This crippled my faith

throughfiierytrial · Nov 6, 2015

Matthew 2:4-6 misquotes Micah 5:2.
The account in Matthew is referring to Bethlehem the town, but Micah is referring to Bethlehem Ephrathah, which is a family clan. Matthew has once again twisted an irrelevant prophecy into being something about Jesus.[/QUOTE]

Bethlehem Ephrathah is not a clan, it is referring to the more Southern town of Bethlehem...in Judah rather than a more Northern town named Bethlehem.

2PhiloVoid · Nov 6, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
Nice dodge.

If by conferring the quality of ‘nicety’ to my illusionary dodge you mean to imply that I made an “amazing move,” I’d agree with you. One can only use this kind of defensive tactic while INSIDE the Matrix if one has also been on its OUTSIDE at some point as well.

However, if instead you mean to imply that I was simply being evasive, well then, I will still agree with you, especially after reflecting upon the wider, bilateral context of the truncated Matrix scene you inserted into your post. As is often the case with our understanding of various ‘texts,’ a fuller context is key.

Subliminally yours,

2PhiloVoid

throughfiierytrial · Nov 6, 2015

Nihilist Virus said: ↑
All I see here is a bunch of rambling. I'm not sure what you are even trying to convey.

The story is quite simple: Judah is under attack and Jerusalem is going to be sacked. Ahaz is told that this will not happen, and that he will be given a sign as confirmation. For this sign to manifest 500 years later is simply nonsensical.

You are not sure what I am saying, on that you've made yourself clear and you also do not seem to understand what is being said in the prophesies presented in Isaiah 7 are you seeing God's judgement against Judah beginning in verse 17? (The matter of the outcome of this impending war is a separate matter from the Messianic prophecy of 7:14. Judgement on Judah herself is yet another matter and it begins in verse 17...all appropriate timing.)

Nihilist Virus · Nov 7, 2015

ISTANDBYJESUS said:
Did you account for:

2 Kings 24:17King James Version (KJV)
17 And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah his father's brother king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah.

And you should use the king James bible.

Yes I did. Please take the time to read my argument and reference the Bible verses I cite.

Nihilist Virus · Nov 7, 2015

throughfireytrial said:
Review please:
7 Yet this is what the Sovereign Lord says:
“‘It will not take place,
it will not happen,
8 for the head of Aram is Damascus,
and the head of Damascus is only Rezin.
Within sixty-five years
Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.
9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria,
and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son.
If you do not stand firm in your faith,
you will not stand at all.
**This is a prophecy, correct? Came true.

And Ahaz did not stand firm in his faith and so Judah eventually ceased to exist as a self-governing country at least.
Ahaz is not told he will be given a sign it will not happen...he is told to ask for a sign.
Ahaz refused. and then please review these:
13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign:
**The Lord here has His own purposes.

If you take the time to read verse 16, you see it says,

"For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings."

In other words, the prophecy is saying that the "virgin" (or young woman) will give birth to a child named Emmanuel, and before the child is of a certain age, the invading nations will be defeated.

throughfireytrial said:
BTW, I am trying to help you with your struggles as a Christian but, in your answers you use a commanding (your next task), rude tone (just a bunch of rambling, etc.) I consider it only noise, but you must keep your ADD in check if you want to work through some of these struggles...in the end it's "Believe it, or Don't". I hope you can overcome your great and serious doubt for there are eternal consequences and that is what I try not to loose sight of when posting with you
I know, I know...just a bunch more rambling.

But if you are indeed trying to defend the prophecy of the virgin birth then it very much is your next task to explain this: How is it that Ahaz is being shown a sign that his kingdom will not collapse if that sign is coming 500 years later? I truly feel that I need to say this because up to this point you have done nothing but locate the passage in the Bible. If you have no inclination of actually defending this so-called prophecy, and if you have no comments about the OP, then I don't know what it is that you are trying to contribute to this thread. Your posts seem to be aimless, scattered, and away from the point - rambling. I apologize if you find this to be a rude remark, but it appears to me as though you are trying to draw attention away from the focal point because you know that this "prophecy" will not withstand scrutiny.

throughfireytrial said:
Nihilist Virus said: ↑
All I see here is a bunch of rambling. I'm not sure what you are even trying to convey.

The story is quite simple: Judah is under attack and Jerusalem is going to be sacked. Ahaz is told that this will not happen, and that he will be given a sign as confirmation. For this sign to manifest 500 years later is simply nonsensical.

You are not sure what I am saying, on that you've made yourself clear and you also do not seem to understand what is being said in the prophesies presented in Isaiah 7 are you seeing God's judgement against Judah beginning in verse 17? (The matter of the outcome of this impending war is a separate matter from the Messianic prophecy of 7:14. Judgement on Judah herself is yet another matter and it begins in verse 17...all appropriate timing.)

Again, refer to Isaiah 7:16. Apparently you are saying that verses 14-16 refer to the messiah, and from verse 17 on it is about the destruction of Judah. So then please explain why it clearly says that this Emmanuel will barely know the difference between right and wrong before Ahaz's enemies are destroyed. Explain how that is not clearly a here-and-now prophecy for Ahaz.

throughfireytrial said:
Matthew 2:4-6 misquotes Micah 5:2.
The account in Matthew is referring to Bethlehem the town, but Micah is referring to Bethlehem Ephrathah, which is a family clan. Matthew has once again twisted an irrelevant prophecy into being something about Jesus.

Click to expand...

Bethlehem Ephrathah is not a clan, it is referring to the more Southern town of Bethlehem...in Judah rather than a more Northern town named Bethlehem.

The NIV seems to think "Bethlehem Ephrathah" is a clan. If you read the KJV, it says,

"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."

What does it mean by "thousands of Judah"? There were thousands of cities in Judah?

Lastly... if you claim that Bethlehem Ephrathah was a city, please show me where it was on a map of ancient Israel.

throughfiierytrial · Nov 7, 2015

throughfireytrial said:
Matthew 2:4-6 misquotes Micah 5:2.
The account in Matthew is referring to Bethlehem the town, but Micah is referring to Bethlehem Ephrathah, which is a family clan. Matthew has once again twisted an irrelevant prophecy into being something about Jesus.

Bethlehem Ephrathah is not a clan, it is referring to the more Southern town of Bethlehem...in Judah rather than a more Northern town named Bethlehem.[/QUOTE]

My only point is that Matthew is not wrong...Bethlehem was referred to variously as simply Bethlehem, Bethlehem Judah, BethlehemJudea or Bethlehem Ephrathah...apparently for clarity's sake...there supposedly was another Bethlehem in Zebulun. Also, Ephrathah is referenced as different forms of the word Ephrathah.

throughfiierytrial · Nov 7, 2015

N.V.:
What does it mean by "thousands of Judah"? There were thousands of cities in Judah?
Me:
Bigger question is what is meant by this statement?:
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." ????

Mediaeval · Nov 7, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
Your argument is, "Behold, we know." An assertion based on nothing. That's what faith is.

Faith is not based on bald assertion. Faith is the default position of the human race, the recognition of unseen realities. It is based on self-evident truths (which logic cannot necessarily prove but must necessarily presuppose in order to reach valid conclusions) and on credible testimony. Consequently, unbelief is not merely a dispassionate lack of persuasion, but rebellion against better knowledge. If the universe were pointless, attributable solely to the uncaring laws of physics, and if no presuppositions were recognized as valid but those capable of being demonstrated by logic, then morality itself would be amoral, and assertions of certain knowledge would be based on nothing certain. To be consistent, the axiomless atheist should be agnostic about everything that (apparently) exists outside of his own head, and even then, for all mere logic can tell him, he might not be a real person but a self-aware, 3-dimensional character in an intelligent, 11-dimensional alien’s video game.

throughfiierytrial · Nov 7, 2015

N.V.:
The account in Matthew is referring to Bethlehem the town, but Micah is referring to Bethlehem Ephrathah, which is a family clan. Matthew has once again twisted an irrelevant prophecy into being something about Jesus.

One should consider how towns were named back then...many times after an individual or clan or tribe...the process later used to divide Canaan for the 12 tribes of Israel. But here are a couple passages which help determine whether or not Matthew was correct...which of course he was:
Genesis 35:16:
(Rachel's death)
Then they moved on from Bethel. While they were still some distance from *Ephrath,* Rachel began to give birth and had great difficulty. ... verse 19) So Rachel died and was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem).
Ruth 4:11:
Then the elders and all those at the gate said, "We are witnesses. May the LORD make the woman who is coming into your home like Rachel and Leah who together built up the house of Israel. May you have standing in *Ephrathah* and be famous in Bethlehem.

Nihilist Virus · Nov 7, 2015

Mediaeval said:
Faith is not based on bald assertion. Faith is the default position of the human race, the recognition of unseen realities. It is based on self-evident truths (which logic cannot necessarily prove but must necessarily presuppose in order to reach valid conclusions) and on credible testimony. Consequently, unbelief is not merely a dispassionate lack of persuasion, but rebellion against better knowledge. If the universe were pointless, attributable solely to the uncaring laws of physics, and if no presuppositions were recognized as valid but those capable of being demonstrated by logic, then morality itself would be amoral, and assertions of certain knowledge would be based on nothing certain. To be consistent, the axiomless atheist should be agnostic about everything that (apparently) exists outside of his own head, and even then, for all mere logic can tell him, he might not be a real person but a self-aware, 3-dimensional character in an intelligent, 11-dimensional alien’s video game.

Recognition of unseen realities? Such as what, logical laws? But we have constructed those based off what we actually do see. If we as creatures were electron-sized then our laws of logic would be quite different.

To be consistent, I should believe in nothing. You've got me there. But for you to be consistent, you should sell all that you own, give your money to the poor, and wander the world doing good works and preaching the gospel. But you will NEVER do this. There is no extremist Christian. Not one.

The rest of what you are saying is appeal to consequence. If there's no God then there's no morality. So? Does that mean God exists? Also, the absolute objective morality put forth by your God is actually quite repulsive and bigoted.

Nihilist Virus · Nov 7, 2015

throughfireytrial said:
Bethlehem Ephrathah is not a clan, it is referring to the more Southern town of Bethlehem...in Judah rather than a more Northern town named Bethlehem.

Click to expand...

My only point is that Matthew is not wrong...Bethlehem was referred to variously as simply Bethlehem, Bethlehem Judah, BethlehemJudea or Bethlehem Ephrathah...apparently for clarity's sake...there supposedly was another Bethlehem in Zebulun. Also, Ephrathah is referenced as different forms of the word Ephrathah.

Show me a map that says "Bethlehem Ephrathah." Explain why the passage uses the word "clan."

throughfireytrial said:
N.V.:
What does it mean by "thousands of Judah"? There were thousands of cities in Judah?
Me:
Bigger question is what is meant by this statement?:
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." ????

You add superfluous question marks as if to convey incredulity. Yes the Jews believed a messiah was coming. But guess what. They reject Jesus because he fulfilled neither this nor other prophecies.

I've answered your bigger question so please address mine now.

throughfireytrial said:
N.V.:
The account in Matthew is referring to Bethlehem the town, but Micah is referring to Bethlehem Ephrathah, which is a family clan. Matthew has once again twisted an irrelevant prophecy into being something about Jesus.

One should consider how towns were named back then...many times after an individual or clan or tribe...the process later used to divide Canaan for the 12 tribes of Israel. But here are a couple passages which help determine whether or not Matthew was correct...which of course he was:
Genesis 35:16:
(Rachel's death)
Then they moved on from Bethel. While they were still some distance from *Ephrath,* Rachel began to give birth and had great difficulty. ... verse 19) So Rachel died and was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem).
Ruth 4:11:
Then the elders and all those at the gate said, "We are witnesses. May the LORD make the woman who is coming into your home like Rachel and Leah who together built up the house of Israel. May you have standing in *Ephrathah* and be famous in Bethlehem.

Good research. I saw that too. But Micah 5:2 still says "clan."

ISTANDBYJESUS · Nov 7, 2015

ISTANDBYJESUS · Nov 7, 2015

ISTANDBYJESUS · Nov 7, 2015

throughfiierytrial · Nov 7, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
Show me a map that says "Bethlehem Ephrathah." Explain why the passage uses the word "clan."

I'm sure there are some who know how to find an ancient map and then to paste it here...that won't be me. I already gave several suggestions as to why the word "clan" is used and here is another...though I've already implied it: that town may have been made up of just a clan as it is small.
N.V.
You add superfluous question marks as if to convey incredulity. Yes the Jews believed a messiah was coming. But guess what. They reject Jesus because he fulfilled neither this nor other prophecies.
Me:
Most people understand that the Jews cannot read prophecy...they reject everything about the life of Jesus and so how could they see His fulfillment of prophecy in the Scripture? The nature of prophecy is shrouded and purposely so, see Isaiah 28:8-14:
9 “Who is it he is trying to teach?
To whom is he explaining his message?
To children weaned from their milk,
to those just taken from the breast?
10 For it is:
Do this, do that,
a rule for this, a rule for that;
a little here, a little there."
11 Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues
God will speak to this people,
12 to whom he said,
“This is the resting place, let the weary rest”;
and, “This is the place of repose”—
but they would not listen.
13 So then, *the word of the Lord* to them will become:
Do this, do that,
a rule for this, a rule for that;
a little here, a little there-
so that as they go they will fall backward;
they will be injured and snared and captured.
N.V.
I've answered your bigger question so please address mine now.
Me:
My question was only rhetorical meaning you have gone far afield from the idea that over 350 prophecies all fulfilled by Jesus defies the laws of statistical probability. My original postings to you were to keep you from becoming ensnared in the less important details and to look at the big picture. And no you have not offered an answer to that question in any way, shape or form, unless you are saying: Todays Jews don't believe so neither will I.
N.V.
Good research. I saw that too. But Micah 5:2 still says "clan."

Yes, I did look it up for conveinience and to get ideas on how to best present and to be careful in handling the Scripture...these are passages which struck me as I first read the Bible some years ago! However, every good Christian church knows these things and teaches them

throughfiierytrial · Nov 7, 2015

Nihilist Virus said: ↑
All I see here is a bunch of rambling. I'm not sure what you are even trying to convey.
The story is quite simple: Judah is under attack and Jerusalem is going to be sacked. Ahaz is told that this will not happen, and that he will be given a sign as confirmation. For this sign to manifest 500 years later is simply nonsensical.

Again I say that I disagree with "the story" summary as you have it. Ahaz is not told he will be given a sign of confirmation that Judah would not be attacked. It is clear from the Isaiah account that Ahaz angered or tried the patience of both Isaiah and God. The sign followed and it is one which assures Ahaz and all Judah that God exists and for brevity I'll end the explanation of the sign here b/c my answer seems to escape you or you label it rambling.

Nihilist Virus · Nov 7, 2015

throughfireytrial said:
Nihilist Virus said: ↑
All I see here is a bunch of rambling. I'm not sure what you are even trying to convey.
The story is quite simple: Judah is under attack and Jerusalem is going to be sacked. Ahaz is told that this will not happen, and that he will be given a sign as confirmation. For this sign to manifest 500 years later is simply nonsensical.

Again I say that I disagree with "the story" summary as you have it. Ahaz is not told he will be given a sign of confirmation that Judah would not be attacked. It is clear from the Isaiah account that Ahaz angered or tried the patience of both Isaiah and God. The sign followed and it is one which assures Ahaz and all Judah that God exists and for brevity I'll end the explanation of the sign here b/c my answer seems to escape you or you label it rambling.

I see that you are sticking to your guns on this issue. You want to say that Isaiah 7:14 is about the messiah and that starting in verse 17 it is about the destruction of Judah.

My question is that you obviously have to contend that verses 15 and 16 are also about the messiah, since it is the same "paragraph." But in verse 16 it says that the boy who is born of the "virgin" will barely be old enough to know right from wrong before Judah's enemies would be destroyed. It is clearly a prophecy that concerns Ahaz and is not meant to be something about 500 years later. Please address this very specific point of mine, and explain why Micah 5:2 uses the word "clan." Thank you.

throughfiierytrial · Nov 7, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
I see that you are sticking to your guns on this issue. You want to say that Isaiah 7:14 is about the messiah and that starting in verse 17 it is about the destruction of Judah.

My question is that you obviously have to contend that verses 15 and 16 are also about the messiah, since it is the same "paragraph." But in verse 16 it says that the boy who is born of the "virgin" will barely be old enough to know right from wrong before Judah's enemies would be destroyed. It is clearly a prophecy that concerns Ahaz and is not meant to be something about 500 years later. Please address this very specific point of mine, and explain why Micah 5:2 uses the word "clan." Thank you.

I think not...not again that is.

Nihilist Virus · Nov 7, 2015

throughfireytrial said:
I think not...not again that is.

If that is to say that you've already addressed these points, can you please then copy/paste them? I never saw these points being addressed.

Nihilist Virus · Nov 7, 2015

throughfireytrial said:
Again I say that I disagree with "the story" summary as you have it. Ahaz is not told he will be given a sign of confirmation that Judah would not be attacked.

Isaiah 7:5-7

Verses 5-6 say that Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah are plotting to attack. Verse 7 says it will not come to pass.

Then in verses 10-11 it tells Ahaz to ask for a sign. This is what immediately follows the thought from verses 5-9, but there is a paragraph break. Am I correct in that these run together? Let's assume not. You still have to explain verse 16, and you have made no attempt to do so. None whatsoever.

As for Micah 5:2, I can agree we have come to an impass. I correctly contend that the verse says that Bethlehem Ephrathah is a clan, and you have correctly contended that Bethlehem is sometimes referred to as Ephrathah.

But please answer me on Isaiah 7:16.

This crippled my faith

Truth-Lover

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Truth-Lover

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

Truth-Lover

Truth-Lover

baptizatus sum

Truth-Lover

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

Joseph Melo

Joseph Melo

Joseph Melo

Truth-Lover

Truth-Lover

Infectious idea

Truth-Lover

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

Similar threads