Micah Chapter 5 is prophecy?

[rikuoamero]

Several times on this website, a Christian has pointed to Micah Chapter 5 as being true prophecy that correctly predicts Jesus Christ.
Specifically...they point to Verse 2. Recently, a Christian quoted that verse in another thread having made the claim that this is true prophecy.

"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."~Micah

I want to ask Christians on this site how this is any way refers to Jesus Christ? I am aware the Gospels place Jesus's birthplace as being the town of Bethlehem, but the clan known as Bethlehem Ephrathah?

I also want to ask Christians how they can say Jesus fulfilled this prophecy, and more importantly, that they can prove it? This verse says that the one who is to come, will be ruler over Israel.
I as a skeptic cannot accept claims of Jesus being ruler of Israel in a theological sense (such as saying Jesus Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, or sits at the right hand of God who gave him dominion of all things). That would be yet another claim that would have to be proven, and thus cannot itself be used as the "evidence" for the fulfillment of verse 2.

What about verses 5 and 6?
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[c] the land of Assyria with the sword,
the land of Nimrod with drawn sword.[d]
He will deliver us from the Assyrians
when they invade our land
and march across our borders.

Did Jesus have anything to do with the Assyrians? I did a keyword search for "Assyria", "Assyrian" and "Assyrians" on Biblegateway, searching through the KJV, NIV, ASV, GNT and ESV publications of the Bible, from Matthew to Revelations.
I got ZERO results for all three searches, and this is Biblegateway! Not exactly a bastion of blaspheming atheist heathens.

Unless you want to completely rewrite languages, and give new definitions, new meanings to commonly known words...it seems to me that Micah Chapter 5 is talking about some sort of military leader, who will send generals to rule Assyria, conquer it, and protect Israel from invading Assyrians.

Question for Discussion - Christians, why is it you guys quote Verse 2 when it obviously has nothing at all to do with your Jesus Christ? Why is it you guys NEVER quote Verses 5 and 6, whenever you are challenged to provide true prophecy predicting Jesus?

[polonius]

rikuoamero posted:

Several times on this website, a Christian has pointed to Micah Chapter 5 as being true prophecy that correctly predicts Jesus Christ.

Specifically...they point to Verse 2. Recently, a Christian quoted that verse in another thread having made the claim that this is true prophecy.

Quote:
"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."~Micah

I want to ask Christians on this site how this is any way refers to Jesus Christ? I am aware the Gospels place Jesus's birthplace as being the town of Bethlehem, but the clan known as Bethlehem Ephrathah?

RESPONSE: There is no such prophecy as the one quoted by Matthew. The prophecy regarded the tribe from which the messiah was to be born, not the place of his birth. Matthew changes a few words so he can claim a prophecy fulfillment. (But he really goofed by having Jesus send for and riding two animals when he entered Jerusalem).

And remember Rachael crying for her children supposedly the Slaughter of the Innocents. She was actually crying about 600 years earlier for the northern Israelites being take to Babylon.

[JehovahsWitness]

"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." - Micah 5:2.

QUESTION: Was Bethlehem-Ephrathah a location or a reference to the decendace the son of Caleb's second wife Ephrah?

1 CHRONICLES 2:19-20

...Caʹleb married Ephrath, and she bore Hur to him. Hur became father to Uri. Uri became father to Bezalel.

Firstly the wife of Caleb is never refered to by the name Bethlehem or the double-barreled "Bethlehem-Ethraphah". Further clans or Tribes were never named after women, so If the family were to take on a name it would be from the FATHER Caleb (calabites) or the woman's sons Hur (Hurrites ... Hurbathities) etc . While the bible does speak of one of Jacob’s son becoming father to “Salma the father of Bethlehem� there were 12 main tribes none of which were the tribe of Bethlehem. No tribe, clan or family gruop is ever referred to as Bethlehem- Ephrathites* in scripture (compare 1Ch 2:51, 54; 4:4) .

* There was a tribe of Ephraim but not of Ephathah; further the Ephraim was born future of the first mention of the Ephrathah (Ephrah) region. More below.

• The only time the names were used jointly or interchangeably was when refersing to a physical location rather than a group of people. Note the following passage which speaks of Jacob's journey back to Caanan, long before Bethlehem or any of the Israelite tribal fathers (or "mothers") were born.

GENESIS 35:16, 19
Then they pulled away from Bethel. And while they were still some distance from Ephrath [...] So Rachel died and was buried on the way to Ephʹrath, that is, Bethlehem.

Are we to presume Jacob was travelling to a clan that didn't yet exist? Or are we more rationally to conclude he was travelling to a region that held the given name?

JOSHUA 19: 14-16

And the boundary went around it on the north to Hanʹna·thon, and it ended at the Valley of Iphʹtah-el, and Katʹtath, Nahalal, Shimʹron, Iʹda·lah, and Bethʹle·hem 12 cities and their settlements. This was the inheritance of the descendants of Zebʹu·lun by their families. These were the cities and their settlements.

CONCLUSION While there was a descendant of Judah called Bethlehem there was no tribes of Bethlehem ad never in scripture is there any reference to people's carrying the name of Bethllehem-Ephrathah. Since the name Bethlehem came to be associated with cities as indicated by Joshua's listings , it reasonable to conclude that Micah's prophecy was refering to the birthplace of the promised Messiah and not to a family group, tribe or clan.




RELATED POSTS


Did Jesus fulfil the Messianic prophecies?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 204#851204

Did Jesus ever become a King?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 936#930936

FURTHER READING The Odds of Eight Messianic Prophecies Coming True
http://www.bereanpublishers.com/the-odd ... ming-true/

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 3 by JehovahsWitness]

QUESTION: Was Bethlehem-Ephrathah a location or a reference to the decendace the son of Caleb's second wife Ephrah?

This is not my question. My question involved quoting Micah 5 mentioning a clan, in a generic usage of the term. I myself never made mention of Caleb or Ephrah specifically. So your post going through the wife of Caleb and her descendants...what kind of logical fallacy is this? Red herring?
The fact of the matter is, a Christian quoted the version of Micah 5:2 I have in my OP, so I have to presume that this person thinks it's just peachy with its mention of Bethlehem-E being a clan.
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah"

If you want to talk about how this might be a mis-translation...take it up with that person. I'm responding to what they posted.

Are we to presume Jacob was travelling to a clan that didn't yet exist? Or are we more rationally to conclude he was travelling to a region that held the given name?

You've got something of a point there. The oldest manuscript we have for Genesis Chapter 35 is from the Dead Sea Scrolls (2QGen) and they're estimated by experts to be about 408 BCE at the oldest. Is it possible the author of Genesis was saying Jacob travelled to a clan that, while not existing in Jacob's time, did exist in the Genesis author's time? I will admit, this possibility is weak; it'd be like saying a book written by Julius Caesar details how Pompey the Great sent emissaries to talk to a Gallic clan known to exist in Caesar's time.

While there was a descendant of Judah called Bethlehem there was no tribes of Bethlehem ad never in scripture is there any reference to people's carrying the name of Bethllehem-Ephrathah.

Other than what the Christian I quoted in the OP did, with their version of Micah 5:2.

Also, you didn't even attempt to touch on verses 5 and 6. There's nothing from you about them.

[rikuoamero]

An addition to my earlier reply, which I will do in this post, instead of actually adding to the earlier one.

Upon refreshing this thread, I noticed some links were added to the bottom of JW's reply. What are they?

Did Jesus ever become a King?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 936#930936

I will deal with this one. The question is as stated - Did Jesus become King?

JW...answer this question for me please...?
Did I or did I not mention in my OP what sort of answer I cannot accept for this question? I'm confused. Surely you read my OP, since here you are, re-mentioning my question regarding Jesus and Micah prophesying a ruler over Israel, and even giving a link.

Since it seems you skimmed over my OP and didn't even think about your own response, I will repeat it.

I as a skeptic cannot accept claims of Jesus being ruler of Israel in a theological sense (such as saying Jesus Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, or sits at the right hand of God who gave him dominion of all things). That would be yet another claim that would have to be proven, and thus cannot itself be used as the "evidence" for the fulfillment of verse 2.

Your answer, which you link to but do not copy and paste is this...
Jesus most certainly did become king; he never became king during his earthly ministry, he was made king after his death and subsequent resurrection to heaven. Jesus quite clearly referred to "his" kingdom and someone that "owns" or has a kingdom is a KING. He was also clear his kingdom was not to be earthly in source or origin.

So what do we have here? I predicted the kind of response I get when asking about Micah and the messiah-king it predicts - I said that as a skeptic being told that Jesus fulfilled the "ruler of Israel" part that I cannot accept a theological sense of the term, since after all, I am not going to accept theological claims. They have to be shown to be true, which is something you guys cannot do.
You're trying to prove a prophecy about a guy here on Earth, a messiah, by saying he fulfilled it...in some mystical magical after-life dimension that of course I cannot visit myself to check if your claim about Jesus being king is true.

This just reeks of you debating in bad faith, JW. I tell you what kind of answer I cannot accept...and you give it anyway? Is this the metric you use for kingly claims? He became King of X, king of this nation, that nation, king of the world...oh I know no-one ever proclaimed him ruler of the nation in real life, see he became king in the afterlife...


--------------

Did Jesus fulfil the Messianic prophecies?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 204#851204

I see more bad faith debating from you here JW. This was a thread I participated on, one where I took your claims to task, shredded them, and you just gave up on. I remember the table of what you claimed were prophecies well...I tore that thing apart.
I told you in post 21 of that thread that I was debating the list elsewhere, which I did so here
viewtopic.php?p=851220#851220

and your response...? You gave one response there, to link to a video and a JW publication (the video has been taken down from Youtube by the way...) and that's it.

In that thread, I talked about Micah 5 verses 5 and 6 and you never responded. Just like in this thread. You ignore what is perhaps the biggest flaw in your reasoning to try and save Jesus regarding the Bethelehem thing.

--------------------

FURTHER READING The Odds of Eight Messianic Prophecies Coming True
http://www.bereanpublishers.com/the-odd ... -coming-tr...

Now I know you really ARE debating in bad faith, JW. This isn't the first time anyone (and I'm pretty sure you yourself talked about Stoner before) has talked about Stoner, and I've already debated that, and shredded the calculations (or should I say lack thereof, since what is quoted of or from Stoner doesn't give any actual calculations).

I'll have to find the thread where I responded to mentions of Stoner before, but I'm pretty sure that last time around, you never responded to my rebuttals.

The reason I say you are arguing in bad faith JW is because you bring up arguments of your own, I and others tear them apart, you link back to these arguments of yours later completely ignoring the rebuttals, almost like they never happened.
Linking to the arguments and ignoring the rebuttals only shows me you are completely uninterested in paying attention to what anyone has to say. Once I and others successfully rebut something you've had to say - you ignore it. You put it out of your mind, and you then come back later and pretend that the rebuttal never happened, recycling the arguments I have already successfully defeated.

[polonius]

But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah

CONCLUSION While there was a descendant of Judah called Bethlehem there was no tribes of Bethlehem ad never in scripture is there any reference to people's carrying the name of Bethllehem-Ephrathah.


RESPONSE: Sure there was. You should avoid making statements that you can't support!


1 Chronicles 2:51
Salma the father of Bethlehem, Hareph the father of Bethgader.


1 Chronicles 2:54
The sons of Salma; Bethlehem, and the Netophathites, Ataroth, the house of Joab, and half of the Manahethites, the Zorites.


In time, Ephrathah had a son named Hur, who had a son named Salma. Salma became the father of a son named Bethlehem.[3] This makes Ephrathah the great grandfather of Bethlehem. Once Bethlehem had his own family, the town began to be dominated by his family. His family soon grew where the town began to be called by the dominant ancestor, Bethlehem. It was called this at least before Moses wrote the Book of Genesis.[1]

[PinSeeker]

Several times on this website, a Christian has pointed to Micah Chapter 5 as being true prophecy that correctly predicts Jesus Christ.
Specifically...they point to Verse 2. Recently, a Christian quoted that verse in another thread having made the claim that this is true prophecy.

"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."~Micah

I want to ask Christians on this site how this is any way refers to Jesus Christ? I am aware the Gospels place Jesus's birthplace as being the town of Bethlehem, but the clan known as Bethlehem Ephrathah?

I also want to ask Christians how they can say Jesus fulfilled this prophecy, and more importantly, that they can prove it? This verse says that the one who is to come, will be ruler over Israel.
I as a skeptic cannot accept claims of Jesus being ruler of Israel in a theological sense (such as saying Jesus Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, or sits at the right hand of God who gave him dominion of all things). That would be yet another claim that would have to be proven, and thus cannot itself be used as the "evidence" for the fulfillment of verse 2.

What about verses 5 and 6?
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[c] the land of Assyria with the sword,
the land of Nimrod with drawn sword.[d]
He will deliver us from the Assyrians
when they invade our land
and march across our borders.

Did Jesus have anything to do with the Assyrians? I did a keyword search for "Assyria", "Assyrian" and "Assyrians" on Biblegateway, searching through the KJV, NIV, ASV, GNT and ESV publications of the Bible, from Matthew to Revelations.
I got ZERO results for all three searches, and this is Biblegateway! Not exactly a bastion of blaspheming atheist heathens.

Unless you want to completely rewrite languages, and give new definitions, new meanings to commonly known words...it seems to me that Micah Chapter 5 is talking about some sort of military leader, who will send generals to rule Assyria, conquer it, and protect Israel from invading Assyrians.

Question for Discussion - Christians, why is it you guys quote Verse 2 when it obviously has nothing at all to do with your Jesus Christ? Why is it you guys NEVER quote Verses 5 and 6, whenever you are challenged to provide true prophecy predicting Jesus?

Oh, it has everything to do with Christ. There's much more to it than what you see (not surprisingly):

It is important to notice that Micah does not only speak about Christ’s first coming but also of His second coming. In verse 2, there is an anticipation of His first coming. But in the verse that follows (read verse 3 and notice the phrase "until the time when she who is in labor has borne a child"), there is an anticipation of His second coming. Paul refers to this very verse in Romans 8 when he says, "we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now." This is still true. At the time of Micah's writing, the Israelites stood, obviously, before the two. Today we stand between the two, after the first and before the second. All the way through the Old Testament we have prophecies relating to both advents, and helpfully we can see that they are placed side by side in Micah 5:2-3.

I'll try to make this short and sweet. Basically, Micah is saying (to his contemporaries and to us today), take comfort even in the midst of trouble that will surely arise... even though they (and we) may "walk through the valley of the shadow of death," in the words of Psalm 23... because you (we) have a Savior and a Comforter and a King who is always with you (us), from the days of eternity and for all time.

You're right in saying Jesus didn't physically have anything to do with the Assyrians. But Micah is not prophesying that He will. In verses 5 and 6 specifically, Micah is saying to the Israelites that, when the Assyrian armies do invade, Israelites can find their comfort in Jesus -- because He has always been there and He always will be -- even in the midst of the coming Assyrian invasion, which actually happened shortly after his writing -- twice, actually -- before Jesus's first coming. Micah wrote his prophecy somewhere between 750 and 650 B.C. Assyria invaded shortly after that (and fell to Babylon in 605 B.C.) and then again later, only to fall again, this time to Alexander the Great in 330 B.C. The "we" near the end of verse 5 refers to the Israelites. Then, finally, let me quote the latter half of verse 6:

And He will deliver us from the Assyrian
When he attacks our land
And when he tramples our territory.

So yeah, the He in the first line above refers to Jesus, of course, who is the ultimate Deliverer, even though He is not physically present. The "he" in the second and third lines refers to the Assyrian... the Assyrian army as a whole. That's the immediacy of the prophecy, but it's also applicable to us, too, because we walk through the valley of the shadow of death -- though the threats are different, of course -- just like the Israelites did.

So again, Jesus is with us. He always has been -- even from the days of eternity-- and He always will be -- even up to the time He is literally with us during His 33 years of life on this planet AND up to the time He returns for eternity.

It's really not that hard.

[dianaiad]

...This just reeks of you debating in bad faith, JW. ...

Moderator Comment

Let the evidence provide the commentary. You don't need to make personal and negative comments about the poster.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[1213]

...Why is it you guys NEVER quote Verses 5 and 6, whenever you are challenged to provide true prophecy predicting Jesus?

There is no reason to assume all that was told about Jesus, should have happened yet. There is still time for all that was said to be fulfilled. And it seems world is going fast to that fulfillment.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 7 by PinSeeker]

But in the verse that follows (read verse 3 and notice the phrase "until the time when she who is in labor has borne a child"), there is an anticipation of His second coming.

I'm reading Micah and I am not seeing any delineation between Christ's first and supposed second coming. If it is talking about the second, as you claim, then Micah 5:2 (and verse 3) cannot be pointed to by Christians as prophecy that has been fulfilled, as in past tense, because obviously Christians believe the second coming has yet to happen (well, other than the JWs that is...).

You're right in saying Jesus didn't physically have anything to do with the Assyrians. But Micah is not prophesying that He will.

Micah is "prophesying" that their Messiah, who it is obviously apparent is not and cannot be Jesus, will have something to do with the Assyrians. How can a prophecy be about Jesus since he never had anything at all to do with them? Would you take this stance if it had said the Persians? The Babylonians? Any other nation that had conquered Israel?

In verses 5 and 6 specifically, Micah is saying to the Israelites that, when the Assyrian armies do invade, Israelites can find their comfort in Jesus -- because He has always been there and He always will be

Do you mean find comfort in Jesus Christ specifically...or in the promised generic Messiah, whoever it is he turns out to be?
If the former...how does that even begin to make sense, since of course, Jesus has yet to be borne?
If the latter, then this goes against you, since according to you Micah is about Jesus specifically.

Micah wrote his prophecy somewhere between 750 and 650 B.C. Assyria invaded shortly after that (and fell to Babylon in 605 B.C.) and then again later, only to fall again, this time to Alexander the Great in 330 B.C.

I notice you don't even attempt to counter my rebuttal of the part where it mentions the messiah raising up military commanders "who will rule the land of Assyria with the sword, the land of Nimrod with drawn sword."
When and where did Jesus take part in any sort of military campaigns? When did Israel rule over Assyria?

The "we" near the end of verse 5 refers to the Israelites.

Who, as I just said, were apparently supposed to send military commanders who are to rule over Assyria by the sword.

So yeah, the He in the first line above refers to Jesus, of course, who is the ultimate Deliverer, even though He is not physically present.

Why would a prophecy that is supposed to be about Jesus be talking about a political enemy that does not exist during the time he lived? If Micah was really foretelling the future thanks to God, why didn't God have him say the Messiah would free them from the Romans?

The "he" in the second and third lines refers to the Assyrian... the Assyrian army as a whole.

Not applicable to Jesus, since what was then Assyria at the time was under Roman rule, just like Israel was.

That's the immediacy of the prophecy,

Which explains why the so called prophet is anything but, since he's unaware of just who the conquerer of Israel would be during the time of Jesus. If he had known, if he honestly had future-sight, he would have said Romans and not Assyria.
If a man who claimed to be a prophet was foretelling an invasion of France by a rabidly racist German regime wielding tanks, it would make no sense for this man to refer to the Germans as the North German Confederation, when an actual prophet would have known to say the National Socialists.

It's really not that hard.

Yes it is. You literally ignore parts of the so called prophecy and have to sweep under the rug the problem of the prophet not being able to predict the Romans.