Micah 5:2, Jesus to be born in Bethlehem. Was this correct?
So far, we've had 2 debates regarding Old Testament passages purported as prophecies that passages from the Gospels (or elsewhere in the New Testament) fulfilled concerning Jesus as the Messiah. Based upon: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt151898.html
the purpose of the original post was to persuade Jews that Jesus was the Messiah that their religion had told them to anticipate. So far, the outcome has been Christians zero, Jews (and atheists) two.
The third one concerns Micah 5:2
This passage is taken to foretell that Jesus was going to be born in Bethlehem, based upon
Luke 2:4-11
There were some shepherds in that part of the country who were spending the night in the fields, taking care of their flocks. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone over them. They were terribly afraid, but the angel said to them, "Don't be afraid! I am here with good news for you, which will bring great joy to all the people. This very day in David's town your Savior was born Christ the Lord!"
and John 7:42
So, what do you think? Did Micah accurately predict that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem? Or what?
I say again, I was not there.
The governor cannot find the original birth certificate.
Ask his parents.
Does it matter?
If so, why? and to whom?
---------------------
If you do EVERY verse in the bible, and people keep responding, how long will that take and how many electrons will be chopped down?
Sad to say, but I've never seen Philologos make any good argument that would make one reconsider things.
As for Micah, all one has to do is read it within the full context and see for oneself how Jesus could not have been that ruler from Bethlehem. The disciples of Jesus twisted the meanings of various verses/passages in the Old Testament Scriptures for the sake of Messianic lies.
So far, we seem to be refuting the core beliefs of Christianity, and revealing Christianity to be so much poppycock.
Ah. Okay. No clearer on your base agenda, but more sense of where this persona is aiming.
That helps.
Well, let me see.
I do not wish to believe that. Don't particularly wish to believe anything. Times when I have wished I could believe anything, it has not worked well for me. I do better with the beliefs that sell themselves to me - and I am not an easy sell.
Jesus - I am not that interested in who he was. Pretty familiar with the level of documentation, only so far you can take it without a time machine. The prophecies - well some people get into those and I am happy for them, but nobody did even what they do for the new Dalai Lama. They did not follow the prophecies to identify the Messiah, they fingered Jesus as the Messiah and found prophecies that could work. At least the Wise Guys incident, if we trust the report, used an actual sign instead of casting a horoscope years later.
No, my interest in Jesus is pretty much focussed on who he is. Much more interesting, more current relevance, and better data.
And of course it is - I hope it shows - not my goal to convert Old Testament-believing Jews to Christianity. I would like to see non-believiing Jews believing, but I am not about to mount a campaign. I am glad to see anybody coming in to Christianity, of course. But unless I am specifically told to pass a word to person, it is not my job to convert anybody to anything. That is God's pidgin [pun: pigeon - dove - spirit - get it?]
I do not want to convert you to grilled cheese sandwiches, or Spam, or Algonguian Linguistics, or Baroque music, or anything. Except maybe appropriate use of language and sincere dispassionate discussion.
Matthew and Luke both put Jesus' birthplace as Bethlehem.
According to Matthew, it looks like Joseph and Mary were already living there. They then went to Egypt to evade Herod's massacre of the infant boys, and later decided to take up residence in Nazareth.
According to Luke, Joseph and Mary were originally from Nazareth, and went to Bethlehem for the Roman Census, because that's where Joseph's ancestor David had been born several hundred years earlier. There was no massacre of little boys, and Joseph and Mary just went back home to Nazareth.
It looks to me like Christians were just making up Bethlehem as a birthplace in order to make it appear that the prophecy of Micah was true.
Re-reading Micah--it appears to have been written about the time that Judah was being beseiged by the Assyrians, or possibly during the Babylonian captivity. If Judah subsequently had a king who was born in Bethlehem--I haven't been able to figure this one out, yet. Does anyone know?
Reading further around the relevant verse:
Micah 5
The Lord says, "Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are one of the smallest towns in Judah, but out of you I will bring a ruler for Israel, whose family line goes back to ancient times."
So the Lord will abandon his people to their enemies until the woman who is to give birth has her son. Then those Israelites who are in exile will be reunited with their own people. When he comes, he will rule his people with the strength that comes from the Lord and with the majesty of the Lord God himself. His people will live in safety because people all over the earth will acknowledge his greatness, and he will bring peace.
When the Assyrians invade our country and break through our defenses, we will send our strongest leaders to fight them. By force of arms they will conquer Assyria, the land of Nimrod, and they will save us from the Assyrians when they invade our territory. The people of Israel who survive will be like refreshing dew sent by the Lord for many nations, like showers on growing plants. They will depend on God, not people. Those who are left among the nations will be like a lion hunting for food in a forest or a pasture: it gets in among the sheep, pounces on them, and tears them to pieces and there is no hope of rescue. Israel will conquer her enemies and destroy them all.
The Lord says, "At that time I will take away your horses and destroy your chariots. I will destroy the cities in your land and tear down all your defenses. I will destroy the magic charms you use and leave you without any fortunetellers. I will destroy your idols and sacred stone pillars; no longer will you worship the things that you yourselves have made. I will pull down the images of the goddess Asherah in your land and destroy your cities. And in my great anger I will take revenge on all nations that have not obeyed me.
I think that Matthew and Luke were doing a bit of cherry-picking of apparent Old Testament prophecies to try to make Jesus look like the Jewish Messiah, and invented narratives to place his birth in Bethlehem.
I think that Bethlehem is presently in West Bank, and if this prophecy were to be fulfilled today, then the coming Messiah would have to be a Palestinian.
Also, the Jewish people didn't quite live in safety after Jesus was born. In fact, it was quite the opposite.
According to Matthew, it looks like Joseph and Mary were already living there. They then went to Egypt to evade Herod's massacre of the infant boys, and later decided to take up residence in Nazareth.
According to Luke, Joseph and Mary were originally from Nazareth, and went to Bethlehem for the Roman Census, because that's where Joseph's ancestor David had been born several hundred years earlier. There was no massacre of little boys, and Joseph and Mary just went back home to Nazareth.
It looks to me like Christians were just making up Bethlehem as a birthplace in order to make it appear that the prophecy of Micah was true.
not mentioning something =/= saying something didn't happen. Many of the supposed "contradictions" people claim are not contradictions at all. Just because Luke didn't mention the massacre doesn't mean it didn't happen. Just because Matthew didn't mention the census doesn't mean that's not why Mary and Joseph where in bethleham.
Something as big as a massacre is not something that should be overlooked, if it did happen.
Looking again at Matthew: David, Solomon, Rehoboam and Abijah are listed among Joseph's ancestors. So, there are important differences in Joseph's ancestry between Matthew and Luke. Which does amount to important contradictions.
Matthew 1
Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3 and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram, [1] 4 and Ram the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5 and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, 6 and Jesse the father of David the king.
And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, 7 and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asaph, [2] 8 and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah, 9 and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10 and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos, [3] and Amos the father of Josiah, 11 and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.
12 And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel, [4] and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13 and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, and Abiud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor, 14 and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud, 15 and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.
17 So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.
not really, no. There probably were not that many male children at the required age in Bethlehem at the time, and Herod was always killing people. there is no reason to believe that if the massacre happened, it would have been mentioned in every gospel.
And the same person is sometimes referred to by two different names for one reason or another in the Bible. Some of the most obvious examples are Jacob/Israel and Simon/Peter