-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
See my response on the Trinity topic.
Let's have a discussion on the virgin birth
Posts
Total:
124
-->
@rosends
If.
Then J was the son of a GOD born of a surrogate mother and was therefore neither Jewish nor Chinese.
Unless you are saying that J is a fraud, and is actually the son of two human beings.
-->
@zedvictor4
The question of J's existence is a valid one. And if he existed, there is, indeed, the problem of parentage, lineage and heritage.
-->
@zedvictor4
Just to clarify the Jewish understanding via Jewish law:
1. The messiah must be, on his father's side, from the tribe of Judah and the Davidic line. Jewish law does not consider the mother's line for tribal identity (which is different from tribal inheritance, which can consider the mother in rare cases)
2. Judaism has no laws of adoption. It just isn't a thing in Jewish law. A convert has no tribe. A secularly adopted child does not change his tribal identity.
3. There is no precedent for God arbitrarily saying, "hey you...you are now from the tribe of X"
So if J existed and was God's son and not Joseph's then he had no tribal identity (nor Davidic lineage). He could not have been "adopted" tribally by Joseph. He would therefore not have had the qualification in terms of his ancestry. If he was the son of two humans (and one was Joseph, not a Roman soldier who raped Mary) then he would have tribal lineage and his inability to be considered the messianic leader the Jews were looking for would have been accounted for by other reasons.
-->
@rosends
Being jewish would make a great " platform " to mock christians from.
When i think of jewdaisum. i think of the first.
Of course there was religion before but.
The " earlier "the group you are in. The smarter it is.
Well not the smarter.
But ummm.
Its a better argument
Why? Dunno.,
Hey roesbud old pal.
Can you give me the name of two religions / religious groups before jewdaisum ?
When it comes to getting a group up and running.
Monotheism shines.
Imagin the toll of having gods like the Hindus. Worshipping cows and six arm ghouls.
Or even worse
Imagine having like Roman gods that you had to lie to yourself to make yourself believe.
Thunderbolts and lighting gods
It's to hectic.
Again , when it comes to ( getting a group up and running ) for that is what is happening.
Mono o'clock.
Having One god marries up perfectly with commandment #1.
But thats a totally different post topic.
WERE WHERE WE ?
OH THATS RIGHT. ▪°•¤▪°• °•¤▪°•¤°▪•¤ VIRGINS ▪°•¤▪°•¤▪°•¤▪°•¤▪°¤▪°•¤
Virgins having babies.
I think the best info for what really happened can be found in a Christmas carol or two.
CHRISTMAS CAROLS taught me everything i know about the jesus
Pa rum pa pa pum.
When i think of jewdaisum. i think of the first.
Of course there was religion before but.
The " earlier "the group you are in. The smarter it is.
Well not the smarter.
But ummm.
Its a better argument
Why? Dunno.,
Hey roesbud old pal.
Can you give me the name of two religions / religious groups before jewdaisum ?
When it comes to getting a group up and running.
Monotheism shines.
Imagin the toll of having gods like the Hindus. Worshipping cows and six arm ghouls.
Or even worse
Imagine having like Roman gods that you had to lie to yourself to make yourself believe.
Thunderbolts and lighting gods
It's to hectic.
Again , when it comes to ( getting a group up and running ) for that is what is happening.
Mono o'clock.
Having One god marries up perfectly with commandment #1.
But thats a totally different post topic.
WERE WHERE WE ?
OH THATS RIGHT. ▪°•¤▪°• °•¤▪°•¤°▪•¤ VIRGINS ▪°•¤▪°•¤▪°•¤▪°•¤▪°¤▪°•¤
Virgins having babies.
I think the best info for what really happened can be found in a Christmas carol or two.
CHRISTMAS CAROLS taught me everything i know about the jesus
Pa rum pa pa pum.
Oh and can i get 5 seconds of silence in thought of the mind of the man ( one of the original, " MAKER "" UPPER " " ERS " of a group called the christians.
who made jesus " jewish " king jew.
To link them up, and collect a bonus chunk of religious texts to boot was very very smart indeed.
It was soooo smart that even the Muslims had a go at it. Aka prophet jesus.
Acknowledgment of ( Freaky far out stuff. ) then adding stuff that can now enter into the realm of freaky far out stuff.
Very Very smart. ( for getting a group up and running. )
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
You asked about names of religions that predate Judaism. I happen to see a post elsewhere that mentioned Zoroastrianism and Hinduism, but I'm no expert on the matter.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Remember that Dr Oz, the Republican candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania is a Muslim.
14 days later
Virgin births are definitely possible. Ever hear of a turkey baster?
-->
@Danielle
Not sure if either turkeys or their basters were prevalent in the Middle East 2000 years ago.
Though I suppose that a hollow bit of reed or something similar would have sufficed.
Certainly A.I. (not intelligence) would not have been a difficult concept to work out.
Though come to think of it, GODDO the omni one, would no doubt have had a fitted kitchen with all the necessary gadgets.
I expect that when he has all the top Angels around for a dinner party, he often throws a Turkey into the oven, basting regularly.
Makes a change from boring old manna.
The virgin birth was one of the signs so that people can know that a certain individual is indeed the messiah? It does not make any sense.
Imagine you are Jew, say, in the year 29 CE. You met someone named Jesus of Nazareth, a Messiah claimant. How could you know that he was born virgin? Prophecies are to be observed so that you can detect it occurred. How could I be watching each and every newborn and say "it is from virgin".
This prophecy is never verifiable for outsiders, but then how is that a prophecy? :)
-->
@Pat_Johnson
True dat.
-->
@Pat_Johnson
The virgin birth was one of the signs so that people can know that a certain individual is indeed the messiah? It does not make any sense.Imagine you are Jew, say, in the year 29 CE. You met someone named Jesus of Nazareth, a Messiah claimant. How could you know that he was born virgin? Prophecies are to be observed so that you can detect it occurred. How could I be watching each and every newborn and say "it is from virgin".This prophecy is never verifiable for outsiders, but then how is that a prophecy? :)
Hi Pat,
Actually the bible does not use the virgin birth as one of the signs "so that people can know that a certain individual is indeed the Messiah". People in Jesus' time in the main were not aware of the passage from the OT. Some were. But not the main. Some of the scholars (around the time of Herod the Great) knew the approximate time of the Messiah's birth and the region he was to be born. Presumably, they along with most of the ordinary people in Jesus time were aware of the approximate time of his coming - (this explains why everyone was expecting a messiah at that time) but what was generally known is that the messiah would be of David's line and born in David's town - Bethlehem. Hence the often heard cry, Son of David.
The virgin birth is used by the writers of Matthew and Luke to demonstrate the validity of Jesus as the Messiah using ancient prophecy. This wasn't however something necessarily know to the ordinary person - but probably only to the readers of the OT (Greek version). How many could read? I don't know.
Hence, your scenario is quite apt - especially if the virgin birth was being used to verify Jesus as the Messiah. In fact, Mary his mother was often with Jesus, so she could testify to it. Yet, I doubt she ever did - except to Joseph her husband, Elizabeth her cousin and possibly Jesus and the writers of the gospels. Sometimes it suggested Jesus never referred to the Virgin Birth. And in one sense - a strictly literal reading of the gospels this is true. Yet it is also clear from the passages that Jesus was very much aware of it - since he assumed and proclaimed that God the Father was his Father. That his home was not on this planet - and that his kingdom was not of this earth. His very message conveyed the idea that his father was not Joseph, a human father, but that his real father was a divine one. It also is evidenced in his baptism by John the Baptist as priest. Jesus was a Judean. Not a Levite. Why would he be ordained to be a priest unless - both John the Baptist and Jesus both knew his lineage was unique?
I have a sneaking suspicion - not one based in the NT that his family all knew. I doubt it was hidden. Yet, probably not too widely advertised because of how ludicrous and improbably and foolish sounded.
It actually didn't need to be verified to prove his messiahship. It was already done so in the Prophecies - that is all that was required.
-->
@Tradesecret
Hi Pat,Actually the bible does not use the virgin birth as one of the signs "so that people can know that a certain individual is indeed the Messiah".
Hi.
The bible uses none of all those alleged prophecies as "so that people can know that a certain individual is the messiah". That is a common sense, that is why NT writers often invented them.
People in Jesus' time in the main were not aware of the passage from the OT. Some were. But not the main. Some of the scholars (around the time of Herod the Great) knew the approximate time of the Messiah's birth and the region he was to be born. Presumably, they along with most of the ordinary people in Jesus time were aware of the approximate time of his coming - (this explains why everyone was expecting a messiah at that time) but what was generally known is that the messiah would be of David's line and born in David's town - Bethlehem. Hence the often heard cry, Son of David.The virgin birth is used by the writers of Matthew and Luke to demonstrate the validity of Jesus as the Messiah using ancient prophecy. This wasn't however something necessarily know to the ordinary person - but probably only to the readers of the OT (Greek version). How many could read? I don't know.
Matt Dillahunty famously said "claims are not evidences". The cherry picked gospels do portray the people of the time and the geography as you put it here, but that is all. What other evidence do we have that the experts of the Old Testament of the time were indeed anticipating a messiah during that eon?
I mean, read the Talmud etc of the eon preceeding and coinciding with the approximate era of Jesus - has any of them expecting messiah, say Talmudic accounts of 50 BCE saying "it is forecasted that the messiah is to come with-in 50-100 years"?
Hence, your scenario is quite apt - especially if the virgin birth was being used to verify Jesus as the Messiah. In fact, Mary his mother was often with Jesus, so she could testify to it. Yet, I doubt she ever did - except to Joseph her husband, Elizabeth her cousin and possibly Jesus and the writers of the gospels.
No no no. You make it even worse.
The scenario that is apt is actually the scenario of the gospel Matthew is accused of having written.
But the bolded part makes it even worse. Do you really think Mary opened her genitals and displayed it to the gospel writers so that they can testify she really was virgin?
A medic shall help us: would she stay virgin even after giving birth? Would that childbirth not destroy virginity? Iwoud guess It does not need to be destroyed externally, I think even an internal blow like begetting a child could destroy it.
It actually didn't need to be verified to prove his messiahship. It was already done so in the Prophecies - that is all that was required.
To begin with, there is no even a single prophecy Jesus matches but let us ignore it.
It would need to be verified. After all, as you yourself put it here, the prophecies are to verify the claim and Matthew shows this virgin birth as a prophecy to have been fullfilled by Jesus. So, it does need to be verified.
But it would be a very funny, ridiculous and hilarious prophecy if it really was.
-->
@Pat_Johnson
To begin with, there is no even a single prophecy Jesus matches but let us ignore it.
No let's not ignore this little gem of yours. Here is a list I found in Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine by a theologian I don't even agree with most of the time. I also think some of these are perhaps a bit of a stretch. Yet to say that not EVEN one of these was fulfilled is a much bigger stretch. More than that - it is simply untrue.
Genesis 3:15, born of a the seed of a woman, Galatians 4:4.
Genesis 12:2-3, born of the seed of Abraham, Matthew 1:1.
Genesis 17:19, born of the seed of Isaac, Matthew 1:2.
Numbers 24:17, born of the seed of Jacob, Matthew 1:2.
Genesis 49:10, Descended from the tribe of Judah, Luke 3:33,
Isaiah 9:7 heir to the throne of David, Luke 1:32-33
Daniel 9:25, time for Jesus' birth, Luke 2:1-2
Isaiah 7:14, born of a virgin, Luke 1:26-27
Micah 5:2, born in Bethlehem, Luke 2:4-7
Jeremiah 31:15, Slaughter of the innocents, Matthew 2:16-18
Hosea 11:1 Flight to Egypt, Matthew 2:14-15
Isaiah 40:3-5, Malachi 3:1, preceded by a forerunner, Lukw 7:24,27
Psalm 2:7, Declared the Son of God, Matthew 3:16-17
Isaiah 61:1-2, Came to heal the broken hearted, Luke 4:18-19
Isaiah 53:3, rejected by his own people, John 1:11
Psalm 110:4 A priest after the order of Melchizedek, Hebrews 5:5-6
Zechariah 9:9, the Triumphal entry, Mark 11:7, 9, 11
Psalm 41:9, betrayed by a friend, Luke 22:47
Zechariah 11:12-13, Sold for 30 pieces of silver, Matthew 26:15, 27:5-7
Psalm 33:11, accused by false witnesses, Mark 14:57-58
Isaiah 53:7, silent to accusers, Mark 15:4
Isaiah 50:6, spat upon and smitten, Matthew 26:67
Psalm 35:19, hated without reason, John 15:24,25
Isaiah 53:5, vicarious sacrifice, Romans 5:6,8
Isaiah 53:12, crucified with transgressors, Mark 15:27, 28
Zechariah 12:10, hands pierced, John 20: 27
Psalm 22L7-8, scorned and mocked, Luke 23:35
Psalm 69: 21, Given vinegar and gall, Matthew 27:34
Psalm 109:4, prayed for his enemies, Luke 23:34
Psalm 22:18, soldiers gambled for his coat, Matthew 27:35
Psalm 34:20, no bones broken, John 19:32-33, 36
Zechariah 12:10, side pierced, John 19:34
Isaiah 53:9, buried with the rich, Matthew 27:57-60
Psalm 16:10, 49:15, would rise from the dead, Mark 16:6-7
Psalm 68:18, would ascend to God's right hand, Mark 16:19
I will return to the rest of your post when I have a moment.
-->
@Tradesecret
these would only be useful if each (or any) of them was a messianic prophecy. But if they aren't then they aren't fulfilled by anyone or anything. Jesus was (if he existed and the stories are to be believed) a Jew, and one who endorsed the Pharisaic understanding of the religion. I can list four prophecies that the Pharisaic system sees as clearly messianic if you would like (though, now that I think of it, I could show you 5) and none of them was fulfilled in, by or through Jesus. This list is just a series of verses chosen because they can be applied to the stories of Jesus. That doesn't make them messianic prophecies, just retconned verses.
-->
@Tradesecret
No let's not ignore this little gem of yours. Here is a list I found in Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine by a theologian I don't even agree with most of the time. I also think some of these are perhaps a bit of a stretch. Yet to say that not EVEN one of these was fulfilled is a much bigger stretch. More than that - it is simply untrue.
It would be better for YOU if it was ignored. All of them are either a mistranslation or taken out of context. Jesus fullfills none. IF you want, we can debate them in the debate section (but of course time limit may not allow me to elaborate on all of them. If you want, we can select 5 and have them elaborated on 1 debate). So, I skip it. As you touched this point in this post of yours, let me give you quick demonstrations of that. Here, you mention Micah 5:2 among the list of the prophecies suppposedly fulfilled by Jesus.
Micah 5:2, born in Bethlehem, Luke 2:4-7
Here is Micah 5:2: "“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans[b] of Judah, but of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”"
Even when the verse is taken out of context, Jesus still fails.
The verse talks of someone who will rule over Israel. Jesus never ruled over Israel or anywhere else except in the dreamland of Jesus and his followers where he had Platonic kingdom.
To assert someone matches this verse, that someone must have ruled over Israel. But if you read the verse in context, that to-be-born-in-Bettlehem of Micah 5:2 was to be peace when Assyrians invade Israel. Micah 5:5: "And he will be our peace when the Assyrians invade our land and march through our fortresses. We will raise against them seven shepherds, even eight commanders," If you read the verse in context, Micah 5:2 is talking of a military leader, which Jesus never was.
Or Isaiah 9:7: "Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this."
When did Jesus have such government? Did Jesus reign on David's throne?Only someone who reigned on the throne of David and established neverlasting peace can be claimed to match this. Jesus died almost 2000 years ago and world never had peace till now - Jesus does not match it.
Jesus matching a prophecy is the most common myth ever. 1/3 of the world believes it due to being brainraped to believe so since the time they are born.
-->
@rosends
Excellent - what are these four or five prophecies?
-->
@Pat_Johnson
If you had read my words prior to listing these examples, you would have noted that even I thought the theologian listing these was stretching in some cases. Yet to DENY any and all of them is just being silly. Your assertion that every one of them is either taken out of context or mistranslated is coming from a place of prejudice, not understanding.
The passage you selected from Micah is a good example of your prejudice. The passage is referring to Bethlehem as the place where the messiah would be born. This is where the religious scribes of Herod and indeed most of Israel understood the birth of the Messiah was going to be.
Herod was concerned that this messiah was going to rule politically.
The prophecy then is whether the messiah was born in Bethlehem -not whether specifically he was going to be the rule of a political kingdom of Israel. Ruling is actually a separate prophecy. But surely you knew that!
Messiah is not specifically a political figure. Yes, it could be, I suppose, but not specifically. It is true that many Jewish people then and sadly many fundamental Christians do the same thing in our time, think that messiah is a political figure. Yet the Bible is not primarily about politics. Yes, it speaks to it at times. As it does to a whole range of subjects. Yet, primarily the messiah was to be a figure who was spiritual and a voice of God. I acknowledge that the today's modern Jews might disagree with this.
Now you may not believe or care about the church. Yet the church, and every Christian denomination in this world declares that Jesus is the king of the church. This whether you agree is a good thing or not is a very large organisation - which is larger than any country in the world today. It is a kingdom. Yes, it has its share of corruption. It is often divided on some issues. It often fights with each other and the world. Yet, it is a kingdom. To deny this is to put your head in the ground and say - "I can't see anything". You may say "he is dead" if he ever existed. You may say - we just can't go and see him. That is a different question. The first one I disagree with completely. I hold to the FACT that Jesus is alive. Not in faith - although faith is part of it I concede. Yet, the facts for his resurrection from the dead is from all of the possible and plausible alternatives - the best fit of all of the evidence. In relation to the second part, it is true that we cannot just go and beg an audience with Jesus face to face. Yet, I don't have any issue with delegation even if you do. I can't just walk into the Queen's office to talk to her. I can't just walk into the president's office. To do so requires lots of authority. To walk into the office of the king of kings is not straightforward either. As Christians we can enter into his throne room in prayer. Yet, otherwise it is going to be a lot more difficult. Again I note the differences - but do not concede that such differences prevent it from being a kingdom.
This kingdom - spiritual kingdom - has been ongoing for at least 2000 years and will continue on as the largest religion in this world until at least halfway through this century. Maybe longer. History has a strange way of doing things.
I do not want to debate you or any other person. I have had just two debates while on this forum. On both occasions, either I or the other person were unable to actually attend the entire debate for other reasons. Hence I won one by default and I lost the other by default. Both were interesting questions to debate but unfortunately - due to the practicalities of running a debate over an extended period of time with deadlines - makes such debates in my view - unhelpful - if fun for a moment. I am happy to discuss this on the forum or even by pm if you prefer. I am quite busy most of the time. And have become increasingly so over the past couple of months. I rarely even visit this site at the moment.
Yet I appreciate your comments. It is sometimes rare to find people who will discuss without resorting to name calling.
-->
@Tradesecret
We can start with the 4 classic ones which have to be fulfilled in order for us to know that the person is, indeed, the promised king messiah (he doesn't get that title before these are fulfilled).
-He must build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28)
-He must gather all the Jews back to the Land of Israel (Is. 43:5-6)
- He must usher in an era of world peace and bring an end to hatred, oppression, suffering and disease (Is. 2:4)
- He must spread the knowledge of the G-d of Israel, uniting the entire world as one (Zechariah 14:9)
-->
@rosends
-He must build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28)
But failed.
-He must gather all the Jews back to the Land of Israel (Is. 43:5-6)
But failed
- He must usher in an era of world peace and bring an end to hatred, oppression, suffering and disease (Is. 2:4)
But failed.
- He must spread the knowledge of the G-d of Israel, uniting the entire world as one (Zechariah 14:9)
But failed again.
AND, it seems, the Reverend ' tradey' Munchausen was made in the image of a complete failure.
-->
@Tradesecret
even I thought the theologian listing these was stretching in some cases.
That is why I proposed to pick 5 of them and debate that 5 in particularbut as you opt to not debate it due to your busy schedule, we can discuss and assess it here (on forums) but not 5 of course. It is better to go 1 by 1.
Yet to DENY any and all of them is just being silly. Your assertion that every one of them is either taken out of context or mistranslated is coming from a place of prejudice, not understanding.
To think even 1 of them is matched by Jesus is based on imposed popular myths, not understanding. It is open to be discussed. 9 years ago, I have analysed all of such assertions, like from 365prophecies.com etc. I discovered even thousands of assertions.
The passage you selected from Micah is a good example of your prejudice. The passage is referring to Bethlehem as the place where the messiah would be born. This is where the religious scribes of Herod and indeed most of Israel understood the birth of the Messiah was going to be.
Jesus does not match that whomever it is talking about: In order to claim someone matches Micah 5:2, that someone must have ruled over Israel because the verse talks about someone who will rule over israel will be born in Bethlehem.
The prophecy then is whether the messiah was born in Bethlehem -not whether specifically he was going to be the rule of a political kingdom of Israel. Ruling is actually a separate prophecy. But surely you knew that!
The one that is stated to be born in Betlehem in Micah 5:2 is, in the same verse, said to rule over Israel. Both of these attributes belong to the same person. To claim someone matches it, someone must have had both of them: 1) Born in Betlehem 2) Ruled Israel
Messiah is not specifically a political figure. Yes, it could be, I suppose, but not specifically.
Messiah beig political or apolitical has nothing to do with Jesus matching or failing to match the verse.
Now you may not believe or care about the church. Yet the church, and every Christian denomination in this world declares that Jesus is the king of the church. This whether you agree is a good thing or not is a very large organisation - which is larger than any country in the world today. It is a kingdom. ...This kingdom - spiritual kingdom - has been ongoing for at least 2000 years and will continue on as the largest religion in this world until at least halfway through this century. Maybe longer. History has a strange way of doing things.
The verse is talking about RULER OF ISRAEL, not ruler of a Platonic, spiritual or some kind of international institution.
Now, I may seem non-constructive in these writings of mine but my intention is to make people realise that prophecies Jesus is asserted to have fulfilled are distortions. Such seemingly minor details (like Kingdom of Church vs Ruler of Israel) are important nuances to realise them.
-->
@Tradesecret
PARTHENOGENESIS
-->
@rosends
We can start with the 4 classic ones which have to be fulfilled in order for us to know that the person is, indeed, the promised king messiah (he doesn't get that title before these are fulfilled).-He must build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28)-He must gather all the Jews back to the Land of Israel (Is. 43:5-6)- He must usher in an era of world peace and bring an end to hatred, oppression, suffering and disease (Is. 2:4)- He must spread the knowledge of the G-d of Israel, uniting the entire world as one (Zechariah 14:9)
Hi rosends,
As always you provide interesting information.
Before we commence looking at these prophecies, a couple of things, firstly, can you provide your source for where the messiah does not get his title before these things are completely fulfilled. I assume you mean totally and absolutely fulfilled. And secondly, is it not within the purview of the Jewish religion to see someone as the messiah elect, like some of the king elects, prior to assuming the kingdom. For example, within the Ancient Hebrew kingdom, some kings were kings at the same time as their father and in at least one case, their grandfather. This also occurred in other nations such as Babylon. Hence, my question is - if someone was potentially the messiah and was in part fulfilling these prophecies, would it be incorrect to name that person as the Messiah, meaning not has completed all things necessary to obtain that title, yet is so far on the way that we have every indication that this person is indeed the messiah.
Furthermore, what does the name messiah mean?
Once you have addressed these questions, then given the information, and what you mean, then perhaps we can address further.
-->
@Pat_Johnson
even I thought the theologian listing these was stretching in some cases.That is why I proposed to pick 5 of them and debate that 5 in particularbut as you opt to not debate it due to your busy schedule, we can discuss and assess it here (on forums) but not 5 of course. It is better to go 1 by 1.Yet to DENY any and all of them is just being silly. Your assertion that every one of them is either taken out of context or mistranslated is coming from a place of prejudice, not understanding.To think even 1 of them is matched by Jesus is based on imposed popular myths, not understanding. It is open to be discussed. 9 years ago, I have analysed all of such assertions, like from 365prophecies.com etc. I discovered even thousands of assertions.The passage you selected from Micah is a good example of your prejudice. The passage is referring to Bethlehem as the place where the messiah would be born. This is where the religious scribes of Herod and indeed most of Israel understood the birth of the Messiah was going to be.Jesus does not match that whomever it is talking about: In order to claim someone matches Micah 5:2, that someone must have ruled over Israel because the verse talks about someone who will rule over israel will be born in Bethlehem.The prophecy then is whether the messiah was born in Bethlehem -not whether specifically he was going to be the rule of a political kingdom of Israel. Ruling is actually a separate prophecy. But surely you knew that!The one that is stated to be born in Betlehem in Micah 5:2 is, in the same verse, said to rule over Israel. Both of these attributes belong to the same person. To claim someone matches it, someone must have had both of them: 1) Born in Betlehem 2) Ruled IsraelMessiah is not specifically a political figure. Yes, it could be, I suppose, but not specifically.Messiah beig political or apolitical has nothing to do with Jesus matching or failing to match the verse.Now you may not believe or care about the church. Yet the church, and every Christian denomination in this world declares that Jesus is the king of the church. This whether you agree is a good thing or not is a very large organisation - which is larger than any country in the world today. It is a kingdom. ...This kingdom - spiritual kingdom - has been ongoing for at least 2000 years and will continue on as the largest religion in this world until at least halfway through this century. Maybe longer. History has a strange way of doing things.The verse is talking about RULER OF ISRAEL, not ruler of a Platonic, spiritual or some kind of international institution.Now, I may seem non-constructive in these writings of mine but my intention is to make people realise that prophecies Jesus is asserted to have fulfilled are distortions. Such seemingly minor details (like Kingdom of Church vs Ruler of Israel) are important nuances to realise them.
I'm not sure why you seem to think this might be non-constructive. You didn't actually raise anything to refute any of what I said.
At the moment, you are doing what you suggest of others, asserting. Assertions is not evidence.
Obviously, these things are open to discussion, hence the name of the topic. But given that it is a subject open to discussion, means ipso facto, that NO ONE can demonstrate on either side of the discussion, the other side is wrong. Or simply based on popular myth. That would be to put the cart before the horse. Now having an opinion is one thing. Asserting it is truth is another.
Your 9 years of research is helpful for you. It however is not authoritative for anyone else. (Just Saying)
Micah 2 for instance has a couple of prophecies contained within it. One is that the person - whoever it is must be born in Bethlehem. Another one as you have pointed out is that they must rule "Israel". They are two separate - although related - but clearly separate as well. Many people have ruled Israel that were not born in Bethlehem. Think of all the kings including Herod who have ruled Israel.
I would also suggest that "ruling Israel" is a term that may have many interpretations. If the term is simply politically and nothing more, then some might have a point about whether Jesus is valid or not. If he was not crowned as king in Jerusalem and had his royal office, then any so called ruling is clearly called into question. I would suggest that is a simplistic reading of it.
Messiah is clearly more than a political figure - (if he is even considered one at all) he is also the representative of God, a spiritual being. His ruling will of necessity be in line with whatever God would perceive, not necessarily a human point of view. It is interesting that Jewish History prior to the appointments of kings to the land had people - judges - who ruled but were not kings. Ruling in that sense was not as a king - but as a judge ruling. Not at all the same as our judges in our modern world. They were figures that God raised up for such a time as they were in. Were they anointed? Yet they were considered rulers? Jesus according to the gospel stories had quite a following - disciples - and many would say he arose in a time that was needed for what the "rulers" and judges were about.
In the Gospels stories for that matter, we also had Pilot, Rome's man in Israel. A very powerful man. He according to the Gospels, spoke with Jesus - and after hearing Jesus declare he himself was a king, though not of this world, seemed to become quite wary of this man. The words he commanded to be written and placed upon Jesus' head on the cross - were "this man is the King of the Jews" are significant. Of course the Jewish leaders - at least the religious ones said - Jesus is not our king, just write, this man says he is the king of the Jews.". Obviously this same question you are raising - was being debated back then in both the political world and the Church world.
How can Jesus be a king if he was not the ACTUAL king of Israel? That is one of the questions of the ages.
You can try and dismiss the church as some weird platonic institution, but I won't. And many others don't. The OT was never going to keep God's kingdom to a national level. It was always going to be international. The Church by the way is not platonic. It grew very naturally out the OT Jewish religion, which itself sprang from an older one that goes all the way back to the beginning.
Micah is a prophecy in line with all of the other prophecies in the OT. It is not and never was meant to be solely based on a national race. Yes, the Messiah would come from that line. Jesus was a Jew. Or do you deny that as well. Unless we read the entire context of the Bible, and see it was always about God reconciling the entire world to himself, then we will end on various lines.
But thanks for your thoughts. Interesting, not necessarily novel, but interesting that these thoughts go around and around. It is good for people to read your words and form their own conclusions.
-->
@Tradesecret
There is an idea in Judaism that in each generation there is someone who could be the messiah, but if he doesn't fulfill the expectations then we know he was never the messiah. The messiah is called this because he will be (note the tense) anointed with a particular oil (the word "messiah" is an Anglicizing of the Hebrew Mashiach which means "anointed" usually referring to the application of the Shemen Hamishchah, the oil of anointing) and lead the theocratic Jewish government in Israel, based in the temple. Therefore, the anointing cannot happen until AFTER the temple is built, the Jews are gathered from our current exile and there is peace with the whole world accepting this theocracy as having been established.
Sadly, Jewish history is replete with people who were prematurely called "messiah" or who called themselves the messiah, and things didn't work out well. There is an idea of someone who is (I guess you could say) "in the running" but that doesn't mean he is "it" until all is said and done.
If you want to read a quick summary, you can go here https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1121893/jewish/Who-Is-Moshiach-the-Jewish-Messiah.htm or go into the source which is Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, chapters 11 and 12 of the section on kings and wars https://www.kesser.org/moshiach/rambam.html
If you would rather it in the Hebrew, and with lots of the commentary which helps explain, try here https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Kings_and_Wars.11?lang=bi
-->
@Tradesecret
You didn't actually raise anything to refute any of what I said.
You did not have anything to refute, just put numbers. that is all.
I elaborated all of them, all of which turned out to be false.
At the moment, you are doing what you suggest of others, asserting. Assertions is not evidence.
That is why Jesus matches nothing. You asserted without any back up, assertions are not evidences.
Obviously, these things are open to discussion, hence the name of the topic. But given that it is a subject open to discussion, means ipso facto, that NO ONE can demonstrate on either side of the discussion, the other side is wrong. Or simply based on popular myth. That would be to put the cart before the horse. Now having an opinion is one thing. Asserting it is truth is another.
No, these things are not even discussable: Jesus side is unable to do anything as all of their claims are baseless, and still debunked easily (like Micah 5:2 and Isaiah 9:7 being good example).
Jesus side is clearly shown to be wrong.
Micah 2 for instance has a couple of prophecies contained within it.
Baseless assertion. Assertions are not evidence.
One is that the person - whoever it is must be born in Bethlehem. Another one as you have pointed out is that they must rule "Israel".
Elaborate. Otherwise, again, baseless assertion.
They are two separate
Point out 2 people from Micah 5:2.
Many people have ruled Israel that were not born in Bethlehem. Think of all the kings including Herod who have ruled Israel.
Off-topic. Has nothing to do with our subject, has nothing against Micah 5:2.
I would also suggest that "ruling Israel" is a term that may have many interpretations.
Arbitrary, imaginary, baselessly interpretations do not hold. If you can in interpret in the way it suits you, I can interprete in the way it goes against you. Both are equally.
Messiah is clearly more than a political figure
Baseless assertion but has nothing to do with our subject.
Politicity or apoliticity of messiah has nothing to do with Jesus not matching Micah 5:2.
he is also the representative of God, a spiritual being
Baseless assertion
His ruling will of necessity be in line with whatever God would perceive, not necessarily a human point of view.
Necessarily a human point of view, it is necessity as humans are to spot the messiah. If the sign is not in my sight, how could I spot that it is god's promised messiah?
It is interesting that Jewish History prior to the appointments of kings to the land had people - judges - who ruled but were not kings. Ruling in that sense was not as a king - but as a judge ruling.
Again, off-topic. Who said "micah 5:2 claimant must be a king"?. If judges ruled,did Jesus have the powers that ruler-judges had?
Jesus according to the gospel stories had quite a following - disciples - and many would say he arose in a time that was needed for what the "rulers" and judges were about.
Does having disciples and "quite a following" qualify you to be a judge? IF so, elaborate and back it up. What were the credentials, qualifications and attributes of those judges? Elaborate and see if Jesus meets them. Waiting.
In the Gospels stories for that matter, we also had Pilot, Rome's man in Israel. A very powerful man. He according to the Gospels, spoke with Jesus - and after hearing Jesus declare he himself was a king, though not of this world, seemed to become quite wary of this man. The words he commanded to be written and placed upon Jesus' head on the cross - were "this man is the King of the Jews" are significant.
So, your claim for "Jesus being ruler of Israel" relies on Pilate Pontius' assignment? In that case, Jesus at best could be a "vassal", an "appointee", a "viceroy" of THE ROMANS, not "ruler of israel." Btw, that label Pilate inserted on him was a mockery but let us ignore that for your sake.
How can Jesus be a king if he was not the ACTUAL king of Israel? That is one of the questions of the ages.
No such question exists, as he was not a king.
You can try and dismiss the church as some weird platonic institution, but I won't. And many others don't.
Does not matter. Micah 5:2 is talking about ISRAEL, not some kind of platonic kingdom. The reference is the verse, not you or many others.
Micah is a prophecy in line with all of the other prophecies in the OT. It is not and never was meant to be solely based on a national race. Yes, the Messiah would come from that line. Jesus was a Jew.
Again, these all are irrelevant to our discussion. We are assessing if Jesus matches Micah 5:2. Claimant's nationality, race, ethnicity has nothing to do with our subject as none of them are in the scope of Micah 5:2.
-->
@Pat_Johnson
Btw, that label Pilate inserted on him was a mockery but let us ignore that for your sake.
There is nothing to suggest it was 'mockery' on the behalf of Pilate or the Romans. Any suggested mockery came from the Jew population and they, the bible states, protested that Pilate ordered the inscription on the cross head claiming Jesus to be " king of the Jews".
I enjoy your posts , by the way.
-->
@Stephen
There is nothing to suggest it was 'mockery' on the behalf of Pilate or the Romans. Any suggested mockery came from the Jew population and they, the bible states, protested that Pilate ordered the inscription on the cross head claiming Jesus to be " king of the Jews".
There ARE verses to conclude it was "mockery", both on Pilates' and the Romans' part and the Jews'. Here are they:
NIV Matthew 27:29:30 "... They put a staff in his right hand. Then they knelt in front of him and mocked him. “Hail, king of the Jews!” they said. 30 They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the head again and again. 31 After they had mocked him, they took off the robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him away to crucify him."
Matthew 27:37: "Above his head they placed the written charge against him: this is jesus, the king of the jews."
NIV Mark 15:11-13: "But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead. 12 “What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?” Pilate asked them. 13 “Crucify him!” they shouted."
NIV Mark 15:17-20: "They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. 18 And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” 19 Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. 20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him."
NIV John 19:14-15: "“Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews. 15 But they shouted, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!” “Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked. “We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered."
Also, let us now turn into historical aspect:
Even if Pilate's intention was not rhetoric or mockery, did Pilate have an authority to assign Israel a king? Even more, someone assigned would count as a king as per the Old Testament or Jewish view? That are the questions we will have to settle down in order to assess if Jesus was ruler of Israel as per Pilate's recognition.
-->
@Pat_Johnson
did Pilate have an authority to assign Israel a king?
Good point. The answer is no. But Caesar had appointed the puppet king Herod. Was Herod accepted by the Jews as king of Israel? Or did they simply tolerate the situation? The Zealots didn't and wouldn't accept an Arab for a king although Herod was said to have been a "practicing Jew".
Pilate more than likely wrote what he did not necessarily because he may have believed Jesus to be rightful heir to the throne but did so to piss off the Jewish hierarchy.
All good stuff.