Moses said, Unto him ye shall hearken

[IndigoChild5559]

Deuteronomy 18:15-22 speaks of a coming Prophet. Muslims like to associate this passage with Muhammad, whilst Christians believe the Prophet is Jesus Christ.

What do Jews believe?

Joshua

 

[Redemptionsong]

Hey, you brought an entire passage. I showed the clear connection between part of it and Jeremiah. Hence, that emphasizes flaws in your theory that the entire passage is a prophecy towards a specific person. Voila.

The whole passage [Deut. 8:15-22] does, indeed, relate to false and true prophets, but verse 15 and verses 18,19 are specific to an individual. Verses 20-22 tell Israel how to distinguish the true prophet from the false, for this would be necessary when determining the rightful Prophet. Jeremiah did use this reference to help distinguish the false prophecy of Hananiah, and Hananiah died as a result. But Jeremiah does not refer to the rightful Prophet in this passage.

Following on from this, if Jesus to have been a false prophet, then God would presumably have dealt a death blow at the beginning of his ministry, when he first prophesied. Yet the record of the witnesses is that he died after three and half years of ministry and was then raised from the dead.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Do you have any evidence that Jesus was a contemporary of Moses, given that Deut 18:15 says that a prophet will be chosen from his three million relatives who had followed him for forty years?

Deuteronomy 18:18. 'I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto me, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.'

Nowhere does it state that the Prophet will be a contemporary of Moses. 'Will' is future tense; 'Brethren' refers to Israelite brothers, of any generation.

 

[Redemptionsong]

So why did the writers of Matt 1 and Luke 3 try to link Jesus to David who was a Jewish king and said that he was his god's begotten son (Psalm 2:6-7)?

The prophecy of the Tanakh makes it clear that the Messiah would be of the royal line of David. This must be true for Jesus.

The Tanakh also states that there is only one Saviour, God. If the Messiah was born of human ancestry, and did not proceed from God, then he would be born a sinner. A sinner cannot save men from sin and death.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Here's da thing: if someone believes that Jesus existed and the trial before Pilate took place, do you think he also believes he performed miracles? See, that's the question...

I'm not sure I understand your point.

Pontius Pilate, as Roman governor, probably heard all kinds of gossip about Jesus before he met him in person. When he met Jesus, he talked with him, but did not witness any miracles. He spoke with Jesus and could find nothing in his testimony worthy of crucifixion.

 

[Redemptionsong]

It appears that your thread has been addressed by various people who are not Jewish. Do you really want to know how Jews view the Torah and the reason why what we say about the Torah is reliable?

It seems to me that different Jews view the Torah, Prophets and Writings quite differently.

Do you think the Prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18,19 is a reference to the Messiah [as in Ezekiel 34:23]?

 

[Redemptionsong]

We dont' consider Luke to be authoratative for a number of reasons. The information in the text is not accurate of history around the time it is claimed to describe. In fact, even in Christian scholarship the authorship of the gospels is heavily debated.

I created a playlist that can help you with understanding the issues.

Debunking Missionaries - YouTube

I find that many Jews claim to have read the New Testament, when, in fact, they are only referring to the work of others.

Arguments over authorship aside, have you read Luke's account in the book of Acts? If so, which passages do you believe are not historically correct?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Joshua

Tell me, how was Joshua a prophet 'like unto me' (Moses)?

As you have argued so forcefully elsewhere, Moses is the only one that replicates God's word. You said, the Prophets and Writings are the inspired words of man, not God.

According to your recent posts, Joshua must have been a lesser prophet than Moses.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Deuteronomy 18:15-22 speaks of a coming Prophet.
What do Jews believe?

Breaking down your question would require us to ask the following questions:

1. Starting at Devarim (Deut.) 1 who is speaking and who is the audience?
2. What language was the speaker, at the time, speaking and what evidence in the text is there for the intended time frame of his statements? (Current, near future, or far future)
3. What methodologies in the original text are given for knowing the answers to #2?
4. Who is considered to have the most ancient, authentic, and authoratative answers to the previous questions?

So taking these questions, from the Jewish side of things we would get the following answers.

1. AlThe speaker is an Israeli, of Levite descent, named Mosheh ben-Amram (Moses son of Amram) and the audience of the entire text of the Deut. is the generation Israelis who with him right before he passed away and would be going to enter into the land of Kanaan as well as their future descendants.
2. The language that Mosheh ben-Amram spoke the information found in Deut. was Hebrew. The intended time frame of his speaking concerns things that were for the current generation, of that time, near future (within the next 1 to two generations), and far future generations. (This evidence by pretty all of Deut. chapter 1 of the Hebrew text).
3. First, knowing the text was spoken and later written in Hebrew. Knowing that the source of the text itself comes from Israelis/Jews who are descendants of the generation who the words were spoken to and received the written version. Second, knowing that various Israeli/Jewish communities have been for the last several thousand years doing/living by/and transmitting internally the information found in the text.
   • Additionally, there both Karaite and Samaritan communities have the same or similar texts and similar cultures.
4. Israelis/Jews from the most ancient Jewish communities who have texts and cultures that are considered the most ancient, authoratative, and authentic sources of information of the Torah.

All of that being said, Yehoshua bin-Nun (Joshua) is the one being spoken of in the Hebrew text of the Torah Devarim (Deut.) 18:15-22. The subject of what is being expressed, i.e. how things will work when that generation of Israelis will enter into the land of Kanaan is started from Deut. 1:6 and also how they are to manage themselves in the land. The Torah based prophecy that is identified is the type that only happens in the land of Israel. Thus, Yehoshua bin-Nun is also further indentified as the subject in Deut. 31:7 of the Hebrew texts and he met all of the qualifications mentioned in Deut. 18:15-22, including having been trained/instructed by Mosheh ben-Amram (Moses) and publically sanctioned, which was accepted by all of the Israelis of his generation. (See Deut. 34:9)

Also, see Sefer Yehoshua (Book of Joshua) chapter 1:1-9 and Sefer Yehoshua (Book of Joshua) chapter 24:31.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I find that many Jews claim to have read the New Testament, when, in fact, they are only referring to the work of others.

Arguments over authorship aside, have you read Luke's account in the book of Acts? If so, which passages do you believe are not historically correct?

Which Jews do feel claim to have read the NT but refer to other works? Also, what other works? Also, consider our perspective - what evidence do we Jews have that the NT (as modern Christians have it) is a valid source of information that we should even consider? Thus, we can't put the authorship issues aside because we are required to start right there.

Concerning your question. Yes, I have read the book of Acts. Let's for example start at Acts 2:1-11. Can you show me a source for Jews from the regions mentioned that witnessed this event? I.e. Jews from Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome, Cretans and Arabs. Do you know of any Jews from these areas who claim to have been eye-witnesses to this event as Acts states it?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Tell me, how was Joshua a prophet 'like unto me' (Moses)?

As you have argued so forcefully elsewhere, Moses is the only one that replicates God's word. You said, the Prophets and Writings are the inspired words of man, not God.

According to your recent posts, Joshua must have been a lesser prophet than Moses.

That's because the Hebrew text does not say "like unto me" is states (כמוני). This word does not mean exact. It is "like or similar." You could also translate it as "similar to me." The difference between Mosheh ben-Amram (Moses) and other Jewish prophets after him is that he spoke to Hashem at any time w/o having to be prepared. All other Jewish prophets spoke to Hashem in dreams/or partially awake states. Further, another example given is that Moses realized that he was dealing with Hashem as if he was looking through 1 not so clear lense. Yet, the other prophets were not at the level to know that they were potentially looking through 10 or more not so clear lenses. This is in regards to understanding the full picture of the Source of Creation and not in terms of what Hashem gave for them to do. Similar to like a group of novice astronomers looking at space through a different levels of store bought telescopes compared to one professional astronomer who is looking through a huge/advanced telescope with large/massive funding.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If I may be so bold, who might you say is your prophet now? (In this generation? Was it Rebbe Schneerson?)

That is an excellent and challenging question! Given that any sentence that begins with "Judaism believes" is overly simplistic, Judaism believes that the age of prophecy ended with Malachi. As for the future, there's always ...

 

[Mitty]

Deuteronomy 18:18. 'I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto me, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.'

In other words the prophet/leader had to be a contemporary of Moses and the three million relatives who followed him, otherwise it would be totally irrelevant to the three million relatives he was addressing who aimlessly followed him for forty years.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Breaking down your question would require us to ask the following questions:

1. Starting at Devarim (Deut.) 1 who is speaking and who is the audience?
2. What language was the speaker, at the time, speaking and what evidence in the text is there for the intended time frame of his statements? (Current, near future, or far future)
3. What methodologies in the original text are given for knowing the answers to #2?
4. Who is considered to have the most ancient, authentic, and authoratative answers to the previous questions?

So taking these questions, from the Jewish side of things we would get the following answers.

1. AlThe speaker is an Israeli, of Levite descent, named Mosheh ben-Amram (Moses son of Amram) and the audience of the entire text of the Deut. is the generation Israelis who with him right before he passed away and would be going to enter into the land of Kanaan as well as their future descendants.
2. The language that Mosheh ben-Amram spoke the information found in Deut. was Hebrew. The intended time frame of his speaking concerns things that were for the current generation, of that time, near future (within the next 1 to two generations), and far future generations. (This evidence by pretty all of Deut. chapter 1 of the Hebrew text).
3. First, knowing the text was spoken and later written in Hebrew. Knowing that the source of the text itself comes from Israelis/Jews who are descendants of the generation who the words were spoken to and received the written version. Second, knowing that various Israeli/Jewish communities have been for the last several thousand years doing/living by/and transmitting internally the information found in the text.
   • Additionally, there both Karaite and Samaritan communities have the same or similar texts and similar cultures.
4. Israelis/Jews from the most ancient Jewish communities who have texts and cultures that are considered the most ancient, authoratative, and authentic sources of information of the Torah.

All of that being said, Yehoshua bin-Nun (Joshua) is the one being spoken of in the Hebrew text of the Torah Devarim (Deut.) 18:15-22. The subject of what is being expressed, i.e. how things will work when that generation of Israelis will enter into the land of Kanaan is started from Deut. 1:6 and also how they are to manage themselves in the land. The Torah based prophecy that is identified is the type that only happens in the land of Israel. Thus, Yehoshua bin-Nun is also further indentified as the subject in Deut. 31:7 of the Hebrew texts and he met all of the qualifications mentioned in Deut. 18:15-22, including having been trained/instructed by Mosheh ben-Amram (Moses) and publically sanctioned, which was accepted by all of the Israelis of his generation. (See Deut. 34:9)

Also, see Sefer Yehoshua (Book of Joshua) chapter 1:1-9 and Sefer Yehoshua (Book of Joshua) chapter 24:31.

Then maybe the prophecy can speak of both the earthly and heavenly; of both Joshua son of Nun, the earthly, and the Messiah, the heavenly.

Moses was chosen to deliver the covenant of Law to Israel. Moses, representing the law, was intentionally prevented from leading the Israelites into the Promised Land. Joshua represents a new way, but only in 'type'. 'For if Joshua had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day'. [Hebrews 4]

The day of rest, to be provided by the Messiah, was not delivered by Joshua. He died, and Israel eventually fell to foreign powers.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Which Jews do feel claim to have read the NT but refer to other works? Also, what other works? Also, consider our perspective - what evidence do we Jews have that the NT (as modern Christians have it) is a valid source of information that we should even consider? Thus, we can't put the authorship issues aside because we are required to start right there.

Concerning your question. Yes, I have read the book of Acts. Let's for example start at Acts 2:1-11. Can you show me a source for Jews from the regions mentioned that witnessed this event? I.e. Jews from Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome, Cretans and Arabs. Do you know of any Jews from these areas who claim to have been eye-witnesses to this event as Acts states it?

We know from Acts and from the epistles of Paul that Jews lived in the various regions mentioned above. Paul visited many of them on his missionary journeys.

 

[Redemptionsong]

This confirms in my mind that the Prophet mentioned in Deuteronomy should have the unblemished lens of a Moses if he is to speak in the name of God. As it says, 'I will' 'put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.' [Deut. 18:18]

I raised the issue of prophecy with IndigoChild because she stated in another thread that the words of the Prophets and Writings are humanly inspired and not divinely inspired. Maybe you agree?

If a visionary is only seeing a blurred image, how can you rely upon the words spoken in their name? This is not the way that I understand God to work, or the manner in which He impresses his word and message on the minds of his chosen messengers!

 

[Redemptionsong]

So why did the writers of Matt 1 and Luke 3 try to link Jesus to David who was a Jewish king and said that he was his god's begotten son (Psalm 2:6-7)?

Here's an article you might like to read.
The two genealogies of Jesus explained by R.A. Torrey.

‘1. The genealogy given in Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, his father in the eyes of the law. The genealogy given in Luke is the genealogy of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and is the human genealogy of Jesus Christ in actual fact. The Gospel of Matthew was written for Jews. All through it Joseph is prominent, Mary is scarcely mentioned. In Luke, on the other hand, Mary is the chief personage in the whole account of the Saviour’s conception and birth. Joseph is brought in only accidentally and because he was Mary’s husband. In all of this, of course, there is a deep significance.

2. In Matthew, Jesus appears as the Messiah. In Luke He appears as ‘the Son of Man’ our Brother and Redeemer, who belongs to the whole race and claims kindred with all kinds and conditions of men. So in Matthew, the genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph and Jesus, because all the predictions and promises touching the Messiah are fulfilled in Him. But in Luke the genealogy ascends from Jesus to Adam, because the genealogy is being traced back to the head of the whole race, and shows the relation of the second Adam to the First.

3. Joseph’s line is the strictly royal line from David to Joseph. In Luke, though the line of descent is from David, it is not the royal line. In this Jesus is descended from David through Nathan, David’s son indeed, but not in the royal line, and the list follows a line quite distinct from the royal line.

4. The Messiah, according to prediction, was to be the actual son of David according to the flesh [2 Samuel 7:12-19; Psalm 89:3,4.34-37; Psalm 132:11; Acts 2:30: Acts 13:22,23; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8] . These prophecies are fulfilled by Jesus being the son of Mary, who was a lineal descendant of David, though not in the royal line. Joseph, who was of the royal line, was not his father according to the flesh, but was his father in the eyes of the law.

5. Mary was a descendant of David through her father, Heli. It is true that Luke 2:23 says that Joseph was the son of Heli. The simple explanation of this is that, Mary being a woman, her name according to Jewish usage could not come into the genealogy, males alone forming the line, so Joseph’s name is introduced in the place of Mary’s, he being Mary’s husband, Heli was his father-in-law and so Joseph is called the son of Heli, and the line thus completed. While Joseph was son-in-law of Heli, according to the flesh he was in actual fact the son of Jacob [Matthew 1:16].

6. Two genealogies are absolutely necessary to trcae the lineage of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the one the royal and legal, the other the natural and literal, and these two genealogies we find, the legal and royal in Matthew’s Gospel, the Gospel of law and kingship; the natural and literal in Luke’s, the Gospel of humanity.

7. We are told in Jeremiah 22:30 any descendant of Jeconiah could not come to the throne of David, and Joseph was of this line, and while Joseph’s genealogy furnishes the royal line for Jesus, his son before the law, nevertheless Jeremiah’s prediction is fulfilled to the very letter, for Jesus, strictly speaking, was not Joseph’s descendant and therefore was not of the seed of Jeconiah. If Jesus had been the son of Joseph in reality, He could not have come to the throne, but He is Mary’s son through Nathan, and can come to the throne legally by her marrying Joseph and so clearing His way legally to it’.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Then maybe the prophecy can speak of both the earthly and heavenly; of both Joshua son of Nun, the earthly, and the Messiah, the heavenly.

Greetings, the problem with your statement start with the "Then maybe" part. If you have to say "then maybe" that means that the text doesn't support it. This gives the impression that when the Hebrew text doesn't support something a person will try anything they can to try to make something fit that isn't there.

The text, in Hebrew, is clear who is the audience and what the issue being discussed is about. If Hashem wanted to convey a different meaning it would stand to reason that Hashem would have provided some qualifying statements such as, "BTW some of this not for you guys here. Some of this is for a generation way in the future." Not once in the Torah is the statement "heavenly messiah" even presented. Also, you face the huge challenge that the term (משיח) mashi'ahh doen't even mean "messiah."

Moses was chosen to deliver the covenant of Law to Israel. Moses, representing the law, was intentionally prevented from leading the Israelites into the Promised Land. Joshua represents a new way, but only in 'type'. 'For if Joshua had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day'. [Hebrews 4]

The above is not supported by the Hebrew text. There is nothing in Hebrew that makes the statement of "Joshua represents a new way, but only in 'type'." Also, Hebrews 4 is a "Christian" text and not a Jewish one. There is a lot of information in the book of Hebrews that contradicts the written text of the Torah so that is not valid to the this conversation. From a Torah perspective you would first have to prove that the book of Hebrews, funny enough being a Greek language document, is a valid Jewish source with valid Jewish authorship. Otherwise it bears as much weight on the Torah and its understand as the Magna Carta does.

The day of rest, to be provided by the Messiah, was not delivered by Joshua. He died, and Israel eventually fell to foreign powers.

That is not what the book of Devarim (Deut.) even claims. Again, the word the term (משיח) mashi'ahh doen't even mean "messiah" and only a concept of an eventually king who will bring about an age of world peace is only reference as something in the far future during Bilam's prophecy. Further, even Mosheh (Moses) drew attention to the fact that an exile in the future would happen and a return. So, there is no reason to beleive that Yehoshua was to be the one to bring about anything more than the establishment of the Jewish presence in Kenaan.

Yehoshua bin-Nun;s (Joshua's) job was to establish the people of Israel in the land of Kenaan. It was the kingdom of David who set the stage for the future beyond that. In Jewish context David and his descendents earned the possibility for such a king to happen in any generation of his line. The merit of Yehoshua bin-Nun (Joshua) was different and distinct.

The challenge that you face is that your view of what the Torah means is guided by what the NT says about it and not what the Hebrew text says about itself.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

This confirms in my mind that the Prophet mentioned in Deuteronomy should have the unblemished lens of a Moses if he is to speak in the name of God. As it says, 'I will' 'put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.' [Deut. 18:18]

I am not here to tell you what to think. You asked for how we Jews see it. We know it based on the Hebrew text and the process that Mosheh ben-Amram (Moses) received from Hashem and left for us. We are not here to tell Christians and Muslims how to think. Yet, you may have to consider that if we Jews hold by something and our ancestors were the ones who passed on the texts and ideas to us there may be some valid reasons for us to have the concepts that came from Mount Sinai.

I raised the issue of prophecy with IndigoChild because she stated in another thread that the words of the Prophets and Writings are humanly inspired and not divinely inspired. Maybe you agree?

In terms of IndigoChild, I can't speak for someone else. I live here in Israel and I also didn't see IndigoChild's comments nor do I know them personally. It would only be proper for her to express her ideas. Yet, you also have to remember as I mentioned earlier, we Jews are required by Hashem to go what can be proven as ancient, authentic, and authorative. Any person can bring up their personal views on something but that is the lens.

In terms of how Jewish prophecy works, see the following description:

Mishnah Torah - Hilchoth Yesodey HaTorah chapter 7

If a visionary is only seeing a blurred image, how can you rely upon the words spoken in their name? This is not the way that I understand God to work, or the manner in which He impresses his word and message on the minds of his chosen messengers!

I think you mis-understood. The concept I wrote was a simile, an exmaple. It is not that someone sees blurred images. The Torah is clear that there will be no other Navi (Jewish prophet) on the level of Mosheh (Moses). The following link may help you understand what Mosheh (Moses') prophecy consisted of

Mishnah Torah - Hilchoth Yesodey HaTorah chapter 8

Now, first a prophet is not a visionary and they are not seeing blurred images. The first requirement of the Torah of a prophet is that they must be an expert of the Torah. There are other requirements of their character which require for them to be well known and well regarded, Torah wise among the Jews around them. Further, we are required by the Torah to test everyone who claims to bring a message from Hashem BEFORE we can even listen to what they have to say. The first step is that they must predict something in the immediate future for 100% accuracy and detail. We are required to test them as many times as we feel. If they can pass this test then and ONLY THEN are allowed to listen to them. If in listening to them they state things that contradict the Torah or tell us to do things that break the Torah we know they are a false prophet. Only if they are telling us to do something that "temperarily" breaks certain mitzvoth of the Torah can be listen and do what they say. For example, if a person who has been checked, as I stated before, and they say this one sabbath we must do this thing that is normally forbidden for this reason for one hour and ONLY for this one hour then we can listen. Yet, if they tell us to for example "temporarily" do Avodah Zara and worship an idol or a person we know they are false prophet.

With all due respect, take into account that you may understand the concepts you have about the god you beleive in based on what the western concepts of Christianity that you were raised with state. If you don't know Hebrew or the culture around the Torah you wouldn't really understand the text and in fact if you don't know the textual history of the New Testament and its authors it could be that you misunderstand what that texts is getting at. Please accept this not as a personal criticism.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

It seems to me that different Jews view the Torah, Prophets and Writings quite differently.

The reality is that there are certian elements of Torah that we Jews have always had a requirement to hold by. This commonality is found in halakha (Jewish law) that came from the Mosaic courts. The areas where Torah Mosheh Jews differ is in areas where we are permitted to differ for regional and cultural reasons. There are differences between the break away movements that started up within the last 200 years out of Europe that have a wider gap when compared to Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews for reasons that have nothing to do with the Torah. The videos below will explain this.

Do you think the Prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18,19 is a reference to the Messiah [as in Ezekiel 34:23]?

Devarim (Deut.) 18:18, 19 is speaking of Yehoshua bin-Nun (Joshua) as stated in Hebrew below.

נביא אקים להם מקרב אחיהם, כמוך; ונתתי דברי, בפיו, ודבר אליהם, את כל-אשר אצונו. והיה, האיש אשר לא-ישמע אל-דברי, אשר ידבר, בשמי--אנכי, אדרש מעמו​

Without translating, which statement here says "and this statement is about the future Davidic king?" So, the answer is no these above, in Hebrew, is not speaking of the future Davidic king.

Now, let's look at what Ezekiel 34:23 to see if there is a difference.

והקמתי עליהם רעה אחד, ורעה אתהן--את, עבדי דויד; הוא ירעה אתם, והוא-יהיה להן לרעה​

So, translating this we find that Ezekial is referncing the line of David. In translation, "And I will raise up upon you one sheperd/leader, and he will shepard/lead them, my servant David; he will shepard/lead them, and he will be to them a shepard/leader." Because of the langauge this talking about a future event, after the days of Ezekiel.

As, you can see there are clear distinct differences in history of when these pages were stated, who the audience was, and the conditions that they are each addressing are different. I hope that helps.