• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Micah 5:1

Tumah

Veteran Member
It's time for another one of those threads.

David is the start of the Davidic line. The messiah, will be the end of the Davidic line. David was from Bethlehem (1 Samuel 16:1, 1 Samuel 17:58). Therefor the messiah, as a descendant of David, already comes from Bethlehem.

He doesn't need to be born there.

Not my best work. But it needed to be put out there.
 

RabbiO

הרב יונה בן זכריה
It's time for another one of those threads.

David is the start of the Davidic line. The messiah, will be the end of the Davidic line. David was from Bethlehem (1 Samuel 16:1, 1 Samuel 17:58). Therefor the messiah, as a descendant of David, already comes from Bethlehem.

He doesn't need to be born there.

Not my best work. But it needed to be put out there.

Maybe no one has responded because in Christian bibles this is verse 2. I know there have been previous threads on the verse.

I'm certainly not going to disagree with you.

Peter
 

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
Tumah said:
David is the start of the Davidic line. The messiah, will be the end of the Davidic line. David was from Bethlehem (1 Samuel 16:1, 1 Samuel 17:58). Therefor the messiah, as a descendant of David, already comes from Bethlehem.

He doesn't need to be born there.

Its an insightful thing to point out, but lets see if you really have something or not. I guess you would see a problem with the story in Matthew chapter 2?

“In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written: “ But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel." ( NIV Matthew 2:5-6 )

Well clearly Matthew is referring to Micah chapter 5. He says the ruler has to come out of Bethlehem. You refer us to 1 Samuel 16:1 -- well it says David is from Bethlehem, and 1 Samuel 17:58 says his father was also of Bethlehem. I don't follow how this implies that the 'Messiah' can be just anyone descended from Bethlehem? They probably need to be born in Bethlehem proper. Defend your dastardly assault upon Matthew's honesty if you can. Don't forget you'll need a copy of a prophet called Micah, just in case you've never head of him!
 

Prophet

breaking the statutes of my local municipality
Jesus' childhood as written in the Bible is, in my opinion, almost certainly fabrication written to match messianic prophesy. Jesus was no more predestined to be a prophet from birth than you are. He was nothing but a peasant living in a backwater country on the fringe of the Roman Empire until he began his ministry at approximately 30 years of age. The messiah was supposed to be a warrior king, powerful enough to issue divine retribution against those who had oppressed "God's chosen people". Jesus instead taught his followers about a "Kingdom of God" where instead of seeking vengeance upon those who have wronged us, we are to clear our sight and feel compassion for the blindness of our enemies. Your enemies may think they hurt you of their own free will, but "they know not what they do"--they run through mazes of other beings, blindly colliding with you. Instead of freeing the Jews from Roman occupation like a true warrior king should have, Jesus allowed himself to be crucified, and admonished that his followers who had progressed as much as him do the same.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
It's time for another one of those threads.

David is the start of the Davidic line. The messiah, will be the end of the Davidic line. David was from Bethlehem (1 Samuel 16:1, 1 Samuel 17:58). Therefor the messiah, as a descendant of David, already comes from Bethlehem.

He doesn't need to be born there.

Not my best work. But it needed to be put out there.

What is the relationship between "Beth-le-aphrah" of Micah 1:10, and "Bethlehem Epharathah" of Micah 5:2 ? And what is the meaning of Micah 5:3,"Therefore, He will give them up until the time When she who is in labor has borne a child. Then the remainer of his brethren will return to the sons of Israel.? Who are "his brethren", and if they are not with the sons of Israel during this spoken time, where are they?
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
Jesus' childhood as written in the Bible is, in my opinion, almost certainly fabrication written to match messianic prophesy. Jesus was no more predestined to be a prophet from birth than you are. He was nothing but a peasant living in a backwater country on the fringe of the Roman Empire until he began his ministry at approximately 30 years of age. The messiah was supposed to be a warrior king, powerful enough to issue divine retribution against those who had oppressed "God's chosen people". Jesus instead taught his followers about a "Kingdom of God" where instead of seeking vengeance upon those who have wronged us, we are to clear our sight and feel compassion for the blindness of our enemies. Your enemies may think they hurt you of their own free will, but "they know not what they do"--they run through mazes of other beings, blindly colliding with you. Instead of freeing the Jews from Roman occupation like a true warrior king should have, Jesus allowed himself to be crucified, and admonished that his followers who had progressed as much as him do the same.

Dear "stoned being",
Yeshua taught "the kingdom of heaven", which was a personal relationship between God and his sons, who do the will of God. (Mt 6:32-33 & John 1:13)

John 1:13 NAS Who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God

He taught that the "kingdom of God" would not be instituted until the "Day of the Lord", which was in the future. (Rev 19:15 & Rev 12:10 & Mt 24:29-32)

As for prophets, David of Bethlehem, was a "peasant living in a backwater country on the fringe of the Roman Empire" before being chosen by God, and he was but a child, and not as impressive as his brothers who were of military age. David did not prevail by size or strength, but by his faith in God, who had always protected David, even while herding sheep.

As for when is the "Day of the Lord", that will be after Jerusalem is again "captured" (Ze 14:2 & Joel 2:28 - 3:2)
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
It's time for another one of those threads.

David is the start of the Davidic line. The messiah, will be the end of the Davidic line. David was from Bethlehem (1 Samuel 16:1, 1 Samuel 17:58). Therefor the messiah, as a descendant of David, already comes from Bethlehem.

He doesn't need to be born there.

Not my best work. But it needed to be put out there.
I guess I'm not sure what you're trying to say here … :shrug:
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
Its an insightful thing to point out, but lets see if you really have something or not. I guess you would see a problem with the story in Matthew chapter 2?

“In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written: “ But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel." ( NIV Matthew 2:5-6 )

Well clearly Matthew is referring to Micah chapter 5. He says the ruler has to come out of Bethlehem. You refer us to 1 Samuel 16:1 -- well it says David is from Bethlehem, and 1 Samuel 17:58 says his father was also of Bethlehem. I don't follow how this implies that the 'Messiah' can be just anyone descended from Bethlehem? They probably need to be born in Bethlehem proper. Defend your dastardly assault upon Matthew's honesty if you can. Don't forget you'll need a copy of a prophet called Micah, just in case you've never head of him!

I notice your Matthew is missing the last few words of that verse...

What is the relationship between "Beth-le-aphrah" of Micah 1:10, and "Bethlehem Epharathah" of Micah 5:2 ? And what is the meaning of Micah 5:3,"Therefore, He will give them up until the time When she who is in labor has borne a child. Then the remainer of his brethren will return to the sons of Israel.? Who are "his brethren", and if they are not with the sons of Israel during this spoken time, where are they?

There is no relationship between the two. They are spelled completely differently in Hebrew. Beth Le-Aphrah is Aphrah of Judges 6:11. Beth Lehem, it a place in Ephrath.

Micah 5:3 (5:2 in the Jewish Bible), the woman is a metaphor for Zion. See Micah 4:10, Israel's exile is compared to the pain of prgnancy. Israel will remain in exile until Zion gives birth, ie. the birth pangs reach their zenith and end. Then the rest of the Messiah's brothers, ie. the tribe of Judah will return along with the 10 lost tribes.

I guess I'm not sure what you're trying to say here … :shrug:

That's ok too!
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
A close friend of mine is both an amateur Roman historian and a Christian, but he says that the idea that Jesus was born in Bethlehem is absurd because the Romans didn't mandate that one needed to go to their place of birth but only that they had to have it put on the census when taken. Can anyone imagine everyone in eretz Israel having to go to where they were born just for a census, and exactly what would that accomplish anyway? It would have been terribly disruptive economically and totally unnecessary logically.

So, why was it inserted into the gospels? I see it as a possible subjective way of linking Jesus to David as being a leader who take them to eventual victory.
 

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
Tumah said:
I notice your Matthew is missing the last few words of that verse...
I notice that you haven't made any specific contentions. Are you trying to bore me to death or just too scared to say anything direct about Matthew?

Metis said:
A close friend of mine is both an amateur Roman historian and a Christian, but he says that the idea that Jesus was born in Bethlehem is absurd because the Romans didn't mandate that one needed to go to their place of birth but only that they had to have it put on the census when taken. Can anyone imagine everyone in eretz Israel having to go to where they were born just for a census, and exactly what would that accomplish anyway? It would have been terribly disruptive economically and totally unnecessary logically.
An amateur historian you say? What about all the Roman roads that made the empire so strong?
So, why was it inserted into the gospels? I see it as a possible subjective way of linking Jesus to David as being a leader who take them to eventual victory.
...inserted into the gospels? You must be joking. Can you support such a contention?
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
...inserted into the gospels? You must be joking. Can you support such a contention?
I would probably not have used the term 'inserted.' On the other hand, I see no reason not to take "Matthew's" account as a well intentioned but nevertheless self serving fabrication.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
I notice that you haven't made any specific contentions. Are you trying to bore me to death or just too scared to say anything direct about Matthew?

Well, I don't know much about the man. But the last words of the verse, "and his going out is from earlier, from olden times." In other words, the messiah's didn't directly come out of Bethlehem. His coming out of Bethlehem occurred in earlier days by virtue of David being born there.
 

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
JayHawker Soule" said:
I would probably not have used the term 'inserted.' On the other hand, I see no reason not to take "Matthew's" account as a well intentioned but nevertheless self serving fabrication.
You are probably just biased. Jews don't like the New Testament, because there is bad blood between them and the Catholics. You have told me you are Jewish, so you must have the Jewish bias against not just Matthew but the entire NT. I will overlook that though.

You say Matthew is just a fabrication. Well that is outside the scope of the thread, so lets not talk about it too much. I will just say this: Matthew is very very old. It is older than the Talmud and fragments of it have been dated to around 100 AD. Clearly it is not a fabrication any more than the Talmud is. It also contains the words of Jesus and is vouched for by billions of Christians.
 

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, I don't know much about the man. But the last words of the verse, "and his going out is from earlier, from olden times." In other words, the messiah's didn't directly come out of Bethlehem. His coming out of Bethlehem occurred in earlier days by virtue of David being born there.
Ok, well I accept your argument, and it is completely in sync with and confirms that Matthew is a legitimate not a fabricated book.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
You say Matthew is just a fabrication. Well that is outside the scope of the thread, so lets not talk about it too much. I will just say this: Matthew is very very old. It is older than the Talmud and fragments of it have been dated to around 100 AD. Clearly it is not a fabrication any more than the Talmud is. It also contains the words of Jesus and is vouched for by billions of Christians.

That's a great argument for the Hindu Vedas actually and lends authenticity to the events as described in the Bhagavad Gita.
 

RabbiO

הרב יונה בן זכריה
....Jews don't like the New Testament, because there is bad blood between them and the Catholics. You have told me you are Jewish, so you must have the Jewish bias against not just Matthew but the entire NT.....

I'm interjecting myself here solely because I think that you have made some overly general and inaccurate remarks that cannot pass without response.

While there are undoubtably some Jews who do not "like" Christian scripture, for the most part, for most Jews, it is not a question of liking or disliking, it is simply that Jews do not accept it. It is not a question of bias, prejudice if you will, it is simply that reading Christian scripture in the light of our understanding of our own texts we cannot accept as valid the claims that are made within.

I would hope that you would understand that there are legitimate areas of difference and disagreement between Jews and Christians and accept and respect the fact that in some ways we stand on opposite sides of a theological canyon.

Peter
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
An amateur historian you say? What about all the Roman roads that made the empire so strong?

That really doesn't at all deal with the issue at hand. Back then, the vast majority of people had to walk because Avis Rent-a-Camel hadn't opened up yet and donkeys were too expensive for most people to buy. According to the Roman historians that I have seen chime in on this subject, they say there's really no reason why one would have to travel to the place of their birth. BTW, there's no record of any Roman census that was conducted during Jesus' time, and the one closest to his time period was about a decade and a half before, if my memory is correct.

...inserted into the gospels? You must be joking. Can you support such a contention?

I stated as such based on the reasoning I gave prior to making that statement, and there are many Christian theologians who drift in this same direction, such as Raymond Brown and John Crossan.

I think what you're missing is an understanding of a very Jewish way of writing whereas parallels are often drawn but not meant to be taken literally. Jesus' use of parables was a very Jewish approach, and these were not at all necessary to be taken literally.

OTOH, if you want to believe Jesus was born in Bethlehem, go right ahead as it really doesn't change anything.
 
Top