Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just the fact that a majority of Jews believe the Messiah had to come out of Bethlehem proves they had to have known the Micah passage.
Yes they believed. That's ONE thing, but believing didn't automatically make Jesus the messiah for some of them if he did NOT meet ALL requirements. The title is one that is ascribed to or self-proclaimed. I can call you a messiah or you can call me one. The reality of the belief lies with the one who WANTS to believe it as such. In other words, SUBJECTIVE.
Quote:
A.E. Knoch wrote:
“He will be called a Nazarene” was spoken prophecy. There is no reason to believe it was written or is to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures. Much that was spoken by the prophets was never committed to writing, but was preserved by tradition." Concordant Commentary on Matthew 2:2.
Well of course. While a possibility, it is the only recourse one can take because Matthew's mention of this prophecy is nowhere to be found in the Hebrew scriptures and one has to wonder, how the supposed divine author managed to let that one slip considering Jesus (or those who put the words on his lips) exhorted his critics to go search him out in the OT.
Quote:
I think the problem in John 7 is that Christ did come out of Galilee. Like I said before, as a very young lad his family moved to Nazareth of Galilee. The Jews knew the Messiah had to come out of Bethlehem. The only way they could know that is by applying Micah 5. This is one more nail in your coffin that Micah 5 can't be used of Christ. The majority of Jews believed it had direct connection with the Messiah.
Yes, they believed it as such. That is established, but you fail to see where the writer of Matthew was simply providing his shaky proof that Jesus was THE messiah. Jews then and Jews today who knew better objected to this and critics (such as me who is not Jewish) can see the whole "Jesus is the messiah" based on Old Testament predictions that predicted him or that he fulfilled is a farce. Like every other messiah of the day who promised victory and a re-established kingdom of Israel, he flunked and died like all the rest of them which led to a re-writing of his legacy.
Quote:
Joh 7:41 Others said, "This is the Christ! Yet they said, "For not out of Galilee is the Christ coming!" (QUESTION MARK GOES RIGHT HERE. NOT AN EXCLAMATION. Subtle change to change the whole tone of the passage. Re-read the passage again and put the correct punctuation back in please? Thanks)
Joh 7:42 Did not the scripture say that out of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was, comes the Christ?
So the Jews knew the Messiah was to come from Bethlehem and Christ did come from Bethlehem, therefore Jesus is the Messiah.
Your last statement is a perfect example of circular logic, Eusebius. Basically you're saying that because the Jews believed the messiah was t come from Bethlehem and Jesus was supposedly born in Bethlehem and you believe he was the messiah then that automatically makes him the messiah. Circular logic, my friend.
Insane, do you know very many people who raise alot of dead people like Jesus did? It is not just the fact that Christ fulfilled so many prophetic scriptures, it is that His perfect life, God healing many thousands of people through Him, His feeding many thousands of people on a few fish and loaves of bread vouchsafe His Messiahship.
I know, I know, you can just say it was all made up. But really you would have to prove it was all made up. The accounts are actually historical writings as is Acts. They are just as historically correct as are Josephus' historical accounts.
You just can't get around the fact that the Jewish people all believed the Messiah had to come from Bethlehem based upon the Micah verse. The chief priests also knew this. They knew the Ruler had to come from there. The 70 weeks of Daniel prove He was the one to come since no other has fulfilled the 70 weeks and Micah passage at the same exact time.
So, go on in your unbelief. You are still wrong.
Here is what all those Jews and chief priests believe:
Mic 5:2-4 And you, Bethlehem Ephratah, inferior to be among the mentors of Judah, from you shall One fare forth for Me to
become the Ruler in Israel; yet His farings forth are from aforetime, from days eonian." (3) Wherefore He shall give them
up till the season when she who is to bear shall bear, and the rest of his brethren shall return to the sons of Israel." (4)
And He stands and shepherds His flock in the strength of Yahweh, in the pomp of the name of Yahweh, His Elohim. And
they shall dwell, for now shall He be great unto the limits of the land."
Christ fulfilled that.
Oh, and one detractor in this thread stated that for Him to be Messiah He would have had to draw all Jews from the four corners of the earth. But that is another prophecy. There is not any statement in the Bible that all prophecies have to all come to pass at the same time. That prophecy is yet future and will come to pass.
So tell me. Among the thousands of religions invented by man, what suddenly makes Christianity the right one? Every devout member of their respective religion swears that their religion is the right one. Why do you think Christianity is right and all other religions are wrong? I find it extremely hard to believe that Christianity is even anything of substance at all, considering how the Old Testament was completely written before Jesus even supposedly existed on Earth.
If you do say that Christianity is the right religion, that means Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and all the other hundreds of religions out there are all WRONG! But Christianity is right?
And what about all the years Jesus was supposed to make a second coming to Earth?
That's because Jesus never taught a millennium rule. Because though people are incorrect on that, doesn't mean Christianity is wrong.
What makes Christianity correct is that it's the only religion where God becomes the servant (human), subjects himself to the laws He established, pays the penalty that our sins deserve and offers heaven with him free of cost to those who believe by faith
John 3:16
to those who reject will recieve the wrath their sins deserve John 3:36 and Matthew 25
Insane, do you know very many people who raise alot of dead people like Jesus did? It is not just the fact that Christ fulfilled so many prophetic scriptures, it is that His perfect life, God healing many thousands of people through Him, His feeding many thousands of people on a few fish and loaves of bread vouchsafe His Messiahship.
I know, I know, you can just say it was all made up. But really you would have to prove it was all made up. The accounts are actually historical writings as is Acts. They are just as historically correct as are Josephus' historical accounts.
You just can't get around the fact that the Jewish people all believed the Messiah had to come from Bethlehem based upon the Micah verse. The chief priests also knew this. They knew the Ruler had to come from there. The 70 weeks of Daniel prove He was the one to come since no other has fulfilled the 70 weeks and Micah passage at the same exact time.
So, go on in your unbelief. You are still wrong.
Here is what all those Jews and chief priests believe:
Mic 5:2-4 And you, Bethlehem Ephratah, inferior to be among the mentors of Judah, from you shall One fare forth for Me to
become the Ruler in Israel; yet His farings forth are from aforetime, from days eonian." (3) Wherefore He shall give them
up till the season when she who is to bear shall bear, and the rest of his brethren shall return to the sons of Israel." (4)
And He stands and shepherds His flock in the strength of Yahweh, in the pomp of the name of Yahweh, His Elohim. And
they shall dwell, for now shall He be great unto the limits of the land."
Christ fulfilled that.
Oh, and one detractor in this thread stated that for Him to be Messiah He would have had to draw all Jews from the four corners of the earth. But that is another prophecy. There is not any statement in the Bible that all prophecies have to all come to pass at the same time. That prophecy is yet future and will come to pass.
No part of the New Testament was written during the lifetime of Jesus. Even the gospels likely were written by individuals who weren't even contemporaneous to Jesus. Israel at the time of Jesus was under an oppressive Roman occupation. There is no evidential reason to believe that Jesus was anything other than one of the many who claimed himself to be the Messiah as defined in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament).
Josephus (and Cicero, who also referenced Jesus) were historians. As historians, they did research on their subjects, and had no logical reason to distort their findings. Neither one of them made any notation of Jesus as being anything other than a full-fledged human being, nor did either suggest the existence of events which violated the laws of nature. The author of The Acts of the Apostles (traditionally credited to Luke) is someone who was a believer in a new religion (Christianity) that was sweeping through much of the Mediterranean region at the time. The author of Acts has an obvious bias based upon their prior belief.
When making claims of supernatural events; such as resurrections, healings, etc., the burden of proof always lies with those who allege these events to have occurred. No one needs to disprove a supernatural assertion. Having faith in paranormal events is not equatable to rational observation.
The Hebrew Bible did indeed suggest a Messiah coming from Bethlehem. Which means that every boy born in Bethlehem was/is potentially the Messiah. Assuming the general accuracy of the story which tells us that Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem, this is likely no more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is to say that Joseph, a Jew familiar with the Jewish texts, brought his pregnant wife to Bethlehem in belief that the child's birth would conform to those texts in a manner which would suggest that child to be the predicted Messiah, who would then free the Jews from their Roman oppressors.
No, Joseph did not take Mary so his son could be born in Bethlehem so his child could possibly fulfill the Micah prophecy. Did you ask Joseph? Do you have first hand information on that? If not, why even say it? It is a waste of my time to even read it. The historical account gives the reason why Joseph had to go to Bethlehem. The fact that Christ was born in Bethlehem, that He lived an extraordinary life, that He raised many from the dead, gave sight to the blind, that He died for all mankind and rose from the dead according to the 1st hand historians who walked with Jesus and wrote down what He said and did. I'll go with 1st hand information of those who walked with Christ.
No part of the New Testament was written during the lifetime of Jesus. Even the gospels likely were written by individuals who weren't even contemporaneous to Jesus. Israel at the time of Jesus was under an oppressive Roman occupation. There is no evidential reason to believe that Jesus was anything other than one of the many who claimed himself to be the Messiah as defined in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament).
Josephus (and Cicero, who also referenced Jesus) were historians. As historians, they did research on their subjects, and had no logical reason to distort their findings. Neither one of them made any notation of Jesus as being anything other than a full-fledged human being, nor did either suggest the existence of events which violated the laws of nature. The author of The Acts of the Apostles (traditionally credited to Luke) is someone who was a believer in a new religion (Christianity) that was sweeping through much of the Mediterranean region at the time. The author of Acts has an obvious bias based upon their prior belief.
When making claims of supernatural events; such as resurrections, healings, etc., the burden of proof always lies with those who allege these events to have occurred. No one needs to disprove a supernatural assertion. Having faith in paranormal events is not equatable to rational observation.
The Hebrew Bible did indeed suggest a Messiah coming from Bethlehem. Which means that every boy born in Bethlehem was/is potentially the Messiah. Assuming the general accuracy of the story which tells us that Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem, this is likely no more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is to say that Joseph, a Jew familiar with the Jewish texts, brought his pregnant wife to Bethlehem in belief that the child's birth would conform to those texts in a manner which would suggest that child to be the predicted Messiah, who would then free the Jews from their Roman oppressors.
Thank you for putting this so eloquently Rogead. I concur with everything you stated.
Insane, do you know very many people who raise alot of dead people like Jesus did?
You asked Rogead if he was around to ask Joseph questions. Well, were you around to confirm these resurrections? I'm not so sure I would just take someone's word for it when it comes to something that is unprecedented and impossible to duplicate.
Quote:
It is not just the fact that Christ fulfilled so many prophetic scriptures, it is that His perfect life, God healing many thousands of people through Him, His feeding many thousands of people on a few fish and loaves of bread vouchsafe His Messiahship.
You do realize it is not that hard to write a book, create your own characters, make them do and say things - even superhuman things -make predictions and allow those predictions to come through, right? All it proves is that I have a great imagination. Remember, Jesus is the arrow shot [back in time] into the heart of the Old Testament by some early Jews and then Christians.
Quote:
I know, I know, you can just say it was all made up. But really you would have to prove it was all made up. The accounts are actually historical writings as is Acts. They are just as historically correct as are Josephus' historical accounts.
Place Matthew 27:45-54, Mark 15:33-39 and Luke 23:44-47, read them carefully and tell me if you notice someone making up a nice, clever story and which writer seems to have gotten a little too excited. PLEASE read and compare. Thanks.
Quote:
You just can't get around the fact that the Jewish people all believed the Messiah had to come from Bethlehem based upon the Micah verse. The chief priests also knew this. They knew the Ruler had to come from there. The 70 weeks of Daniel prove He was the one to come since no other has fulfilled the 70 weeks and Micah passage at the same exact time.
So, go on in your unbelief. You are still wrong.
You might really want to re-read that 70-week prophecy my friend. Trust me when I tell you it it NOT talking about Jesus.
Quote:
Here is what all those Jews and chief priests believe:
Mic 5:2-4 And you, Bethlehem Ephratah, inferior to be among the mentors of Judah, from you shall One fare forth for Me to
become the Ruler in Israel; yet His farings forth are from aforetime, from days eonian." (3) Wherefore He shall give them
up till the season when she who is to bear shall bear, and the rest of his brethren shall return to the sons of Israel." (4)
And He stands and shepherds His flock in the strength of Yahweh, in the pomp of the name of Yahweh, His Elohim. And
they shall dwell, for now shall He be great unto the limits of the land."
Christ fulfilled that.
Ok, they believed that but they did NOT believe Jesus was the guy. What should that tell you? Your argument that they believed Micah 5 speaks of the messiah (which I NEVER denied) does not automatically make Jesus the messiah. There were Jews then and Jews NOW who will tell you this over and over again.
You do realize it is not that hard to write a book, create your own characters, make them do and say things - even superhuman things -make predictions and allow those predictions to come through, right? All it proves is that I have a great imagination. Remember, Jesus is the arrow shot [back in time] into the heart of the Old Testament by some early Jews and then Christians.
Place Matthew 27:45-54, Mark 15:33-39 and Luke 23:44-47, read them carefully and tell me if you notice someone making up a nice, clever story and which writer seems to have gotten a little too excited. PLEASE read and compare. Thanks.
This puerile attitude and inappropriate comparison of ancient times to today vis-a-vis writing has got to stop, Insane. I understand your situation regarding religion . . . but it is no excuse to boomerang off the deep end and mis-characterize the writings used for religious purposes as somehow less important than the scribblings of identified "historians." Literacy was not a common trait nor was writing. It was a tedious task reserved for important things . . . not the imaginative musings of the Rod Serlings and Alfred Hitchcocks of ancient times!!! Just because our knowledge evokes extreme skepticism about the recordings . . . they cannot be dismissed as imaginative entertainment. There was no fiction section in primitive libraries.This applies to ALL the legends and myths that were deemed important enough to record in writing. Misunderstanding their purpose and intent has been the major mistake in assessing their importance and relevance.
Our primitive ancestors lack of valid knowledge about reality (ignorance), superstitious beliefs, and idiomatic hyperbole rendered their recordings less interpretable and reliable as precise historical observations . . . especially since they had no conception or regard for serial or sequential time. They were a strictly event-oriented species and the order of said events had no particular relevance to them. But they were undeniably important to them and their understanding of God or they would not have been recorded.
This puerile attitude and inappropriate comparison of ancient times to today vis-a-vis writing has got to stop, Insane. I understand your situation regarding religion . . . but it is no excuse to boomerang off the deep end and mis-characterize the writings used for religious purposes as somehow less important than the scribblings of identified "historians." Literacy was not a common trait nor was writing. It was a tedious task reserved for important things . . . not the imaginative musings of the Rod Serlings and Alfred Hitchcocks of ancient times!!! Just because our knowledge evokes extreme skepticism about the recordings . . . they cannot be dismissed as imaginative entertainment. There was no fiction section in primitive libraries.This applies to ALL the legends and myths that were deemed important enough to record in writing. Misunderstanding their purpose and intent has been the major mistake in assessing their importance and relevance.
Our primitive ancestors lack of valid knowledge about reality (ignorance), superstitious beliefs, and idiomatic hyperbole rendered their recordings less interpretable and reliable as precise historical observations . . . especially since they had no conception or regard for serial or sequential time. They were a strictly event-oriented species and the order of said events had no particular relevance to them. But they were undeniably important to them and their understanding of God or they would not have been recorded.
They are great within a particular context, Mystic. They just mean nothing to me. I seek no mystical and esoteric messages to influence my life. Interesting stories of heroes and holymen and a source of helping me to understand religious history, but nothing more to me. At times some crazy nonsense as we can rightfully call it now, but entertaining from time to time, nonetheless.
This puerile attitude and inappropriate comparison of ancient times to today vis-a-vis writing has got to stop, Insane. I understand your situation regarding religion . . . but it is no excuse to boomerang off the deep end and mis-characterize the writings used for religious purposes as somehow less important than the scribblings of identified "historians." Literacy was not a common trait nor was writing. It was a tedious task reserved for important things . . . not the imaginative musings of the Rod Serlings and Alfred Hitchcocks of ancient times!!! Just because our knowledge evokes extreme skepticism about the recordings . . . they cannot be dismissed as imaginative entertainment. There was no fiction section in primitive libraries.This applies to ALL the legends and myths that were deemed important enough to record in writing. Misunderstanding their purpose and intent has been the major mistake in assessing their importance and relevance.
Our primitive ancestors lack of valid knowledge about reality (ignorance), superstitious beliefs, and idiomatic hyperbole rendered their recordings less interpretable and reliable as precise historical observations . . . especially since they had no conception or regard for serial or sequential time. They were a strictly event-oriented species and the order of said events had no particular relevance to them. But they were undeniably important to them and their understanding of God or they would not have been recorded.
Religious texts and other forms of mythology have indeed always served a very important purpose. They fill in the gaps in our knowledge. They provide explanations for the things we cannot otherwise explain. A thousand years ago, a solar eclipse was perceived as being the end of the world. Today, it is viewed as a predictable cosmic occurrence. But,the fact remains that the causation of a solar eclipse a thousand years ago was the same as it is today.
Mythological texts are important in that they can give richness and meaning to a culture or to an individual. The problems come when we confuse that mythology with science. Whether it's the solar system, the shape of the earth, or the origins of our species; when our knowledge catches up with our perceptions, we need to ditch the myths and recognize them for what they are.
The Old Testament is often historically accurate in a general sense. It is best described as being a type of historical novel, in which a backdrop of historical events is peppered with fictional content. It contains some history, some mythology, some literature, and some theology. The Song of Solomon is one of literature's most beautiful creations and the Book of Judges and the books of Kings are largely accurate in their history. The New Testament is more of an exhortation to the faith than anything else, but it also contains passages of great literary and philosophical beauty. However, it is intellectually dishonest and dangerous to interpret these things literally
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
