny body was formed in the Virgin's womb. But we must remember that Jesus is not simply that body, but He is an Eternal Spirit who took upon Himself that body. He was never formed.

Excellent point. Well said.

[prisonchaplain]

<div class='quotemain'>

Now even if we WERE to apply Isaiah 43:10 to ANY god and not just those 'formed' from wood or stone. When was Jesus formed? Was He formed in the Virgin's womb? I think we both believe that the Babe in Bethlehem was none other than the Eternal God, the Holy One of Israel, the Alpha and Omega. Now He said this before that tiny body was formed in the Virgin's womb. But we must remember that Jesus is not simply that body, but He is an Eternal Spirit who took upon Himself that body. He was never formed.

Excellent point. Well said.

I'm not sure I get the point. Is it that since we are eternally existent, then Isaiah's prophecy does not pertain to us, since we were not formed, but have always existed--just like Christ? I'm not sure that helps, if God has always been our God--even in premortality.

[CrimsonKairos]

What I got out of it was that using tense descriptors like "before" or "after" can be misleading when describing eternity, which we mortals certainly can't comprehend right now.

Apart from that, I think Isaiah's point was not to document the genealogy of the gods, but to tell Israel in no uncertain terms:

"Jehovah is your Savior, and no other person or god can redeem you, be they imaginary or real. Come to Jehovah and obey His voice!"

[prisonchaplain]

Isaiah works as a "prooftext" for monotheism--if you're a monotheist. Otherwise, perhaps not.

[CrimsonKairos]

Isaiah might be a prooftext for monotheism if the reader holds to the Nicene Trinity concept.

Otherwise, if there is a God the Father and a separate God the Son (leaving the Spirit out of the equation), then that's two Gods.

However, Isaiah is a prooftext for monosoteriologism, i.e. "one Savior" doctrine.