Jesus and His prophecies

Abednego wrote: AbRah2006 wrote: OnE Of THE Prophecies Christians Use to Verify Jesus as the Messiah, Yet Clearly Fail: (1) "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."  Micah 5:2 The gospel of Matthew (Matthew 2:5-6) claims that Jesus� birth in Bethlehem fulfils this prophecy.  But this is unlikely for two reasons.     A) "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb�s second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chronicles 2:18, 2:50-52 & 4:4).     B) The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from Micah 5:6.  This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did.  It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this, intentionally no doubt, to make this verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan. Actually this is a distortion of the facts. You should be somewhat more careful with your exegesis. Let me help you out here: Ephrathit is the ancient name of Bethlehem in Judah ( see Gen 35:19, 48:7). Now examine 1 Samuel 17:12 12 Now David was the son of an Ephrathite named Jesse, who was from Bethlehem in Judah. Jesse had eight sons, and in Saul's time he was old and well advanced in years. You should note that Jesus was prophesized to be of the line of David and David was the son of an Ephrathite. One final point, In the first chapter of Ruth Vs 1-2 1 In the days when the judges ruled, there was a famine in the land, and a man from Bethlehem in Judah, together with his wife and two sons, went to live for a while in the country of Moab. 2 The man's name was Elimelech, his wife's name Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Kilion. They were Ephrathites from Bethlehem, Judah. And they went to Moab and lived there. Yet another case where inhabitants of Bethlehem are called Ephrathites. Notice Elimelech, Naomi, Mahlon and Kilion are called Epharthites from Bethlehem-Judah. So we know that David was the Son of an Ephrathite thus Jesus was an Ephrathite, by virtue of the fact he was of the live of David via Jesse.  It has also been demonstrated that Ephrathite is often used to refer to inhabitants of Bethlehem-Judah. You argument, while eloquent does not diminish Micah whatsoever. Abednego

Greetings Abednego.

You did not go far enough in your response.

Beit-lehem can refer to both, a place or a tribe. Christians insist it must be a place, because Matthew says so. A conclusion is only as good as its argument. The opening, "And you, House of Lehem Ephratah" uses a "you" that is second person masculin. For such an important prophecy dealing with the birthplace of Gd, I wonder why it was not in the second person femine, to denote a town? The Christian claim is that this was a prophecy fulfilled when Jesus was born in Bethlehem. With some analysis, it is not difficult to see that the verse in Micah is in reference to the messiah, and the place of birh is irrelevant for the context. It may not dimish Micah, but it certainly diminishes Matthew's validity as a "word of Gd". 

From 5:1, "and his origin is from old". The Hebrew grammer relates that this is not in the context of "everlasting" as most bibles (Christians) have translated it. From relates the bloodline of the claimed Jewish messiah.

Matthew pushes a "birthplace" as part of the prophecy fulfillment. Any solid analysis makes Matthew's assertion erroneous.

Peace

Andalus wrote: Abednego wrote: AbRah2006 wrote: OnE Of THE Prophecies Christians Use to Verify Jesus as the Messiah, Yet Clearly Fail: (1) "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."  Micah 5:2 The gospel of Matthew (Matthew 2:5-6) claims that Jesus� birth in Bethlehem fulfils this prophecy.  But this is unlikely for two reasons.     A) "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb�s second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chronicles 2:18, 2:50-52 & 4:4).     B) The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from Micah 5:6.  This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did.  It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this, intentionally no doubt, to make this verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan. Actually this is a distortion of the facts. You should be somewhat more careful with your exegesis. Let me help you out here: Ephrathit is the ancient name of Bethlehem in Judah ( see Gen 35:19, 48:7). Now examine 1 Samuel 17:12 12 Now David was the son of an Ephrathite named Jesse, who was from Bethlehem in Judah. Jesse had eight sons, and in Saul's time he was old and well advanced in years. You should note that Jesus was prophesized to be of the line of David and David was the son of an Ephrathite. One final point, In the first chapter of Ruth Vs 1-2 1 In the days when the judges ruled, there was a famine in the land, and a man from Bethlehem in Judah, together with his wife and two sons, went to live for a while in the country of Moab. 2 The man's name was Elimelech, his wife's name Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Kilion. They were Ephrathites from Bethlehem, Judah. And they went to Moab and lived there. Yet another case where inhabitants of Bethlehem are called Ephrathites. Notice Elimelech, Naomi, Mahlon and Kilion are called Epharthites from Bethlehem-Judah. So we know that David was the Son of an Ephrathite thus Jesus was an Ephrathite, by virtue of the fact he was of the live of David via Jesse.  It has also been demonstrated that Ephrathite is often used to refer to inhabitants of Bethlehem-Judah. You argument, while eloquent does not diminish Micah whatsoever. Abednego   Greetings Abednego. You did not go far enough in your response. Beit-lehem can refer to both, a place or a tribe. Christians insist it must be a place, because Matthew says so. A conclusion is only as good as its argument. The opening, "And you, House of Lehem Ephratah" uses a "you" that is second person masculin. For such an important prophecy dealing with the birthplace of Gd, I wonder why it was not in the second person femine, to denote a town? The Christian claim is that this was a prophecy fulfilled when Jesus was born in Bethlehem. With some analysis, it is not difficult to see that the verse in Micah is in reference to the messiah, and the place of birh is irrelevant for the context. It may not dimish Micah, but it certainly diminishes Matthew's validity as a "word of Gd".  From 5:1, "and his origin is from old". The Hebrew grammer relates that this is not in the context of "everlasting" as most bibles (Christians) have translated it. From relates the bloodline of the claimed Jewish messiah. Matthew pushes a "birthplace" as part of the prophecy fulfillment. Any solid analysis makes Matthew's assertion erroneous. Peace

Good Evening Andalus;

Jesus is God�s Word, Matthew is a book in a book.

This was one of the salient points paragraph 1 section B line 1, ii

The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from Micah 5:6.

So we can say you have been convinced or perhaps you didn�t agree with the original point. This is most exciting.

With some analysis, it is not difficult to see that the verse in Micah is in reference to the messiah, , and the place of birh is irrelevant for the context.

I think I may agree with you that the place of birth is irrelevent for the context, but that doesn't necessarily support your conclusion. Tonight, it matters not, at least we agree Micah 5:2 refers to the Messiah. What was it convinced that you? I need some sleep, see you tomorrow.

Regards,

Abednego

Abednego wrote: andalus wrote: Greetings Abednego. You did not go far enough in your response. Beit-lehem can refer to both, a place or a tribe. Christians insist it must be a place, because Matthew says so. A conclusion is only as good as its argument. The opening, "And you, House of Lehem Ephratah" uses a "you" that is second person masculin. For such an important prophecy dealing with the birthplace of Gd, I wonder why it was not in the second person femine, to denote a town? The Christian claim is that this was a prophecy fulfilled when Jesus was born in Bethlehem. With some analysis, it is not difficult to see that the verse in Micah is in reference to the messiah, and the place of birh is irrelevant for the context. It may not dimish Micah, but it certainly diminishes Matthew's validity as a "word of Gd".  From 5:1, "and his origin is from old". The Hebrew grammer relates that this is not in the context of "everlasting" as most bibles (Christians) have translated it. From relates the bloodline of the claimed Jewish messiah. Matthew pushes a "birthplace" as part of the prophecy fulfillment. Any solid analysis makes Matthew's assertion erroneous. Peace Good Evening Andalus; Jesus is God�s Word, Matthew is a book in a book.

Greetings!

Self asserted, suppositional, theological fodder.

abednego wrote: This was one of the salient points paragraph 1 section B line 1, ii The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from Micah 5:6. So we can say you have been convinced or perhaps you didn�t agree with the original point. This is most exciting.

The original point is that Matthew distorted a verse from Micah about a Messiah which is concerned about the bloodline, it was not a prophecy about a "birthplace". The bloodline of the Moshiac is not a big whoop, and is a wellk nown, established belief amongst Jews. 

abednego wrote:   With some analysis, it is not difficult to see that the verse in Micah is in reference to the messiah, , and the place of birh is irrelevant for the context. I think I may agree with you that the place of birth is irrelevent for the context, but that doesn't necessarily support your conclusion.

Actually it provides ample support to my conclusion.

1) Matthew claims that Micah gives a prophecy about the birthplace of the Messiah.

2) Christians claim Jesus was the Messiah.

3) Christians provide proof that Jesus was born in a particular place as stated in the prophecy to show he was the messiah.

4) Micah verse is about bloodline, birthplace being irrelevant.

Therefore, Matthew is in error. 

abednego wrote:  Tonight, it matters not, at least we agree Micah 5:2 refers to the Messiah. What was it convinced that you? I need some sleep, see you tomorrow. Regards, Abednego

Abednego wrote: I asked my wife, for some assistance with the grammatical analysis, on which you base your entire argument. Absent any compelling facts otherwise your conclusion may be considered valid. However, in your myopic excitement at the prospect of striking a blow to Matthew you failed to consider facts and attenpt to conceal facts in one case.

You seem to enjoy wasting a great deal of time with irrelevant diatribe, such that you can draw conclusions, however irrelevant, about how excited I might have been (though you must explain to all how you can deduce my emotional states from a contribution), or what my favorite food is, or the color of my eyes. It would be helpful if you could put forth your points and save us all time. Thanks.

abednego wrote:   You are correct on one point. The context is not the birthplace of the Messiah, nor is it clans. The context is a chastising of Jerusalem (a city). The birthplace is stated simply to contrast Jerusalem�s arrogance with little ole Bethlehem. The context does not support your conclusion.

Now your diatribe has meandered into the irrational. You stated above that I was correct that the verse is not about the birthplace, then later, you stated, "the birthplace is stated simply to contrast".

I think this one (reply) still needs work abed. Get back with me when you clear that up. Is it about the birthplace or not.

Arrogance with Bethlehem? That is the most absurd statement I have ever heard. I can't wait to see your wife's analysis to support this derranged claim.

abednego wrote:   First, your assumption that Micah 5; 1-2 must refer to a clan has absolutely no basis in the Old Testament. It is highlighted by your inability to point to a single other occurrence of Bethlehem referring to anything other than a town.  I expect you tried to find one and failed otherwise you would have pointed it up. Even your source at Messiah Truth failed to point a usage Bethlehem that refers to something other than a town or city.

I find that your use of extremely "juvenile" irrelevancies proves that you lack in suctance. This happens when we are "stuck", and from the look of your latest bit of "sophistry", it is obvious you are stuck.

1) My sources are given out at any synagogue. Being of Jewish blood and having experiences at such places, my resocures vary. Trying to isolate as to where my knoweldge comes from is really juvenile and desperate on your part. For the sake of argument, lets say I will copy, verbatim, everything from that particular site. Now what? 

2) Hebrew and Arabic are similar langauges, and it is not hard to see that if the verse was striclty about a town or city, it (grammer) would have shown this by giving the female of the gender when referring to it.

3) You stated, "First, your assumption that Micah 5; 1-2 must refer to a clan has absolutely no basis in the Old Testament. It is highlighted by your inability to point to a single other occurrence of Bethlehem referring to anything other than a town."

a) This is fallacy called a "Non sequitur". Simply put, it means "does not follow", which means the conclusion cannot be drawn from the premise. This does not say it is true or false, it simply means one cannot say either way. To clarify further, you asserted that Micah cannot refer to a clan because there is no occurence in the Hebrew Scriptures with this type of reference.

Claim: Micah 5:1-2 is about clan.

A:Assume as true that there is no reference in the entire Hebrew Scriptures to Bethlehem as a clan, other than this claimed case.

B: Therefore, you claim, 5:1-2 cannot be about a clan.

If A is true, then, can B be true? Sure. How about if A is false,can B be true? Yes. How about if A is false can B be false? You bet. Most importantly, if A is true, can B be false? (B being false would be that 5:1-2 is about a clan, contrary to B being true which would mean that 5:1-3 cannot be about a clan) You bet. The problem is that the last implication would be "false". This is related to the fallacy of a non sequitor, because B does not follow from A. You have no way of concluding B from A, nor are you able to conclude the contrary. One simply does not follow from the other.

Moving on.

b) The fact is, the Hebrew Scriptures does provide example of "Beit-lehem" as a reference to a tribe.    

1 Samuel 17:12 is a primary example of the use of the term, "House of Bread", in reference to a tribe.

(by the way, my source was a lecture I attended in the late 90's given by a well known Rabbi, and regardless of what site or what synagogue you go to, the explanation will not differ)

abednego wrote: Second, the Talmud is Judaism's holiest book (actually a collection of books). Its authority takes precedence over the Old Testament in Judaism. The Jerusalem Talmud, an older version than the Babylon Talmud predates the canon Matthew and states quite clearly that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehen. " The King Messiah... from where does he come forth? From the royal city of Bethlehem in Judah. " - Jerusalem Talmud, Berakoth 5a

Actually this is infactual. The Talmud contains, amongst other things, rabbinic writings and arguments for the derivation of law based upon oral sources and the Torah. It is used in conjunction with the Torah, and not primarily without the Torah. You are quoting a mssionary site as your statement is a common missionary howler.

Next, you are presenting a strawman agument, yet another logical fallacy, which seems to make up a growing list of fallacies that are the bases of your reply, instead of the "analysis" you lcaimed your wife made.

1) No one has argued that the Messiah cannot be born in Bethlehem. No one has argued that some Jews may or may not have a belief that Bethlehem will be a birthplace for the Messiah. In more simple terms, an opinion that some Jews may have held does not prove that the verse in question is about a birthplace.

2) The Jerusalem Talmud is held in a different light (lower in ranking as far as deriving religous rulings) than the Babylonian. (If you go into any Orthodox synagogue, and ask about the Talmud, you will be shown the Babylonian, not the Jerusalem Talmud.)

3) Your quoting of the Jerusalem Talmud is in great question, given you did not actually quote it, but instead, you quoted a quotaiton of it from a missionary website. Given that the Talmud contains religous argumenys, there is no way to tell if this is an accurate quote taken out of context.   

Abednego wrote: This is the oral tradition of the Jews, which takes precedence. At the very least some, if not all Jew of Jesus day fully expected the Messiah to be born in Bethlehem. Since Micah is a Messianic Prophecy (you have admitted such) and is the only Messianic Prophecy that mentions the Messiah would originate in Bethlehem. Where do you suppose they got that idea?

The Jerusalem Talmud is not on the same level as the Babylonian, and is considered flawed. By the way, there is only a 200 year difference between the two.

The Jewish oral tradition does not, in general, "take precendence". This is another of your self asserted distortions which you never back up with any actual facts.

Once more you are producing a strawman. The argument is not about a belief that might have been held by some Jews (which you have not proven, you have only parroted a quote from an unreliable source), the argument is that the verse in Micah is not a prophecy about birthplace.

1) Provide better evidence for you reference to the Jerusalem Talmud, besides a quote from a quote of a translation provided in an apologetic site.

2) Show that this was a general belief and then show how this belief renders Micah into a prophecy about birthplace. Once does not provide proof for the other.

nego wrote: You might ask you Jewish friends at Messiah Truth if they reject this statement of Talmud. I encourage you do so.

 

No need. All that needs ot be done is for you to review introductory logic, and then work on this a bit more.

Given the known innaccuracy of the Jerusalem Talmud, and given that if your missionary friends quoted correctly (I have yet to find a missionary website that has ever correctly quoted the Talmud), this does not prove that the Micah verse is rendered such that it speaks of a birthplace. You might ask your intellectually bankrupt missionary website if they can provide you with a stronger, sounder, and rational argument that relies more on a coherence and less on obfuscation.   

 

 

nego wrote: Third, I notice you and your source over at Messiah Truth go to great lengths to avoid the context. Even tough the theme is not focused on the birthplace of Messiah it destroys your point and credibility.

 

Your poor skills in critical thinking are convoluting your attempt to address the topic. I notice you try desperately to deflect from the point. I suppose this is evidence that your wife's "analysis" did not come through. I bring attention to your extremely "backward" statement that is devoid of any sense, " Even tough the theme is not focused on the birthplace of Messiah it destroys your point and credibility.". Since the claim of Matthew is that the prophecy is about the birthplace, and you now agree that it is not about birthplace, then you and I now agree that Matthew is wrong. Matthew's claim is at stake. If it is not about the  birthplace, then Matthew is wrong. It is that simple. No need to obfuscate any further. This is the point, and your various fallacies and convoluted distractions does not invalidate the conclusion if one understands that Micah is not about a brithplace, yet Matthew claims it is.

 

 

nego wrote:     All of chapter 4 including verse one of chapter 5 are directed at Jerusalem. Verse one of chapter 5 even mocks Jerusalem for thinking it can save itself with military prowess. It even points to a  siege. Suddenly, according to you, the interpretation mysteriously shifts (for only one verse, mind you) from cities to clans then back to cities.

 

Amazing, after agreeing that Micah is not about birthplace,now you are back to claiming it is about birhplace. Truly you are unable to make up your mind as to what you think. Instead of wasting my time, why not sit, ponder, and then decide just exactly what it is you believe and why, then get back with me? If you want to frutehr debate Micha, I would be happy. But it is hard to do when you are unable to decide what it is you think. And yet another part of your reply that is in need of "work".

 

nego wrote:   My analysis of this non-sense stands. Your grammatical analysis while it may be accurate in a purely literary sense is not supported by: Jewish Interpretation of the Old Testament,  the context, or a single other usage. Thus I can say; while I agree with the grammatical analysis it does not support the conclusion.

Perhaps I overlooked your reply. Could you point out your "analysis"? I seem to have missed it. Perhaps you forgot to include it?

Your inability, or refusal, to follow through to my conclusion is puzzeling.

1) Micah is about a clan. (supported by any look at the Grammer)

2) Matthew quotes Micah to support the author's claim.

3) The author's claim is that the prophecy was about birthplace.

4) Matthew is in error.

I hope you can apprciate the time that was taken to "spell" out the problems with your reply, and the fallacies that they rested upon. I also hope that you are able to decide what you actually believe about Micah. I also hope you spend less time trying to complain about potential sources, and stick to the point of the thread.

Hope This Helps.

Peace