Is Paul "the False Prophet?"
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#539 Jan 4, 2013
Allen Richards wrote:
<quoted text>
.
I did and I also read Keil and Delitszch's commentary of Micah 4:12
.
But whether the opinion of these chief men as to the meaning and fulfilment of Micah's prophecy (Mic_3:12) was the correct one or not, cannot be decided from the passage quoted.…
This argument falls to the ground with the untenable assumptions upon which it is founded. Micah neither mentions the Assyrians nor the Babylonians as executing the judgment, nor does he say a word concerning the time when the predicted devastation or destruction of Jerusalem will occur. In the expression [Hb.] for your sakes (Mic_3:12), it is by no means affirmed that it will take place in his time through the medium of the Assyrians.
…
The only thing that would warrant our restricting the prophecy to Micah's own times, would be a precise definition by Micah himself of the period when Jerusalem would be destroyed, or his expressly distinguishing his own contemporaries from their sons and descendants.
…This contradiction, with the consequence to which it would inevitably lead,- namely, that if one of the prophets predicted the destruction of Jerusalem by the Assyrians, whereas the other prophesied that it would not be destroyed by them,… cannot be removed by the assumption that Isaiah uttered the prophecies in ch. 28-32 at a somewhat later period, after Micah had published his book, and the terribly severe words of Micah in Mic_3:12 had produced repentance.…
Moreover, in Isaiah 28-32 there is not a single trace that Micah's terrible threatening had produced such repentance, that the Lord was able to withdraw His threat in consequence, and predict through Isaiah the rescue of Jerusalem from the Assyrian.…
there is nothing in the addresses and threatenings of the two prophets to indicate that Micah uttered his threats conditionally, i.e., in case there should be no repentance, whereas Isaiah uttered his unconditionally.
…
Moreover, such an explanation is proved to be untenable by the fact, that in Micah the threat of the destruction of Jerusalem and of the desolation of the temple mountain (Mic_3:12) stands in the closest connection with the promise, that at the end of the days the mountain of God's house will be exalted above all mountains, and Jehovah reign on Zion as king for ever (Mic_4:1-3 and Mic_7:1). If this threat were only conditional, the promise would also have only a conditional validity; and the final glorification of the kingdom of God would be dependent upon the penitence of the great mass of the people of Israel,- a view which is diametrically opposed to the real nature of the prophecies of both, yea, of all the prophets.
…
We … must also extend the threat of punishment to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans and the attendant dispersion of the Jews over all the world, and the redemption out of Babel promised in Mic_4:10 to that deliverance of Israel which, in the main, is in the future still.
They're commentary has nothing to do with what we're talking about. You tried to find a false prophecy (Im assuming) by Micah in which it would make him to be a false prophet. But as you can see the Almighty relented concerning what He said He would do to Micah. I mean dang I brought scripture and you brought a commentary. Which one is more authoritative?
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#540 Jan 4, 2013
And also the thing is Hezekiah repented so the Almighty relented of the disaster that was PLANNED FOR HEZEKIAH. Not for later though as others did not repent which is why Jerusalem was made desolate

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#541 Jan 4, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
And also the thing is Hezekiah repented so the Almighty relented of the disaster that was PLANNED FOR HEZEKIAH. Not for later though as others did not repent which is why Jerusalem was made desolate
.
Didn't even read K&D did you? They show why the "elders of the land,", NOT Isaiah the prophet, speaking ,"Thus saith the Lord," are mistaken. You should pay better attention to the proof texts you quote.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#542 Jan 4, 2013
Allen Richards wrote:
<quoted text>
.
I did and I also read Keil and Delitszch's commentary of Micah 4:12
.
But whether the opinion of these chief men as to the meaning and fulfilment of Micah's prophecy (Mic_3:12) was the correct one or not, cannot be decided from the passage quoted.…
This argument falls to the ground with the untenable assumptions upon which it is founded. Micah neither mentions the Assyrians nor the Babylonians as executing the judgment, nor does he say a word concerning the time when the predicted devastation or destruction of Jerusalem will occur. In the expression [Hb.] for your sakes (Mic_3:12), it is by no means affirmed that it will take place in his time through the medium of the Assyrians.
…
The only thing that would warrant our restricting the prophecy to Micah's own times, would be a precise definition by Micah himself of the period when Jerusalem would be destroyed, or his expressly distinguishing his own contemporaries from their sons and descendants.
…This contradiction, with the consequence to which it would inevitably lead,- namely, that if one of the prophets predicted the destruction of Jerusalem by the Assyrians, whereas the other prophesied that it would not be destroyed by them,… cannot be removed by the assumption that Isaiah uttered the prophecies in ch. 28-32 at a somewhat later period, after Micah had published his book, and the terribly severe words of Micah in Mic_3:12 had produced repentance.…
Moreover, in Isaiah 28-32 there is not a single trace that Micah's terrible threatening had produced such repentance, that the Lord was able to withdraw His threat in consequence, and predict through Isaiah the rescue of Jerusalem from the Assyrian.…
there is nothing in the addresses and threatenings of the two prophets to indicate that Micah uttered his threats conditionally, i.e., in case there should be no repentance, whereas Isaiah uttered his unconditionally.
…
Moreover, such an explanation is proved to be untenable by the fact, that in Micah the threat of the destruction of Jerusalem and of the desolation of the temple mountain (Mic_3:12) stands in the closest connection with the promise, that at the end of the days the mountain of God's house will be exalted above all mountains, and Jehovah reign on Zion as king for ever (Mic_4:1-3 and Mic_7:1). If this threat were only conditional, the promise would also have only a conditional validity; and the final glorification of the kingdom of God would be dependent upon the penitence of the great mass of the people of Israel,- a view which is diametrically opposed to the real nature of the prophecies of both, yea, of all the prophets.
…
We … must also extend the threat of punishment to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans and the attendant dispersion of the Jews over all the world, and the redemption out of Babel promised in Mic_4:10 to that deliverance of Israel which, in the main, is in the future still.
And to those reading the above post, note how these Christians always love to arrogantly proclaim that THEY AND >>>ONLY THEY<<< have the "magic spirit" thingy that guides them to the ultimate spiritual truth. Yet when it comes right down to it, they got nothing and have to fumble around reading someone else's OPINION. Like he does above, in trying to understand their inane book of lies.
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#543 Jan 4, 2013
Allen Richards wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Didn't even read K&D did you? They show why the "elders of the land,", NOT Isaiah the prophet, speaking ,"Thus saith the Lord," are mistaken. You should pay better attention to the proof texts you quote.
Umm yes I read it and as I said it has nothing to do with what we're talking about. You tried to claim that Micah made a prophecy that didnt come to pass. But the only REASON it did not come to pass is that Hezekiah repented so the God of Israel relented of the disaster He had planned. Thats why I said "what is more authoritative, the commentary of men or the word of the Almighty?" I would go with the latter which says that theonly reason it did not come to pass is because of Hezekiah repenting of his deeds. This you can see in Isaiah I believe. And second chronicles. So the "proof texts" I will pay attention to will be the word. Not the commentaries of men

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#544 Jan 4, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
So the "proof texts" I will pay attention to will be the word. Not the commentaries of men
Do your research, the book of lies was rewritten entirely under the evil "inspiration" of MAN.

Why are you so afraid of this truth?

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Beach, FL

#545 Jan 4, 2013
-The Star Reborn- wrote:
<quoted text>
Do your research, the book of lies was rewritten entirely under the evil "inspiration" of MAN.
Why are you so afraid of this truth?
Excellent example of the bashing and vile posts to Christians by Star aka Seen.

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#546 Jan 4, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm yes I read it and as I said it has nothing to do with what we're talking about. You tried to claim that Micah made a prophecy that didnt come to pass. But the only REASON it did not come to pass is that Hezekiah repented so the God of Israel relented of the disaster He had planned. Thats why I said "what is more authoritative, the commentary of men or the word of the Almighty?" I would go with the latter which says that theonly reason it did not come to pass is because of Hezekiah repenting of his deeds. This you can see in Isaiah I believe. And second chronicles. So the "proof texts" I will pay attention to will be the word. Not the commentaries of men
.
Saying you did read it does not make it so. Had you read the commentary yuou would know that Micah's prophecy was absolute, not conditional on Hezekiah repenting. Also your proof text in Jermiah was NOT "Thus saith the Lord," but a claim made by the Elders who were certainly not inspired by God.
.
From Keil & Delitszch.
"Moreover, in Isaiah 28-32 there is not a single trace that Micah's terrible threatening had produced such repentance."
.
"Moreover, such an explanation [including your proof texts] is proved to be untenable by the fact, that in Micah the threat of the destruction of Jerusalem and of the desolation of the temple mountain (Mic_3:12) stands in the closest connection with the promise, that at the end of the days the mountain of God's house will be exalted above all mountains, and Jehovah reign on Zion as king for ever (Mic_4:1-3 and Mic_7:1). If this threat were only conditional, the promise would also have only a conditional validity; and the final glorification of the kingdom of God would be dependent upon the penitence of the great mass of the people of Israel,- a view which is diametrically opposed to the real nature of the prophecies of both, yea, of all the prophets.
.
Your proof texts do not refer to Micah's prophecy and Jerusalem has not been plowed like a field and temple mount has never been covered with tree.
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#547 Jan 4, 2013
Allen Richards wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Saying you did read it does not make it so. Had you read the commentary yuou would know that Micah's prophecy was absolute, not conditional on Hezekiah repenting. Also your proof text in Jermiah was NOT "Thus saith the Lord," but a claim made by the Elders who were certainly not inspired by God.
.
From Keil & Delitszch.
"Moreover, in Isaiah 28-32 there is not a single trace that Micah's terrible threatening had produced such repentance."
.
"Moreover, such an explanation [including your proof texts] is proved to be untenable by the fact, that in Micah the threat of the destruction of Jerusalem and of the desolation of the temple mountain (Mic_3:12) stands in the closest connection with the promise, that at the end of the days the mountain of God's house will be exalted above all mountains, and Jehovah reign on Zion as king for ever (Mic_4:1-3 and Mic_7:1). If this threat were only conditional, the promise would also have only a conditional validity; and the final glorification of the kingdom of God would be dependent upon the penitence of the great mass of the people of Israel,- a view which is diametrically opposed to the real nature of the prophecies of both, yea, of all the prophets.
.
Your proof texts do not refer to Micah's prophecy and Jerusalem has not been plowed like a field and temple mount has never been covered with tree.
READ THE BIBLE. NOT COMMENTARY lol

2nd chronicles 32
26 Then Hezekiah repented of the pride of his heart, as did the people of Jerusalem; therefore the Lord’s wrath did not come on them during the days of Hezekiah.
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#548 Jan 4, 2013
-The Star Reborn- wrote:
<quoted text>
Do your research, the book of lies was rewritten entirely under the evil "inspiration" of MAN.
Why are you so afraid of this truth?
And how is this so? You always make statements now back it up.
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#549 Jan 4, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
READ THE BIBLE. NOT COMMENTARY lol
2nd chronicles 32
26 Then Hezekiah repented of the pride of his heart, as did the people of Jerusalem; therefore the Lord’s wrath did not come on them during the days of Hezekiah.
Also Allen answer this because this wasnt the topic we were originally on. WHAT WAS YOUR POINT OF PUTTING UP MICAH 3:12 IN THE FIRST PLACE? Maybe I misunderstood you.

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#550 Jan 4, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
READ THE BIBLE. NOT COMMENTARY lol
2nd chronicles 32
26 Then Hezekiah repented of the pride of his heart, as did the people of Jerusalem; therefore the Lord’s wrath did not come on them during the days of Hezekiah.
.
Right! During the days of Hezekiah. Read something beside your out-of-context proof texts! Nothing in Micah said the prophecy applied to the time of Hezekiah. See Micah 4:1-3. I still have not seen where Jerusalem was plowed like a field and temple mount was covered with trees.
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#551 Jan 4, 2013
Allen Richards wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Right! During the days of Hezekiah. Read something beside your out-of-context proof texts! Nothing in Micah said the prophecy applied to the time of Hezekiah. See Micah 4:1-3. I still have not seen where Jerusalem was plowed like a field and temple mount was covered with trees.
9 Hear this, you leaders of Jacob,
you rulers of Israel,
who despise justice
and distort all that is right;
10 who build Zion with bloodshed,
and Jerusalem with wickedness.
11 Her leaders judge for a bribe,
her priests teach for a price,
and her prophets tell fortunes for money.
Yet they look for the Lord’s support and say,
“Is not the Lord among us?
No disaster will come upon us.”
12 Therefore because of you,
Zion will be plowed like a field,
Jerusalem will become a heap of rubble,
the temple hill a mound overgrown with thickets.

You need to read the context not me. Then again you listen to commentaries over what the word says. So nothing I say or bring is going to make you admit you're wrong.
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#552 Jan 4, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
Also Allen answer this because this wasnt the topic we were originally on. WHAT WAS YOUR POINT OF PUTTING UP MICAH 3:12 IN THE FIRST PLACE? Maybe I misunderstood you.
By the way ALLEN. You forgot this post ;)
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#553 Jan 4, 2013
9 Hear this, you leaders of Jacob,
you rulers of Israel,
who despise justice
and distort all that is right;
10 who build Zion with bloodshed,
and Jerusalem with wickedness.
11 Her leaders judge for a bribe,
her priests teach for a price,
and her prophets tell fortunes for money.
Yet they look for the Lord’s support and say,
“Is not the Lord among us?
No disaster will come upon us.”
12 Therefore because of you,
Zion will be plowed like a field,
Jerusalem will become a heap of rubble,
the temple hill a mound overgrown with thickets.

You need to read the context not me. Then again you listen to commentaries over what the word says. So nothing I say or bring is going to make you admit you're wrong.

Notice he is addressing the leaders (i.e. Hezekiah) and those of the leaders that say "NO DISASTER WILL COME TO US". Then Micah says BECAUSE OF YOU JERUSALEM WILL BECOME A HEAP OF RUBBLE. This means that it would happen in their lifetime. But since they (Hezekiah and Jerusalem) repented, the Almighty relented of the disaster planned for them. But only for their lifetime. Because afterwards Jerusalem returned to their sins.

Also answer me this (my third time asking lol just making sure you see it). What was your point of originally posting this?

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#554 Jan 4, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
Also Allen answer this because this wasnt the topic we were originally on. WHAT WAS YOUR POINT OF PUTTING UP MICAH 3:12 IN THE FIRST PLACE? Maybe I misunderstood you.
.
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/christian...
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#555 Jan 4, 2013
Allen Richards wrote:
Oh ok that he is a false prophet? Even though Jerusalem was made desolate and the temple was leveled?

Nonetheless I already know what you're gonna ask. "Where does it say that grass/trees/thickets grew on the mound"? Point is that is not what it was saying. It was saying that the temple would be leveled since the only reason that would be there is if the temple was destroyed.

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#556 Jan 4, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh ok that he is a false prophet? Even though Jerusalem was made desolate and the temple was leveled?
Nonetheless I already know what you're gonna ask. "Where does it say that grass/trees/thickets grew on the mound"? Point is that is not what it was saying. It was saying that the temple would be leveled since the only reason that would be there is if the temple was destroyed.
.
That ain't what it says.
.
12 Therefore because of you,
Zion will be plowed like a field,
Jerusalem will become a heap of rubble,
the temple hill a mound overgrown with thickets.
.
"The Talmud and Maimonides record that at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans under Titus, Terentius Rufus, who was left in command of the army, with a ploughshare tore up the foundations of the temple."
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#557 Jan 4, 2013
Allen Richards wrote:
<quoted text>
.
That ain't what it says.
.
12 Therefore because of you,
Zion will be plowed like a field,
Jerusalem will become a heap of rubble,
the temple hill a mound overgrown with thickets.
.
"The Talmud and Maimonides record that at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans under Titus, Terentius Rufus, who was left in command of the army, with a ploughshare tore up the foundations of the temple."
That wasnt the only time Jerusalem was destroyed.

But this was our original topic. That Jesus claimed that not one stone would be left upon another. But the western wall still stands. So even if I go with this premise that what Micah said didnt happen (which I know you do not believe him to be a false prophet but hey whatever floats your boat to be "right") which would make him a false prophet, Jesus made false prophecy after false prophecy thus, making him a false prophet as well.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#558 Jan 4, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
<quoted text>
Excellent example of the bashing and vile posts to Christians by Star aka Seen.
So what are you doing here if you cannot answer any questions about your beliefs or discuss anything Christian related?

Stalking?

Trolling?

Hating?

Lying?

Stirring up trouble?

Trying to get attention?

Disrupting the threads?

Attacking only?

All of the above?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll Was Paul a False Apostle? (May '08) 10 min KAB 5,731
Do you believe in tolerance for Gay Christians? 11 min Demon Finder 168
Is it possible for Jesus to be Messiah and Rabbi 20 min Demon Finder 45
Scientific Proof Of GOD(for dummies) 25 min Trevor McDonut 1,831
News Religion, higher education and critical thinking (Aug '15) 1 hr 15th Dalai Lama 9,303
If the Bible is True Barnsweb is a ... 1 hr Barnsweb 89
Questions regarding Hebrew 7 1 hr Demon Finder 18
Design, Nowhere Evident 2 hr messianic114 255
Dead Sea Scrolls Fail To Mention Jesus 7 hr Blodewedd 40
More from around the web