Anat

To add to what noah had said in this thread, "until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth" refers either to a specific woman who was pregnant when the prophecy was made or an unspecified woman who could have been pregnant at the time - IOW Micah is prophesising about events that are to happen within a few months.

OTOH at least one medieval Jew read the passage as a metaphor formessianic times in the distant future (relative to Micah's times). A guy by the name of Mordechai who composed 'maoz tzur', 'The Rock of Ages' the first and fifth stanzas of which are sung on Hanukkah. Stanzas 2 to 5 describe how God had saved the Jews in the past - the exodus from Egypt, the return from Babylonian exile, saving the Jews of the Persian empire by Mordechai and Esther and the Hasmonean wars.

The 6th stanza ends with (my own translation)

Push down Admon
In the shadow of Tzalmon
Raise us the seven shepherds

Admon is the Red One, a hint for Friedrich Barbarosa and Tzalmon is supposed to hint at Constantinopolis. The seven shepherds are from Micah 5. The author had been hoping that the failure of Barbarosa's crussade would usher in the Messianic Age.

hatsoff

According to the Bible, Jesus was an extension of God and ruler over all--including Israel. He may also return in the future and become ruler in the physical sense.

There's no conclusive evidence to the contrary, either.

Some claim to.

Wrong. As said above, Jesus was in a spiritual sense ruler over everyone, including Israel.

Proof is what you want, maybe, but for others it is not required. It would certainly not be required for God.

As far as I know, it's certainly possible Micah is not talking about the Christ. Unfortunately, your argument that it *must not* be the Christ is unconvincing.

Johnny Skeptic

Like you, right?

Yeah, like Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Deists.

How about "not likely"? I will number the following claims from Micah 5:1-5:

Claim #1 - Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek.

Claim #2 - 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;

Claim #3 - whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Claim #4 - Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth:

Claim #5 - then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.

Claim #6 - And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.

Claim #7 - And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land:

Claim #8 - and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.

How many of those claims, if any, do you suppose applied to Jesus? In your opinion, are the claims of any value to Christians when they proselytize non-Christians?

Your viewer profile says that you like music. What kinds of music do you like? Do you like Enya? You can answer my questions here or in a private message if you like.

hatsoff

Obviously, Micah was not talking about Jesus, because he had no idea Jesus would ever exist. From a Christian perspective, however, Micah was a prophet of God. What's the trouble, here?

Johnny Skeptic

If you went to a Muslim forum, would you tell skeptics "From a Muslim perspective, however, Muhammed was a prophet of God. What's the trouble, here?" The trouble here is that this is the Biblical Criticism and History Forum, not the Bible Says So, I Believe It and That Is All That There Is To It Forum. If Christians wish to believe by faith alone that Micah 5:2 describes Jesus, then let them say so, but if they have apologetic reasons, I would like to hear them.

I just took a look at some of your other posts in this thread and in other threads and I must say that I do not have any idea whatsoever what your agenda are at this forum. What are they?

Helpmabob

Hi Johnny - Personally, I don’t have anything concrete, but my faith doesn’t demand that all the myriad gaps in my knowledge are filled in. It's either right or wrong. Still, I’d like to be able to answer the question.

This passage may be part of the prefiguring of Jesus, whereby it was shown or suggested that something will happen in the future, but not in any definite terms. For example, when Christ comes again, he will come ‘by surprise’, He has not told us the details of when and where: Suddenly, in an instant, the LORD Almighty will come with thunder and earthquake and great noise, with windstorm and tempest and flames of a devouring fire. [Isaiah 29:6]

FreezBee

Just a small note here. What is Bethlehem Ehpratah? A town? This is the common assumption, but were there really thousands of towns in Judah? The Hebrew word "elef" is supposed to mean both "1000" and "clan", so the text may be referreing to one of the clans of Judah. And in 1 Chronicles we read this snippet:

So here Bethlehem is the grandson of Ephratah, or what?


- FreezBee

Johnny Skeptic

But "may be" is not good enough. Either Micah 5:2 can stand on its own merit or it can't, and it seems that you have admitted that it can't.

May I ask why you believe that God is not an evil God who is masquerading as a good God and will send everyone to hell?

In the Old Testament, Ephratah is mentioned four times, twice as person, and twice as a place, but that doesn't deter many Christians from choosing a place. I simply tell them that even if Ephratah refers to a place, there is not any credible evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Even if the magi went to see Jesus in Bethlehem, he might have been born in a nearby town and transferred to Bethlehem. Only Mary and Joseph would have known the truth, and we don't know what they told people.

SteveB

Micah 5:2 has to do with the geneaology of Jesus, in that he was to be born in Bethlehem. The family line back to King David of ancient Israel deals with this. I.e., David was born in Bethlehem.
The point is to connect him to the lineage of David, as David was promised by God to have a line all the way to the Messiah himself; therefore would have an eternal throne.
The other point is that he was to be "from of old, of everlasting."
I.e., I'm told the word used in the hebrew is HaOlam. The word means "from beyond the vanishing point," presumably referring to beyond time itself. Thus relating the Messiah to God directly.

Johnny Skeptic

But by what means have you connected Mary or Joseph to David other than "the Bible says so"? In addition, what evidence do you have that Jesus was born in Bethlehem other than "the Bible says so"?

In other words, your only evidence is "the Bible says so," whether it is a talking donkey or anything esle. My gracious, Steve, if the Bible said that a barnyard pig sprouted wings and flew, you would believe it.

Why do you assume that everything that is in the Bible is the word of God? The New Testament canon was not put together until hundreds of years after the death of Jesus. The writings that were included were arrived at by a vote, indicating uncertainty. For instance, some writings by Paul were included in the canon and some weren't. How do you suppose that the voters chose which writings of Paul to include in the canon, and why do you rule out a reasonably possibility of interpolations?