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.
I don't know when they will invade. I just know that after Messiah is born in Bethlehem *then* (and that "then" may be thousands of years), Assyria invades.
We are told in Revelation that there will be armies from many nations invading Israel but as to when we are not told.
Eusebius, I think you're being a little coy on this. Let's review those first few verses of the passage. The writer is apparently rallying the troops:
Now gather yourself in troops,
O daughter of troops;
He has laid siege against us;...(Micah 5:1)
Why the call to arms here, Eusebius? Well, from history we know that the Assyrians (under Sennacharib) invaded Jerusalem and laid a seige to the city in the days of King Hezekiah AND Micah, the alleged writer of the book we are looking into now. It appears this may have been at the very start of the siege. Clearly the setting is against this backdrop.
So what does Micah come up with as a PROPHET?
“ But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting.”
He predicts a hero to come from the ancient clan of Bethlehem and Ephrathah and the babbles in vagueness on about some other things that apparently did not happen in order for us to verify if they were accurately fulfilled. To be fair, however, the writer may have been alluding to the 10 northern tribes that were exiled by the Assyrians speakingo of their scattering and their hopeful return to 'the children of Israel" (the flock).
He then goes on to talk about how after an apparent setback, this hero will rise up with comrades and drive back the Assyrians out of the land all the way back to Assyria. On the surface, such as thing may not have happened; however, AGAIN to be fair, there might be a hint of truth to this part. Based on other Jewish writings and some historical details here and there, some have suggested that the '10 lost tribes' were never really lost and actually became allies of Assyrian enemies on the northern and eastern fringes of the Assyrian Empire who eventually brought about the fall of that empire. It is believed they may have had a hand in the eventual defeat of the Assyrians by joining forces with the Scythians and perhaps, other enemies of the Assyrians.
Despite this, there still is no solid evidence anywhere in this passage that refers to Jesus and/or some future resurrection of an enemy people that since ceased to exist 2,700 years ago.
He is all throughout the Hebrew Scriptures as the Angel of God, anywhere God speaks, anywhere God appears.
She rightfully tells you what's not there and you PROJECT your post Old Testament perspective on it and come up with Jesus. This is akin to Muslims scouring the Old Testament and claiming there are passages that speaks of Muhammad.
She rightfully tells you what's not there and you PROJECT your post Old Testament perspective on it and come up with Jesus. This is akin to Muslims scouring the Old Testament and claiming there are passages that speaks of Muhammad.
LOL The actual name of Jesus is not found in the Hebrew texts, but if one considers what His names means"God in the flesh""God among us" then it is clear that He is there.
She rightfully tells you what's not there and you PROJECT your post Old Testament perspective on it and come up with Jesus. This is akin to Muslims scouring the Old Testament and claiming there are passages that speaks of Muhammad.
It is quite frustrating, Insane . . . but it is ubiquitous . . trying to fit ancient ignorance to reality in the name of faith.
LOL The actual name of Jesus is not found in the Hebrew texts, but if one considers what His names means"God in the flesh""God among us" then it is clear that He is there.
Of course his name is not there, Robin. I never said it was. I am pointing out that you are doing nothing different than the Muslim apologist who finds some obscure, vague or even completely non-related Old Testament passage that he claims is referring to Muhammad in hopes that he can validate his prophet.
The Old Testament does NOT predict Jesus. What you had in New Testament times [and beyond] were people who THOUGHT and CONCLUDED Jesus was the messiah, proclaimed him to be and THEN picked around in the Old Testament to find what they believed were prophecies concerning him to support their conclusion. Exhbit A (RIGHT side of cartoon) displays this type of method quite well:
Of course, to THEM he was THEIR messiah, but I'm not so sure the Old Testament writers had anybody named Jesus in mind or anyone beyond their IMMEDIATE times in mind either.
Insane, of course Jesus in the Messiah as promised in the Old Testament. The whole Old Testament is not only a compilation of prophecies concerning the Messiah but also the lineage from Adam to Jesus.
Of course his name is not there, Robin. I never said it was. I am pointing out that you are doing nothing different than the Muslim apologist who finds some obscure, vague or even completely non-related Old Testament passage that he claims is referring to Muhammad in hopes that he can validate his prophet.
The Old Testament does NOT predict Jesus. What you had in New Testament times [and beyond] were people who THOUGHT and CONCLUDED Jesus was the messiah, proclaimed him to be and THEN picked around in the Old Testament to find what they believed were prophecies concerning him to support their conclusion. Exhbit A (RIGHT side of cartoon) displays this type of method quite well:
Of course, to THEM he was THEIR messiah, but I'm not so sure the Old Testament writers had anybody named Jesus in mind or anyone beyond their IMMEDIATE times in mind either.
LOL good cartoon, but false just like your arguement.
Eusebius, I think you're being a little coy on this. Let's review those first few verses of the passage. The writer is apparently rallying the troops:
Now gather yourself in troops, O daughter of troops; He has laid siege against us;...(Micah 5:1)
Why the call to arms here, Eusebius? Well, from history we know that the Assyrians (under Sennacharib) invaded Jerusalem and laid a seige to the city in the days of King Hezekiah AND Micah, the alleged writer of the book we are looking into now. It appears this may have been at the very start of the siege. Clearly the setting is against this backdrop.
So what does Micah come up with as a PROPHET?
“ But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting.”
He predicts a hero to come from the ancient clan of Bethlehem and Ephrathah and the babbles in vagueness on about some other things that apparently did not happen in order for us to verify if they were accurately fulfilled. To be fair, however, the writer may have been alluding to the 10 northern tribes that were exiled by the Assyrians speakingo of their scattering and their hopeful return to 'the children of Israel" (the flock).
He then goes on to talk about how after an apparent setback, this hero will rise up with comrades and drive back the Assyrians out of the land all the way back to Assyria. On the surface, such as thing may not have happened; however, AGAIN to be fair, there might be a hint of truth to this part. Based on other Jewish writings and some historical details here and there, some have suggested that the '10 lost tribes' were never really lost and actually became allies of Assyrian enemies on the northern and eastern fringes of the Assyrian Empire who eventually brought about the fall of that empire. It is believed they may have had a hand in the eventual defeat of the Assyrians by joining forces with the Scythians and perhaps, other enemies of the Assyrians.
Despite this, there still is no solid evidence anywhere in this passage that refers to Jesus and/or some future resurrection of an enemy people that since ceased to exist 2,700 years ago.
Of course it refers directly to Jesus and the Jewish chief priests thought it did as well. You are 2000 years removed from when those Jewish chief priests declared Micah was dealing with the Messiah. You do not know what you are talking about.
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.
