-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
OK, let's look at Micah 5, which the Gospel of Matthew claims is fulfilled by Jesus being born in Bethlehem.
But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times. Micah 5:2
Looks fine, but read ahead...
And he will be their peace. When the Assyrian invades our land and marches through our fortresses, we will raise against him seven shepherds, even eight leaders of men. They will rule the land of Assyria with the sword, the land of Nimrod with drawn sword. He will deliver us from the Assyrian when he invades our land and marches into our borders. Micah 5:5-6
So this anticipated leader is to defeat Assyria in battle. Jesus clearly didn't do this, so he clearly doesn't fulfill this prophecy.
But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times. Micah 5:2
Looks fine, but read ahead...
And he will be their peace. When the Assyrian invades our land and marches through our fortresses, we will raise against him seven shepherds, even eight leaders of men. They will rule the land of Assyria with the sword, the land of Nimrod with drawn sword. He will deliver us from the Assyrian when he invades our land and marches into our borders. Micah 5:5-6
So this anticipated leader is to defeat Assyria in battle. Jesus clearly didn't do this, so he clearly doesn't fulfill this prophecy.
Hi Logical Bob
Since we don't have a mutual understanding of the Bible we do not have a common denominator which puts us in a difficult position.
I believe in God. I believe the Bible, both OT and NT to be His communication to us. This as well as valid sources of history is where my conclusions originate. It is not my effort here to make distinctions between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
While the Book of Mormon teaches Jesus was born in Jerusalem I reject that as false and believe Micah 5:2 and that the identity of the person of that passage is Jesus, the Christ.
I will begin by asking you your opinion as to the identity of the personage of the passage. Or perhaps you condider it completely spurious or absolutely made fabricated? I don't know and will respect your opinion.
Thank you
Since we don't have a mutual understanding of the Bible we do not have a common denominator which puts us in a difficult position.
I believe in God. I believe the Bible, both OT and NT to be His communication to us. This as well as valid sources of history is where my conclusions originate. It is not my effort here to make distinctions between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
While the Book of Mormon teaches Jesus was born in Jerusalem I reject that as false and believe Micah 5:2 and that the identity of the person of that passage is Jesus, the Christ.
I will begin by asking you your opinion as to the identity of the personage of the passage. Or perhaps you condider it completely spurious or absolutely made fabricated? I don't know and will respect your opinion.
Thank you
Hi there, and thanks for your open mindedness in having this discussion.
Who do is think is the person in Micah 5? The short answer is that it doesn't correspond to any actual historical person. This figure is a Jew who defeats and rules Assyria and it's a historical fact that this didn't happen. Assyria was defeated in 612 BC by a coalition of nations that didn't feature the Jews prominantly (if at all) and came under Babylonian rule.
The long answer is that I don't know what the author, or the Hebrew prophets in general, wanted to achieve. Does he see himself as receiving divine dictation as Mohammed later did or does he think the book is his own composition? Is he providing predictions of things he thinks will happen or writing impassioned religious poetry? Does he see what he's writing as literal or symbolic? What prompted him to pick up his pen? These are important questions and I don't know what the person in Micah 5 meant to the author. I've read some NT biblical criticism and I really should read some OT stuff.
On the lack of common denominator, yes I agree with you. It seems that Christians on this forum think you can only understand the Bible if you approach it already believing it to be the word of God, and only then if you read it "prayerfully" or "with the help of the Holy Spirit." I think that if the Bible is indeed the word of God, that should be a conclusion you come to after you read it, not an assumption you start with. If, when studied with an open mind, the text appears to be something else then it probably is something else.
I think the most succint way I can put it is this. To me, the words on the page should determine what is being said. To the Christian, it seems the words on the page aren't enough.
Who do is think is the person in Micah 5? The short answer is that it doesn't correspond to any actual historical person. This figure is a Jew who defeats and rules Assyria and it's a historical fact that this didn't happen. Assyria was defeated in 612 BC by a coalition of nations that didn't feature the Jews prominantly (if at all) and came under Babylonian rule.
The long answer is that I don't know what the author, or the Hebrew prophets in general, wanted to achieve. Does he see himself as receiving divine dictation as Mohammed later did or does he think the book is his own composition? Is he providing predictions of things he thinks will happen or writing impassioned religious poetry? Does he see what he's writing as literal or symbolic? What prompted him to pick up his pen? These are important questions and I don't know what the person in Micah 5 meant to the author. I've read some NT biblical criticism and I really should read some OT stuff.
On the lack of common denominator, yes I agree with you. It seems that Christians on this forum think you can only understand the Bible if you approach it already believing it to be the word of God, and only then if you read it "prayerfully" or "with the help of the Holy Spirit." I think that if the Bible is indeed the word of God, that should be a conclusion you come to after you read it, not an assumption you start with. If, when studied with an open mind, the text appears to be something else then it probably is something else.
I think the most succint way I can put it is this. To me, the words on the page should determine what is being said. To the Christian, it seems the words on the page aren't enough.
Mysteryman said:
Because I get bored late at night when I have nothing else to do/ in class/ after curfew, and this site and others entertain me for a while.
ChattyMute said:
Hi there
Well, that amazes me, because time is so precious to an atheist in the sense that when one dies, its over. For a Christian, we believe that our time is valuable. But our time is well spent as well. It has a purpose and a meaningful reflection on our eternal life.
You see, we put a purpose and a value upon the time . Its not just an entertainment for the time being. That would seem worthless to a Christian. I love playing golf, and it is my entertainment . But while on the golf course, I am always aware of the presence of God , not only in my life, but in the lives of others.
Bless
Mysteryman said:
I'm a minor at a boarding school, so I can only do a limited amount of things during those times I listed.
Also, you assume that being an atheist means you don't believe in an afterlife or rebirth. That simply isn't the case. The only thing required to be an atheist is a lack of belief in God, not a lack of belief in an afterlife or rebirth.
In my case, I do think that when you die that is it. But I also can get enjoyment out of simple things, like posting on an online forum when my activities are strictly limited. I do think time is precious, but that doesn't mean I have to be out doing outrageous or once-in-a-life-time opportunities all the time. Take time for things that are less "valuable time spent" as well.
Hello Logical Bob
Thanks again for your thoughts on our subject of Micha 5, they are appreciated.
I believe Jesus was an "actual historic person." God came in the flesh. Thus "His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity" Micah 5:2. Often Jesus is referred to as the "alpha and omega". the "first and last" etc. Jesus even said of Himself "before Abraham was I am" etc. Micah 5:2 to me speaks of the locality of His arrrival among mandkind, His greatest creation. No other to my mind has been presented to fit this mold of Micah 5:2; "Judah", Bethelem" and from "eternity".
I believe Micah wrote because of inspiration, II Pet.1:21. I believe Matthew 2 when Matthew reports a conversation at the time of Jesus' birth and relates it as the fulfillment of Micah 5:2.
This was not the only prophecy of Micah. In chapter 4 for example, the establishment of the church of Christ. The subject you chose really has 2 prophecies: (1) the tribe and locality of His birth, and (2) that of the Assyrians
I completely agree with you "that if the Bible is indeed the word of God, that should be a conclusion you come to after you read it, not an assumption you start with." Rom.10:17 reads: "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Now, we have developed some "common ground" between our selves.
My stated conviction has been that Jesus is God. I shall only offer one passage to suffice: Jn.1:1-14. Thus it comes as no surprise to me that the defeat of the Assyrians against Jerusalem came at the hand of the angel of God. The incident of this fulfillment is recorded 3 times and I cite them and urge you to read each: II Kings 18:13-19 and chapter 19; II Chron. 32:1-22 and Isa. 36:1-37. Partial fulfillment!
I said "partial fulfillment" because the main thrust of Micah's prophecy relates to Assyrian invading their "land", "palaces" and "territory." The final fulfillment came in the destruction of the capitol of the Assyrians.
You truly remarked "---the words on the page should determine what is being said." I veriliy agree! Context! Once again Bob I think we are finding some "common ground." I would only add we should then take everything on the subject (any subject being concidered) and put it together, do you agree?
In closing, I'm not sure I understand the very last sentence you wrote, can you clearify?
Thanks for lending me your ear and I close with my very best regards .
duval
Thanks again for your thoughts on our subject of Micha 5, they are appreciated.
I believe Jesus was an "actual historic person." God came in the flesh. Thus "His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity" Micah 5:2. Often Jesus is referred to as the "alpha and omega". the "first and last" etc. Jesus even said of Himself "before Abraham was I am" etc. Micah 5:2 to me speaks of the locality of His arrrival among mandkind, His greatest creation. No other to my mind has been presented to fit this mold of Micah 5:2; "Judah", Bethelem" and from "eternity".
I believe Micah wrote because of inspiration, II Pet.1:21. I believe Matthew 2 when Matthew reports a conversation at the time of Jesus' birth and relates it as the fulfillment of Micah 5:2.
This was not the only prophecy of Micah. In chapter 4 for example, the establishment of the church of Christ. The subject you chose really has 2 prophecies: (1) the tribe and locality of His birth, and (2) that of the Assyrians
I completely agree with you "that if the Bible is indeed the word of God, that should be a conclusion you come to after you read it, not an assumption you start with." Rom.10:17 reads: "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Now, we have developed some "common ground" between our selves.
My stated conviction has been that Jesus is God. I shall only offer one passage to suffice: Jn.1:1-14. Thus it comes as no surprise to me that the defeat of the Assyrians against Jerusalem came at the hand of the angel of God. The incident of this fulfillment is recorded 3 times and I cite them and urge you to read each: II Kings 18:13-19 and chapter 19; II Chron. 32:1-22 and Isa. 36:1-37. Partial fulfillment!
I said "partial fulfillment" because the main thrust of Micah's prophecy relates to Assyrian invading their "land", "palaces" and "territory." The final fulfillment came in the destruction of the capitol of the Assyrians.
You truly remarked "---the words on the page should determine what is being said." I veriliy agree! Context! Once again Bob I think we are finding some "common ground." I would only add we should then take everything on the subject (any subject being concidered) and put it together, do you agree?
In closing, I'm not sure I understand the very last sentence you wrote, can you clearify?
Thanks for lending me your ear and I close with my very best regards .
duval
Hi Bob
We are still waiting for the second coming of Christ. Micah prophecy of the Assyrians refers to the final destruction (second coming, Jesus 1000 year reign) of all who are against the Lord.
So the person Micah was refering to in chapter 5.2 is Christ (700 years before his birth).
When we look at prophecy of the Messiah, we must remember it comes as a package. Christ came first to die for our sins and he will come again to bring everlasting peace. When reading the prophecies written in scripture we cannot always consider it a once off event. Yes he will be born in Bethlehem (First coming)and this will lead to the destruction of the Assyrians (Those against the Lord).(second coming)
Blessings
Ed
We are still waiting for the second coming of Christ. Micah prophecy of the Assyrians refers to the final destruction (second coming, Jesus 1000 year reign) of all who are against the Lord.
So the person Micah was refering to in chapter 5.2 is Christ (700 years before his birth).
When we look at prophecy of the Messiah, we must remember it comes as a package. Christ came first to die for our sins and he will come again to bring everlasting peace. When reading the prophecies written in scripture we cannot always consider it a once off event. Yes he will be born in Bethlehem (First coming)and this will lead to the destruction of the Assyrians (Those against the Lord).(second coming)
Blessings
Ed
Good evening to duval and Ed the Ned. Let's looks again at the passage in question.
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." Therefore Israel will be abandoned until the time when she who is in labor gives birth and the rest of his brothers return to join the Israelites. He will stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they will live securely, for then his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth. And he will be their peace. When the Assyrian invades our land and marches through our fortresses, we will raise against him seven shepherds, even eight leaders of men. They will rule the land of Assyria with the sword, the land of Nimrod with drawn sword. He will deliver us from the Assyrian when he invades our land and marches into our borders. Micah 5:2-6
Please ask yourself honestly what an open-minded person reading this would think it said. I suggest they would understand that a ruler of Israel will come from Bethlehem and that under his rule Israel will be secure. There will be an Assyrian invasion and Israel will defeat it, after which they will rule over Assyria with the sword.
According to duval, what this actually says is that someone will come from Bethlehem who defeats an Assyrian invasion some 700 years before he was born, but this makes sense because he is God, and therefore what an angel did 700 years earlier was actually done by him. We’ll overlook the fact that at no time did Israel rule over Assyria with the sword. I respectfully suggest that an unbiased reader won’t find that in the passage.
According to Ed, when the passage says “the Assyrian when he invades our land†it actually means people who are opposed to God at a time at least 2,700 years in the future. Again, I respectfully suggest that an unbiased reader won’t find that in the passage.
You’re both resorting to extremely convoluted readings in order to avoid the obvious conclusion that this prophecy was never fulfilled. Give me any prophecy by Nostradamus and, if you allow me the same flexibility of interpretation, I’ll find a way to claim it has been fulfilled.
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." Therefore Israel will be abandoned until the time when she who is in labor gives birth and the rest of his brothers return to join the Israelites. He will stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they will live securely, for then his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth. And he will be their peace. When the Assyrian invades our land and marches through our fortresses, we will raise against him seven shepherds, even eight leaders of men. They will rule the land of Assyria with the sword, the land of Nimrod with drawn sword. He will deliver us from the Assyrian when he invades our land and marches into our borders. Micah 5:2-6
Please ask yourself honestly what an open-minded person reading this would think it said. I suggest they would understand that a ruler of Israel will come from Bethlehem and that under his rule Israel will be secure. There will be an Assyrian invasion and Israel will defeat it, after which they will rule over Assyria with the sword.
According to duval, what this actually says is that someone will come from Bethlehem who defeats an Assyrian invasion some 700 years before he was born, but this makes sense because he is God, and therefore what an angel did 700 years earlier was actually done by him. We’ll overlook the fact that at no time did Israel rule over Assyria with the sword. I respectfully suggest that an unbiased reader won’t find that in the passage.
According to Ed, when the passage says “the Assyrian when he invades our land†it actually means people who are opposed to God at a time at least 2,700 years in the future. Again, I respectfully suggest that an unbiased reader won’t find that in the passage.
You’re both resorting to extremely convoluted readings in order to avoid the obvious conclusion that this prophecy was never fulfilled. Give me any prophecy by Nostradamus and, if you allow me the same flexibility of interpretation, I’ll find a way to claim it has been fulfilled.
- Logical Bob
Firstly because an unbiased reader (Please define?)has not taken the time to read the rest of the Bible and put it into persperctive with other prophecies from Isaiah and other books he or she could never understand it. So it is clear to me that you have not taken the time to put this prophecy into perspective at all. Yet have felt free to try and discredit it.
As a Christian it is my belief that Christ will come a second time. He came, he died, he rose from the dead, he ascended into Heaven and will return again. The foundation of your understanding of this prophecy is that Christ didn't exist, or if he did he was just a man and then died and Christianity is just stupid.
But the Assyrian is closeley linked to end time prophecy and the anti-christ so this is not just according to me, but supported by a multitude of respected Christians and teachers.
It does correspond with a Historical person (someone who rose from the dead)that will return again as so many other prophecies have told us.
These are actual predictions that an unbiased person might understand if studied in context with other prophecies that were written at the same time (Isaiah), please do not put yourself in that category of being unbiased. You clearly are biased against Christian beliefs.
God promted him to pick up his pen and please take the time to read the whole book. Jerusalem at the time was being flooded with evil practices and false teachings. Micah did not live in Jerusalem but he heard what was happening.
Maybe you should read something other than criticism, maybe you should read something other than a persons attempt to discredit a God they don't want anything to do with. Maybe you should look yourself at the Bible which is the only religious book that contains more than just sayings , but has geological evidence to its structure. It might be a good idea if you read the Bible with an open mind that it might be true, I believe it is so I am biased and can never look at it in any other way.
A reader with an open mind about the passage, who is willing to change their opinion of it based on evidence.Ed the Ned said:
It would be great if you could explain how Isaiah should affect our reading of Micah 5. (No sarcasm there, I'm interested.)
Again with the hostility! Ed, I'm not trying to discredit anything. All my posts on prophecy here have been in response to questions by yourself and duval. If I'm missing something, please explain what.
I don't recall saying that Christianity is stupid.
Again, I'd love it if you could explain that.
After thinking hard about it with an open mind, I don't believe. That's not the same thing as being biased against Christian belief.
Biblical criticism is about understanding the Bible, not about discrediting God. The term is related to literary criticism, which isn't about discrediting literature.
I did read the Bible with an open mind, and I try to continue doing so. That's one of the reasons I'm not a Christian.
I have a simple question.
Why can't the ultimate book written by the most intelligent entity in the universe be easily understood by all the people it was written for?
Why can't the ultimate book written by the most intelligent entity in the universe be easily understood by all the people it was written for?
kpd560 said:
Simple, we've got to be that intelligent to easily understand it.
Well seriously, the answer is that you must be willing to seek the truth with an earnest heart. A superficial reading of any book will not give you great understanding. The more you want to understand, the harder you should focus and the more you should meditate on the word of God. So, if you're looking for an easy revelation just to convince you when you'd be your stubborn best, don't be surprised if it doesn't come - i didn't say it wouldn't come, just am saying that you shouldn't be surprised otherwise.
Put another way, if I picked up a real dense book on quantum physics, gave it a quick reading - skipping over some parts, skimming over other - and then started challenging its scientific claims, am I being reasonable?
Here again, I'm just trying to discuss various viewpoints. No ill will at all.
ivdavid said:
Your answer is a little too simple. Do you really mean to say that God didn't write the bible for us. God wrote the bible for other gods?
If, on the other hand, the bible is a compilation of ancient tribal myths and stories there's really nothing to explain because that's exactly what it looks like.
A smart scientist would write a book titled "Quantum Physics for Dummies". Why couldn't God do the same with the bible?
Best.
You conveniently left out the part where I mentioned that a little earnestness on our part is required to understand the Bible and its truth.
I don't know - this argument and line of reasoning will get us nowhere. Why don't you shoot some doctrine in Christianity that you feel less obliged to accept and we'd discuss the truth in that. At least that would be headed in some direction.
True. But are you telling me that every dummy who lays hands on that book is going to understand it just like that. For example, my brother has no inclination towards science but he loves music. You give him the above said book, he's going to remain just the same - none the wiser. Doesn't that mean the book is meant for only scientifically inclined minds ie people who are interested to know more in science?
I don't know - this argument and line of reasoning will get us nowhere. Why don't you shoot some doctrine in Christianity that you feel less obliged to accept and we'd discuss the truth in that. At least that would be headed in some direction.
ivdavid said:
So God isn't intelligent enough to relate his teachings to mere humans?
I'm not as intelligent as Einstein or Marie Curie, but I can (generally) easily understand physics and chemistry if I take the time to learn it because either they or someone else smarter than I have broken down those concepts for others to learn.
Then that means the book wasn't written right, because it is written for anyone, even those with no knowledge or inclination in the subject, to understand. I know some people taking Chemistry who despise Chemistry, aren't good at it, and want nothing to do with it who bought a book called "Chemistry for Dummies". They were able to better understand Chem and pass the class. Just like what that book is for.
Oh. And all the things that happen "just like that" I could probably count on one hand. Just about everything takes time.
ivdavid said:
I think you're right. We approach the book from opposite viewpoints. It also seems pointless to me for us to inspect a single tree when the entire forest is burning. I only wanted an answer to my question. Thank you for providing one.