noah

Well that's too bad isn't it Notsri? Your rendition of Judaic tradition and scripture has little to commend it as well.
First of all tell me where exactly in the Yirushalmi you are quoting.

Second, I find your choice of he Midrash in Eicha Rabba a funny thing to use to prove that it speaks of Jesus, when, if you read all of it, it actually says that the true Moshiach was not born in Beth-Lechem . Perhaps you'd care to expand on that for me.

Thirdly, why are you quoting Jewish scripture that, in other places, says obeying the commandments is the path, the only path, to salvation and not faith in a human blood sacrifice a.k.a. JC ? Is this more buffet style Christianity? I would suggest that if you are going to quote Jewish scripture, don't cherry pick. It's bizarre enough that Christians do that with their own scripture, please don't start now with someone else's.

Fourth, since when has anything but the bible been consisdered the inspired word of god? Unless I missed something, the bible and only the bible is considered by Christians to be the inspired word of god. Correct? So what are you doing citing uninspired scriptures and tradition from someone else's religion, especially when that scripture is at odds with key elelments of Christian doctrine e.g. Salvation, Original Sin, The Law, the Trinity, Miracles etc.? Que Pasa?

Fifth, parts of the New Testament seems to contradict Mathew’s assertion that JC was born in Bethlehem, specifically two verses from John. It was apparently quite well known that JC was from Galilee and not Bethlehem:

JC confirms that what the people know about him is true:

Also the priests confirmed what the people believed about Galilee and the Messiah, that the Messiah would not come from Galilee:

Seventh, JC is disqualified from inheriting any kingship since he was not of the house of David and fulfiiled none of the requirements for being the Jewish messiah. Ask a Jew.

Finally, the Jewish scripture that Matthew is misquoting makes clear that Bethlehem is not a town or a synonym for a town. It is a clan. Read it:

More later

Regards,

Noah

RED DAVE

From Half-Life:
Chapter and verse, please.

RED DAVE

Dargo

For that matter, what did David Koresch(sp?) and his followers have to gain by dying? Why would Mormon founder Joseph Smith fail to renounce his claims to being a prophet when faced with death by an angry mob in the 1840s? Many people have died for their religious beliefs including some who should have known their claims to be pure bunk. Some of them may have found it perferable to die having their followers remember them as martyrs rather than live with everyone knowing that they were nothing but charlatans.

FatherMithras

Half life, and ML seem to lack any real knowledge of the history they claim is true. Here's one hint, the "smoking gun" in the Bible is this:

1. Jews weren't enslaved in Egypt
2. No mass exodus from Egypt
3. No wandering in the desert for 40 years.
4. NO invasion of Canaan.

With only those examples, we can clearly see the enormous smoking gun in the Bible. Multiple books of the OT are COMPLETE fabrications. They absolutely cannot be based on fact, as they do not speak about true events that actually transpired. Evidence has been conclusively shown to prove these things never occured, via archaeology, historical records, and the history of nations like Eypt and the lands of Canaan. For example, if the Jews took Canaan, and killed everyoine there, and razed their lands THEN rebuilt on them, why is there 0 difference in the pottery and cultural remnants from BEFORE the supposed invasion to after the invasion?


*blows smoke away from gun and reholsters*

Notsri

I'm glad I stopped by today, noah, specifically to this thread—my post to you was from what, a couple weeks ago now? I certainly didn't expect to hear from you at this point! Glad you replied, though.

Anyway, the passage from the Yerushalmi—it's Berakhot 2:4 (it's essentially the same aggadah that's found in Eicha Rabba).


I'm afraid you've misunderstood me. I didn't mention the Midrash to prove Micah 5:2 refers to Jesus. The point then at stake was whether Micah speaks to the people of a particular locale, Bethlehem in Judah, or exclusively to the descendants of Caleb's grandson, Bethlehem—the clan of Bethlehem. The Midrash was adduced only to show that, from the rabbinic perspective, the former is probably meant. Now, that being said, upon more careful consideration I do realize that, strictly speaking, Eicha Rabba may in fact lend no support, after all, as it treats the Yerushalmi's aggadah somewhat loosely, i.e. it changes the Yerushalmi's line, "from the royal city of Bethlehem Judah"—the Messiah's apparent birthplace there—to "from the city of Arabia of Bethlehem Judah." So, OK, I'm willing to set the Midrash aside at this point. :notworthy


I'm not sure of the above's relevance to the topic. (Besides, if we're going to illuminate Micah 5:2 by way of the rabbinica, we have to pick selectively, do we not? For if we're going to use that corpus to help explain the verse, it's entirely necessary to consult only those texts which have some significance to that verse, right? I thought that that's what I was doing in citing the Yerushalmi and the Midrash Rabbah.)


I trust this objection stems from your perception that the Talmud and Midrash were mentioned by me as to prove the messiahship of Jesus. Since they were not, I guess I don't feel the need to comment.


This notion that John contradicts the Synoptics on the birthplace of Jesus, has always struck me as rather odd. Unless Jesus went around publicizing his birth in Bethlehem—a pretty strange thing to do; and certainly not in keeping with his character as depicted in the gospels—there seems to me no reason to assume the common man knew anything of that birthplace. What scant information the NT does offer, seems to suggest that Jesus spent most of the duration of his life in Galilee, prosaic though that may be—none of this trekking through Egypt or India nonsense. Thus, his peculiar, Galilean accent would no doubt have suggested a Galilean background to those with whom he had contact, especially the Judeans, such as those probably depicted in John 7. As I see it, John is entirely silent on the issue of Jesus' birthplace.


This, again, is beside the point at hand, and not my concern right now.


OK. So we've returned to the crux of the matter. After closer inspection, it seems, first of all, that this sharp distinction we've drawn between city and clan, is false, the clan of Bethlehem (not too surprisingly) having an intimate connection to the town of that name. Even so, for the reasons I've mentioned before, it seems reasonable to think that Micah had the people of that region and town in view, and not merely the descendents of Bethlehem, the grandson of Caleb in mind. From a biblical perspective, already by the time of David, the town comprised more than simply those of the strict clan of Bethlehem. (Remember, David's great-grandmother, according to the Bible, was a Moabitess, living in Bethlehem.) From my perspective—and I've mentioned this before—Micah's use of "Bethlehem Ephratah," and "of Judah," when taken in the light of biblcal vv. like Gen 35:19; 48:7; Jud 17:7-9; 19:1-2; et al, tends to militate against your more narrow interpretation. Now I do realize that this in many ways is hardly a satisfactory answer to the problem you've posed. I do at least think it's a pretty good start. Perhaps I'll give it continued and more careful consideration. In the meantime, I'll leave you with an excerpt from Rashi:

"'And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah...'—whence David emanated, as it is stated: 'The son of your bondsman, Jesse the Bethlehemite.' And Bethlehem is called Ephrath, as it is said: 'On the road to Ephrath, that is Bethlehem.'

'you should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah...'—you should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah because of the stigma of Ruth the Moabitess in you.

'from you shall emerge for Me...'—the Messiah, son of David, and so Scripture says: 'The stone the builders had rejected became a cornerstone.'

'and his origin is from of old.'—'Before the sun his name is Yinnon' (Ps. 72:17)."

Regards,
Notsri

Kosh

"Think ya used enough dynamite there, Butch?"
- Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kid

noah

Notsri:
Where did you find this text? Do you speak Aramaic? Anyway it doesn't help you.
The passage you cite lends support, if anything for the tradition that a false Messiah was born in Bethlehem.
It is a variation of the story (the non-Jew doesn't ask the Jew if he is a Jew but calls him one, nor is are there some of the other aspects of the story, but some of the core of it is still present and there are some interesting new elements as well), where a non-Jew is claiming that that the Moshiach was born in Bethlechem, and the Jew goes and discovers that it wasn't true. And it contains the same punch line, with no reference to Beth-Lechem as one of the elements that is part of the Jewish tradition.

The relevance to the topic is that you are being selective i.e. cherry picking Judaic scripture to press your points. You don't seem to understand you are going into texts that contradict the fundamental tenets of Christian doctrine (whatever that is). You are using Jewish texts subjectively and incorrectly to prove your point. As soon as you mention a Jewish text that whole text comes into play. You can't just pick and choose which parts of Judaic tradition you want to cite and ignore the parts you don't like. Going into texts that contradict your views and citing selectively without accounting for the larger context of the passages you pick from them is dishonest.

For example you have to account for the fact that the Midrash used to supposedly prove that Beth-Lechem was part of a Jewish tradition of the birthplace of the Moshiach (which doesn't say that, but says that non-Jews believe that), also has the following points, which, if you want to take them literally, also create a problem for you.

* The Moshiach will be born on the day/anniversary of the destruction of the Temple. (When was Jesus supposedly born? According to this Midrash, Jesus was born 70 years too early.

* When the Moshiach comes forth to Israel, the Temple will be rebuilt almost immediately.

* The Jews are not to believe the criteria of the Moshiach from a non-Jew.


I'm going to have to ask you to read the texts again Notsri. For some reason the people know or found out that JC is from Galilee. The people say JC is from Galilee and He, JC, says they're right. It doesn't get any plainer than that I'm afraid. JC was from Galilee. He knew it. The people knew it. JC said the people knew it.

Actually it is central to the point at hand. No discussion of JC is legitimate unless the Christian first accounts for why JC is not the Jewish messiah. It is illogical to argue or discuss a point from a flawed base of incorrect assumptions.
See my Midrash citations above



Actually no it isn't Notsri. The Jewish text contradicts you flatly. I guessed you missed it the first time. Here it is again:
Further to the point, let's take a look at some of these quotes of yours
Again you said:
and you cited:

The Rashi is clear that the verse is speaking of the descendant of Yishai, and Yisha, was called the Betlehemite (as well as the Efratah man), and thus Rashi is holding that "And you of Bethlechem of Efratah..." is speaking of the descendant of David, the king Moshiach. Even though you said it yourself, I guess you just didn't see it.

your next quote:
Again, the Rashi is saying that this is speaking to David, the descendant of Yishai, who was the least likely one to be chosen for king, and so will be the Moshiach, as his descendant.


And again, Rashi is saying that this verse is not about Bethlehem, but about a descendant of David, and this verse speaks of David as the direct object, not where he was brought up.

So from all your quotes, it looks like you agree with the Rashi, that Micha was speaking of David as the object "And you [David] of Bethlehem, of Efrat, who should have been the least likely of all of the clans...from you shall come forth..."

You even quote David who uses a verse with the word "Yinon" which doesn't have a real meaning and only occurs once in the Tanach, and is the foundation for more Midrash, which Rashi is pointing to.

One of the problems that you might be having is accepting who "YOU" is. It is in the masculine singular, which has no english equivilant. All towns are in the female, not the male, and thus "you" is addressed the direct object, and the direct object is not the town.

Actually Notsri it doesn't. Look at the Jewish text:

You also made this point:
Actually it is Efrat, not Efratah which is the name of the town, you even quoted it as such.

If you add an "ah" to the end, it means "by way of" or "near".

In the Torah it says Efrat, meaning a specific place, while Micha was indicating a specific Beth-Lechem by saying "near/by Efrat", which is in the south, instead of the Beth-Lechem that is to the north.

The Christian text left it out. Curious no?

Amaleq13

The relevant verse:

"and he was again denying. And after a little again, those standing near said to Peter, `Truly thou art of them, for thou also art a Galilean, and thy speech is alike;'"(Mk 14:70, YLT)

Notsri

Mesorah Pub. has just recently published the first volume—the first of two volumes for Tractate Berakhot—of their English translation of the Yerushalmi. That volume is my source.


No.


I get the gist of what you're saying, though I'm not entirely sure of the last line's meaning. In any event I would tend to generally disagree. The Yerushalmi engages in a bit of messianic speculation in Berakhot 2:4, and nothing suggests a "false Messiah" is in view. In fact, the story there of the Jew and his journey to Bethlehem in search of the newborn Messiah, "Menahem," is adduced to corroborate an earlier statement from R. Yudan ben R. Aivu: "Menahem is his [the Messiah's] name." Taken in context, there's no doubt that R. Yudan has the true Messiah in mind.

Though the anonymous Jew's quest in Bethlehem is met with some disappointment, it is not the sort you suggest: he finds Menahem's mother, only to be met with a somewhat cryptic statement: "From the moment you saw me, winds and gales came and snatched him from my hands." In other words, though the Messiah was not found at that time in Bethlehem, there was evidently nothing untrue in the words of the non-Jew (contrary to what you've suggested, I'm afraid): the Messiah was born there; it's just that, now he's gone.


I still fail to see the sense in this. In my initial post in this thread, I had urged the possibility that at least some 1st-c. and later Jews had linked the Messiah to the town of Bethlehem, most likely if not certainly based on a reading of Micah 5:2. In connection to that claim I had offered John 7:42, alluding also to certain texts from the Yerushalmi and Eicha Rabba. What sense would it make for me to then bring to that discussion texts which have absolutely no bearing on the original claim? In that sort of expositional undertaking, selectivity is quite obviously required, otherwise the argument or claim would be rendered unintelligible. If I were telling you what ancient Jews believed about the Messiah and Bethlehem, and was then quoting "prooftexts" from (say) Midrash Psalms concerning the person of Esther—well, I'd hope you'd think me crazy.


Of course, I do understand that.


I suppose I've for the most part addressed this already.


Eicha Rabba (1:51) expands and slightly reworks the talmudic version of the story. Since it changes the Messiah's birthplace to "the city of Arabia in Bethlehem of Judah," I'm willing, for the sake of this argument, to set it aside—which I did mention last time. I will add this, however: as in the Talmud, the story is adduced in the Midrash to corroborate R. Yudan's suggestion that Messiah will be called Menahem. The non-Jew (in fact an Arab) is the one to reveal both the Messiah's birthplace and the time of his birth (on the heels of the Temple's destruction) to a Jewish farmer hard at work. But neither the talmudic nor the midrashic version suggests that such a tradition is inherently non-Jewish. In fact, one possible clue that we're dealing with Jewish tradition comes when R. Abun asks: Do we really need to learn from this Arab that the Messiah's advent will occur about the time of the Temple's destruction? Doesn't scripture tell us that?


I touched on this line of reasoning in my last post. If I were trying to prove the messiahship of Jesus using material from the rabbinic corpus, then I'd be in trouble, then these three points would prove problematic. But since his putative messiahship was and is in fact not the issue, I do not have at this time to grapple with them. The topic was first and foremost: the meaning of "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2; and then: Jewish interpretation of Micah 5:2.


Noah, I don't know what else to say. No special intimacy with Jesus or his family or anyone particularly close to him, would've been required to discern his Galilean background. His speech alone would've been enough to betray that fact—as is said to have occurred with Peter, in YLT's Mark 14:70. (My thanks to Amaleq13 for the Marcan text. ) To put it differently, a thirty-something's Galilean background (and speech) does not necessarily translate to Galilean birth.

To YLT's Mark 14:70 I would add, first, from the same context Matthew 26:73 (NASB): "...even the way you [Peter] talk gives you away"; and, second, an interesting passage from Bavli Erubin 53a-b: "Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: 'The residents of Judea...were particular in their speech...the residents of Galilee...were not particular in their speech.'....There was this Galilean [who was walking along] and asking [unintelligibly those he met]: 'Who has an 'amar? Who has an 'amar?' They said to him: 'Foolish Galilean—a hamar [donkey] to ride on, or hamar [wine] to drink; 'amar [wool] to wear, or an 'imar [sheep] to slaughter?' A certain woman who intended to say to her friend, 'Come, that I may give you fat to eat— she said to her, [from the Judean perspective]: '...may a lion eat you.' A certain woman came before a judge. She said to him: 'My slave [intending to address him as, My master]..."


As for the rest of your post; it certainly deserves a proper response, but I'm afraid that will have to wait til tomorrow. For now I'm off to sleep.

Regards,
Notsri

noah

Some more points that mitigate against the idea that Micah 5:2 refers to Jesus:

The bible tells us that Bethlehem was the name of a man whose father was Ephratah see First Chron. 4:4 and 2:50 yet Matthew and Luke's geneaologies make no mention of Bethlehem or Ephratah.

The editors of the NIV, RSV, NASB and NAB have all translated the verse to refer to a clan. Here is how the NIV translates that Micah verse: Here's how the NASB translates the verse:
and the RSV
the NIV:

Also micah doesn't refer to a distant future savior. Micah is talking about a person who will save them from the Assyrians. JC was born 600 years too late to be this person. And if you say JC was supposed to save the Jews against the Romans well he didn't do that either.

that Notsri stated:
It doesn't change the fact that in both instances, the Midrash ends with the Rabbi chastising the other for taking the word of a non-Jew that the Moshiach was born in Bethlehem and then does not cite anything in Scripture to indicate they ever did, but does cite scripture to indicate that the did agree on two other points.

Furthermore, the use of "Menachem" in an associate Midrash was relating to the one I pointed to earlier where there are several people who give different possible names and the punch line is that they were all wrong, that the Moshiach could be anyone. And the punchline after "Menachem" is suggested is that again, they are said that they are wrong.

In other words, the wrong name, and the wrong time and the wrong person are all indicated.

Yes but the pont is that both the priests and the people took JCs being from Galilee to mean more than his just having spent time there. My reading of the passages is that JC is known to have been born in Galilee and it is his birth there that disqualifies him from kingship. Otherwise why would a messiah be disqualified from kingship just because he had spent time in Galilee? Was there some sort of anti-messiah toxin present in Galilee?

Fine then choose other sources and be prepared to account for their entirety. You can't cherry pick a source and reasonably expect to shield yourself from criticism of and questions regarding the source and your use of it as it realtes to your beliefs and arguments. This is something you Christians don't seem to understand. Cherry picking is not allowed in honest debate. Once you mention a source, especially a Jewish source, the whole source is in play. I am entitled to question your use of that source pointing out the difficulties your use of that source presents you. If a rabid capitalist were to refer selectively, and erroneously, to some part of Das Kapital in support of his capitalist argument, the capitalist's opponent would be entitled, in fact dutybound, to bring up the fact that the capitalist was on shaky ground citing Das Kapital for the very reason that the book, in its entirety and specifics, contradicted every fundamental belief the capitalist had. The capitalist's opponent would then be justified in holding the capitalist to task for his cherry picking from Das Kapital. Just because John does or does not mention certain texts from Midrash or other related texts doesn't mean Midrash in its entirety is not in play. John's use of these texts is open to question as is yours. The texts in their entirety are necessary to prove or disprove whether John is wrong and hypocritical in his use of these texts. It's my belief that John and the Gospel writers cherry picked, distorted and hijacked Jewish texts to push their agenda just as I believe you are doing now. The entirety of these texts and parts of these texts are necessary and fair to bring up in order to hold you and John accountable for your misuse of them.