Again, where is there anything in that that refers to Jesus?
If someone actually looks at Micah 5
quote:Micah 5 (New International Version, 2010)
Micah 5 A Promised Ruler From Bethlehem 1 Marshal your troops now, city of troops, for a siege is laid against us. They will strike Israel’s ruler on the cheek with a rod.
2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.
3 Therefore Israel will be abandoned until the time when she who is in labor bears a son, and the rest of his brothers return to join the Israelites.
4 He will stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they will live securely, for then his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth.
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,
6 who will rule the land of Assyria with the sword, the land of Nimrod with drawn sword. He will deliver us from the Assyrians when they invade our land and march across our borders.
7 The remnant of Jacob will be in the midst of many peoples like dew from the LORD, like showers on the grass, which do not wait for anyone or depend on man.
8 The remnant of Jacob will be among the nations, in the midst of many peoples, like a lion among the beasts of the forest, like a young lion among flocks of sheep, which mauls and mangles as it goes, and no one can rescue.
9 Your hand will be lifted up in triumph over your enemies, and all your foes will be destroyed.
10 In that day, declares the LORD, I will destroy your horses from among you and demolish your chariots.
11 I will destroy the cities of your land and tear down all your strongholds.
12 I will destroy your witchcraft and you will no longer cast spells.
13 I will destroy your idols and your sacred stones from among you; you will no longer bow down to the work of your hands.
14 I will uproot from among you your Asherah poles when I demolish your cities.
15 I will take vengeance in anger and wrath on the nations that have not obeyed me.
what we find is that it is talking about what happened at the time, NOT about God, NOT about Jesus. It is absolutely dealing with contemporary issues, looking for the Nation of Judah to stand up in support of the Nation of Israel against a specific threat at a specific time in history.
When YOU take a passage out of context and then try to shoehorn that into YOUR preconceived dogma, that is called "False Prophecy".
Do you know anything about the history of Israel and Judah at that time? If not, there are folk here that can try to educate you.
By the way, the Messiah in this passage is Cyrus. And the prophecy did come true.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
When YOU take a passage out of context and then try to shoehorn that into YOUR preconceived dogma, that is called "False Prophecy".
i did not take it out of context, the NT writers through inspiration, explained Gods meaning
is your indirect implication above that they were prophets of God, the prophecy was fulfilled even though it had not happened and that they were inspired?
Micah claims to be inspired, are you claiming the same by your statement above about taking it out of context?
When YOU take a passage out of context and then try to shoehorn that into YOUR preconceived dogma, that is called "False Prophecy".
i did not take it out of context, the NT writers through inspiration, explained Gods meaning
is your indirect implication above that they were prophets of God and that they were inspired?
Micah claims to be inspired, are you claiming the same by your statement above about taking it out of context?
You cant eat your cake and have it Jar
Dawn bertot
There is no "implication", there is the flat out statement.
If someone takes it out of context then it is "False Prophecy".
I have no idea if Micah (and it's very likely that Micah did not even write much of what is included in Micah) was inspired. It is irrelevant. We can look at what was written and see if it came true.
Now it is understandable that the New Testament authors grabbed some of those passages and used them out of context, they expected Jesus to return.
But he didn't, he never ruled in Jerusalem. If you try to make it apply to Jesus, then it must be seen as another failed prophecy.
Edited by jar, : left out (was inspired)
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Could any evidence or argument that presently exists, convert you to the idea that Christ is the Messiah?
sure. and it has. but again, this thread is not about my beliefs, but about finding a valid, supportable reason for "deconversion". the invalidity or christ as a fulfillment of jewish messianic prophecy is a pretty good reason, if you ask me. and, on a personal note, is perhaps one of the largest issues that makes me question my faith.
No, the thread should not end, because we both have strong opinions
considering that, from the outset, your mind has been made up that no such reason could ever be suggested, yes. this thread is largely pointless.
You keep telling me this but provide no Passage from any prophet that should make me believe that Christ did not meet the requirements
Im sorry but to believe that inspiration in a book repleat with miracles, is not relevant, makes no logical sense
no, you make no logical sense. the question is whether or not those books are inspired. if one book predicts something, and another fails understand it correctly, and plants its flag saying "fulfilled", then it brings that inspiration into suspicion. it's not an issue of assuming the conclusion from the outset, as you do, but of examining the textual evidence, and reaching the conclusion it leads to.
While I said INTENDED, I should have said it was not in Gods original plan for them to have an earthly king.
it was also not in god's original plan for adam to eat from the tree of knowledge. plans change.
His intention in giving them a king was to demonstrate that they actually needed no earthly king and should not have insisted upon on one . They had a king, it was God
and yet david -- and most of the kings of judah -- were very highly regarded. israel, not so much. but all except 1 or 2 kings of judah were highly praised men of god.
Its always a human charactetistic to try and suplant Gods wishes.
this is perhaps what i mean when i say you haven't understood much of the old testament. that's a very simplistic reading, and misses half of the picture. sure, jacob wrestled with god -- but god wrestled with jacob too. the old testament is as much about god trying to find a way to do right by his creation as it is about man failing to do right by god.
in the christian perspective, christ is the ultimate fulfillment of that idea. and surely, this is the point you've been driving at the whole time, right?
Here is another example. Christ is the head f the Church. He reigns from heaven as head of the Church.
okay. i'm upset with my pastor, and i want to contact his boss. can you give me the mailing address for jesus christ?
Not satisfied with this setup, the Catholics have given thier Church an earthly head, the Pope.
i take back what i said about the old testament. you haven't read the new testament, either.
quote:And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 16:18-19
jesus pretty clearly establishes someone to lead his church in an earthly capacity. peter, the first pope, was established by christ himself.
the fact that you seem to think it's some outrageous claim we are making that we can somehow divine what the authors meant simply by reading what they wrote.
I said nothing about your claim being outrageous, I said it made no logical or rational sense sense, without inspiration
that we can understand what the authors wrote with inspiration? the fact that you think the bible makes no logical or rational sense without inspiration is rather telling.
And you and Jar continue to ignore in argumentation form that to use or imply that the prophets words in one area should be considered as rational, because you are using them to prove a point, then ignore the rest of what they have to say because it is not reliable, makes no logical or biblical sense
er, no. the question is whether or not christ fulfills what they said, not whether or not what they said was reliable. it's a simple matter of comparing literature.
i need not believe in star wars to note that in one of the original movies, obi-won calls yoda his former master, and in the prequel, his master is someone else. the question of whether or not any of this happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away is never an issue. it either matches, or it doesn't.
Not satisfied with this setup, the Catholics have given thier Church an earthly head, the Pope.
i take back what i said about the old testament. you haven't read the new testament, either.
quote:And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 16:18-19
jesus pretty clearly establishes someone to lead his church in an earthly capacity. peter, the first pope, was established by christ himself.
I imagine Dawn is also ignorant of the Apostolic Churches and that the Roman Catholic Church is but one see and that many of the churches in Club Christian would not be considered as Christian or as part of "his church" by Christ.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
I did not say it was not talking about Jesus entirely, I said its main thrust is and only about God as a deliverer
from the assyrians.
the problem with this verse, like many others we could cite, is that they were already fulfilled well before christ was ever born. in this case, micah 5, it's talking about the assyrian invasion of israel. it would do you well to read the book of kings -- especially the parts towards the end -- for a bit of historical context. this prophecy, like much of the messianic prophecy in the OT, is rather firmly rooted in that historical context.
"This is palpably, the most ignorant statement I have ever seen or read" [sic]
We're all well aware you don't proof read your stuff, but thanks for the confirmation.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
and you say all of this can be explained away i say it at least casts serious doubt.
Depending on whos explanation you accept
once you have to interpret something it cast serious doubt on its accuracy, and serius doubt on what should be interpreted and what should be read as it is. It kinda makes a mess of the whole bible.
You are entitled to atleast, your opinion. Buz has demonstrated that Israel regaining thier status as a nation, after having been scattered to the ends of the earth, that you are in possible error
That is a self fulfilling prophecy, what does that mean. The mere fact that there is such a prophecy makes people want to fulfill it. Lets say there was a prophecy that afro Americans will rule over the whites back in the days of slavery this prophecy would be a rally point for all the afro Americans to fight their oppressors. And a prophecy whitout a relative date is bound to come true at one time it cannot fail because it has eternety to come true.
its only reasonable if your above premesis are true, they are not
My premises are true you just do not want to see that.
And why do you want to follow such an evil god that comands you to:
Exodus 21:15, 17 both say that if a child hits or curses his father, he is to be killed.
Leviticus 20:9 says that if a child curses his mother or father he is to be put to death.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 requires stoning to death any child who is stubborn or rebellious.
Proverbs 22:15 says you should beat your foolish children with a rod.
and the bible commands you to do more atrocious things tough most Christians skip that part when they read the bible or wawe them away with one excuse or another.
I didn't mention "herkie jerkies" or feelings of any kind in my post, Dawn. In fact, I intentionally left out all mention of those things.
The only description I gave was "witness from the Holy Ghost."
Do you agree that a witness from the Holy Ghost is an integral part of conversion?
Yes, of course, but perhaps we should explore what you mean by witness and what I believe.
The only witness that is recognizable is that of God;s Word. It is sufficient enough for belief to conversion
Food to the soul
Also, the validity of a decision to convert/deconvert is entirely based on an assessment of the empirical evidence for the truth of the religion in question. I argue that, regardless of which religion we're talking about, the evidence is wholly lacking, and that deconversion is thus perfectly valid.
what we find is that it is talking about what happened at the time, NOT about God, NOT about Jesus.
Were the writers of the Old Testament or New, inspired of God, in your estimation Jar? Yes or No
By the way, the Messiah in this passage is Cyrus. And the prophecy did come true.
Lets assume for a moment that you are correct about Cyrus. How did this man know in advance what would happen, if it came true, as you indicate.
Since, you have deemed the OT and its authors as unreliable and inaccurate, how would you KNOW, that this was the fulfillment of the prophets words,
How would you explain Cyrus, as his goings out and comings in from everlasting?
Not only is your logic faulty before you approach such a passage, you have absolutely no way of knowing that Cyrus was its fulfillment
the direct implication of such a statement implies that you would need to accept inspiration of some sort for your conclusion about Cyrus to be true.
If you implication or belief is that he was the fulfillment, then it implies that you believe the writers were accurate and reliable, yet you fail to explain why they also thought they were inspired of God. Is the part of the context where they state this directly to be BELIEVED AS WELL
Perhaps you could explain yet another delimma, you have now involved yourself in
Seeing that you havent even approached or touched the first query of mine (Are they inspired or not, atleast from your perspective), it is obvious your are falling behind rather quickly
2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel,
Tell me jar, who is making the above statement? Who is the ME in the passage?
We can read what is written. The test of whether a prophet was inspired was whether the message proved to be true and within the times of the initial audience.
In this case, the test was confirmed, Assyria did conquer Israel and later Judah and later Cyrus overcame Babylon and Assyria.
But it is NOT talking about Jesus.
If you read upthread I believe I have provided links to all of the posts where you have been answered and also provided a link to the thread where such material is actually on topic.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
™ Version 4.2
(1)