-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
See my response on the Trinity topic.
If.
14 days later
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.
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.
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.
Micah 5:2, born in Bethlehem, Luke 2:4-7
-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)
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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
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.
Messiah is clearly more than a political figure
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
did Pilate have an authority to assign Israel a king?