Moses said, Unto him ye shall hearken

[Ehav4Ever]

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.

I don't think you understood my question.

I am looking for eye-witness accounts of the Jews from the locations listed in Acts 2:1-11 to say that they were in Jerusalem and they saw the events mentioned. Even, a descendant of a Jew who claimed to have been there and seen it would be interesting to see.

Also, I don't have any evidence that Acts is even a reliable source of information since I have no proof that the information even came from a Jew who witnessed the events mentioned in it. So, that being said if the event mentioned in it actually happend, or is claimed to have happened, one would expect that the Jews from the locations mentioned also made their own accounts of what happened.

I would expect that various locations mentioned would have had accounts that have survived. What I see is historically the event didn't happen because there are no Jews from those locations who attest to the event.

In reality, very little is even known about Paul let alone of number people mentioned in the NT. This is especially true when the NT claims that large masses of Jews witnessed something.

 

[Redemptionsong]

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 provide 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."



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.



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.

The challenge that I face is probably not as big a challenge as the one you face! I'm very happy to admit that the New Testament, and the Holy Spirit, guide my understanding of the Tanakh. To look back and reflect on what has been revealed is easier than to decypher prophecies of the future!

Stephen, a Jew, speaking to the council in Jerusalem, said, 'Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it'. [Acts 7:51-53]

Harsh words, but was he right?

Daniel provided some pretty explicit indications of when the Messiah would appear, and reading the New Testament gives the impression that people living in the first century were expectant. As quoted earlier, it also appears in the Talmud [Sanhedrin 97a-97b], that expectation of the Messiah, based on God's prophetic week, was very real.

Then you have Hosea 5:15 - 6:1-3. This is also connected to the prophetic week, and shows that Ephraim and Judah have committed an offence against the LORD. What was this offence? Why did God 'return to my place'? Why did he stay away two days? [Hosea 6:2] This is a challenge for you!

 

[YoursTrue]

First, you have to remember that the word (משיח) doesn't mean "messiah." It means "anointed one" and is used for ANYONE who was anointed with oil. The Tanakh talks about a Jew of "proven" Davdic descent. Here is a good source for what Jews hold by in terms of this matter.

The word "messiah" in English is only used by Jews who are using the English vanicular, even if it doesn't match the actual Hebrew. That being said, see the following translation below of the Mishnah Torah where Rabbi Mosheh ben-Maimon explains how we Jews know what will happen to bring about the return of the Torah based kindom of Israel. (Again, note that the below is a translation and there are some elements of it that would need to tweeking if one wants to really understand what is written in Hebrew. Yet, for the sake of time this will work for you.)

Mishnah Torah - Hilchoth Melakhim 1: 1-

Israel was commanded to fulfill three mitzvot upon entering the Promised Land:
a) To choose a king, as Deuteronomy 17:15 states: 'Appoint a king over yourselves;'
b) To wipe out the descendents of Amalek, as Deuteronomy 25:19 states: 'Erase the memory of Amalek;'
c) To build God's Chosen House, as Deuteronomy 12:5 states: 'Seek out His Presence and go there.'

The appointment of a king should precede the war against Amalek. This is evident from Samuel's charge to King Saul (I Samuel 15: l-3): 'God sent me to anoint you as king ... Now, go and smite Amalek.'

Amalek's seed should be annihilated before the construction of the Temple, as II Samuel 7:1-2 states: 'And it came to pass, when the king dwelled in his palace, and God gave him peace from all his enemies who surrounded him, the king said to Nathan, the prophet: 'Look! I am dwelling in a house of cedar, ... but the ark of God dwells within curtains.'
Since it is a mitzvah to appoint a king, why was God displeased with the people's request of a king from Samuel? Because they made their request in a spirit of complaint. Rather than seeking to fulfill the mitzvah of appointing a king, they were simply intent on rejecting the Prophet Samuel as implied by God's reply to him (I Samuel 8:7): 'It is not you, but Me they have rejected.'

A king is not intially appointed except by a court of 70 elders, together with a prophet, as Joshua was appointed by Moses and his court, and as Saul and David, were appointed by Samuel of Ramah and his court.

When a king is appointed, he is anointed with oil reserved for this purpose, as I Samuel 10:1 states: 'And Samuel took the cruse of oil and poured it over his head. Then, he kissed him.'

Once a king is anointed, he and his descendents are granted the monarchy until eternity, for the monarchy is passed down by inheritance, as Deuteronomy 17:20 states 'Thus, he the king and his descendents will prolong their reign in the midst of Israel.'
If the king leaves only a young son, the monarchy should be held for him until he matures, as Yehoyada did for Yoash. The order of inheritance of the monarchy is the same as that governing the inheritance of property. An older son is given precedence over a younger one.

Not only the monarchy, but all other positions of authority and appointments in Israel, are transferred to one's children and grandchildren as inheritances forever.
The above applies if the knowledge and the fear of God of the son is equivalent to that of his ancestors. If his fear of God is equivalent to theirs but not his knowledge, he should be granted his father's position and given instruction. However, under no circumstance should a person who lacks the fear of God be appointed to any posi-tion in Israel, even though he possesses much knowledge.

Once David was anointed king, he acquired the crown of kingship. Afterwards, the kingship belonged to him and to his male descendents forever, as II Samuel 7: 16 states: 'Your throne shall be established forever.' Nevertheless, his acquisition of the monarchy was conditional, applying only to the righteous among his descendents, as Psalms 132:12 states: 'If your children will keep My covenant... their children shall also sit on your throne forever.'

Despite this condition, God assured David that the monarchy would never be taken from his descendents forever, as Psalms 89:31-38 states: "lf his children will forsake My Torah and cease walking in My statutes ... I will punish their transgressions with the rod and their sins with plagues. Nevertheless, I will not utterly remove My grace from him.... His throne shall be ... established forever.'​

Mishnah Torah - Hilchoth Melakhim 12

In the future, the Messianic king will arise and renew the Davidic dynasty, restoring it to its initial sovereignty. He will build the Temple and gather the dispersed of Israel.
Then, in his days, the observance of all the statutes will return to their previous state. We will offer sacrifices, observe the Sabbatical and Jubilee years according to all their particulars as described by the Torah.

Anyone who does not believe in him or does not await his coming, denies not only the statements of the other prophets, but those of the Torah and Moses, our teacher. The Torah testified to his coming, as Deuteronomy 30:3-5 states:
God will bring back your captivity and have mercy upon you. He will again gather you from among the nations... Even if your Diaspora is at the ends of the heavens, God will gather you up from there... and bring you to the land....

These explicit words of the Torah include all the statements made by all the prophets.
Reference to Mashiach is also made in the portion of Bilaam who prophesies about two anointed kings: the first anointed king, David, who saved Israel from her oppressors; and the final anointed king who will arise from his descendants and save Israel in the end of days. That passage Numbers 24:17-18 relates:

'I see it, but not now' - This refers to David;
'I perceive it, but not in the near future;" - This refers to the Messianic king;
'A star shall go forth from Jacob' - This refers to David;
'and a staff shall arise in Israel' - This refers to the Messianic king;
'crushing all of Moab's princes' - This refers to David as II Samuel 8:2 relates: 'He smote Moab and measured them with a line;'
'decimating all of Seth's descendants' - This refers to the Messianic king about whom Zechariah 9:10 prophesies: 'He will rule from sea to sea.'
'Edom will be demolished' - This refers to David as II Samuel 8:6 states 'Edom became the servants of David;'
'Seir will be destroyed' - this refers to the Messianic king as Ovadiah 1:21 prophesies: 'Saviors will ascend Mount Zion to judge the mountain of Esau....'

Similarly, with regard to the cities of refuge, Deuteronomy 19:8-9 states: 'When God will expand your borders... you must add three more cities.' This command was never fulfilled. Surely, God did not give this command in vain. There is no need to cite proofs from the works of the prophets for all their books are filled with mention of this matter.

One should not presume that the Messianic king must work miracles and wonders, bring about new phenomena in the world, resurrect the dead, or perform other similar deeds. This is definitely not true. Proof can be brought from the fact that Rabbi Akiva, one of the greater Sages of the Mishnah, was one of the supporters of King Bar Kozibah and would describe him as the Messianic king. He and all the Sages of his generation considered him to be the Messianic king until he was killed because of sins. Once he was killed, they realized that he was not the Mashiach. The Sages did not ask him for any signs or wonders. The main thrust of the matter is: This Torah, its statutes and its laws, are everlasting. We may not add to them or detract from them.

If a king will arise from the House of David who diligently contemplates the Torah and observes its mitzvot as prescribed by the Written Law and the Oral Law as David, his ancestor, will compel all of Israel to walk in (the way of the Torah) and rectify the breaches in its observance, and fight the wars of God, we may, with assurance, consider him Mashiach.

If he succeeds in the above, builds the Temple in its place, and gathers the dispersed of Israel, he is definitely the Mashiach.

He will then improve the entire world, motivating all the nations to serve God together, as Tzephaniah 3:9 states: 'I will transform the peoples to a purer language that they all will call upon the name of God and serve Him with one purpose.'

If he did not succeed to this degree or was killed, he surely is not the redeemer promised by the Torah. Rather, he should be considered as all the other proper and complete kings of the Davidic dynasty who died. God caused him to arise only to test the many, as Daniel 11:35 states: 'And some of the wise men will stumble, to try them, to refine, and to clarify until the appointed time, because the set time is in the future.'

Jesus of Nazareth who aspired to be the Mashiach and was executed by the court was also alluded to in Daniel's prophecies, as ibid. 11:14 states: 'The vulgar among your people shall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble.'

Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity? All the prophets spoke of Mashiach as the redeemer of Israel and their savior who would gather their dispersed and strengthen their observance of the mitzvot. In contrast, Christianity caused the Jews to be slain by the sword, their remnants to be scattered and humbled, the Torah to be altered, and the majority of the world to err and serve a god other than the Lord.

Nevertheless, the intent of the Creator of the world is not within the power of man to comprehend, for His ways are not our ways, nor are His thoughts, our thoughts. Ultimately, all the deeds of Jesus of Nazareth and that Ishmaelite who arose after him will only serve to prepare the way for Mashiach's coming and the improvement of the entire world, motivating the nations to serve God together as Tzephaniah 3:9 states: 'I will transform the peoples to a purer language that they all will call upon the name of God and serve Him with one purpose.'

How will this come about? The entire world has already become filled with the mention of Mashiach, Torah, and mitzvot. These matters have been spread to the furthermost islands to many stubborn-hearted nations. They discuss these matters and the mitzvot of the Torah, saying: 'These mitzvot were true, but were already negated in the present age and are not applicable for all time.'

Others say: 'Implied in the mitzvot are hidden concepts that can not be understood simply. The Mashiach has already come and revealed those hidden truths.' When the true Messianic king will arise and prove successful, his position becoming exalted and uplifted, they will all return and realize that their ancestors endowed them with a false heritage and their prophets and ancestors caused them to err.

​

Wow. A very long post and although I don't think my attention span is short, unfortunately your post is too long for me to respond to. Otoh, I do know and agree that mashiach means anointed one. Thank you for bringing that out. Later...

 

[Redemptionsong]

I don't think you understood my question.

I am looking for eye-witness accounts of the Jews from the locations listed in Acts 2:1-11 to say that they were in Jerusalem and they saw the events mentioned. Even, a descendant of a Jew who claimed to have been there and seen it would be interesting to see.

Also, I don't have any evidence that Acts is even a reliable source of information since I have no proof that the information even came from a Jew who witnessed the events mentioned in it. So, that being said if the event mentioned in it actually happend, or is claimed to have happened, one would expect that the Jews from the locations mentioned also made their own accounts of what happened.

I would expect that various locations mentioned would have had accounts that have survived. What I see is historically the event didn't happen because there are no Jews from those locations who attest to the event.

In reality, very little is even known about Paul let alone of number people mentioned in the NT. This is especially true when the NT claims that large masses of Jews witnessed something.

I disagree. Paul's accounts are full of interesting historical detail.

If you look at the history of events during this turbulent time, it's easy to see why few personal records have remained. Christians and Jews were persecuted across the whole Roman empire, and hundreds of thousands died in the destruction of Jerusalem and in the Jewish wars.

Paul's accounts do, however, shed light on the numerous churches that existed in places like Ephesus, Corinth and Rome. I've been to these places and know that archaeological evidence remains of the places mentioned in the texts.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

The challenge that I face is probably not as big a challenge as the one you face! I'm very happy to admit that the New Testament, and the Holy Spirit, guide my understanding of the Tanakh. To look back and reflect on what has been revealed is easier than to decypher prophecies of the future!

I don't face any challenges.

Stephen, a Jew, speaking to the council in Jerusalem, said, 'Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it'. [Acts 7:51-53]

Harsh words, but was he right?

First, who is Stephen? That is not a very Jewish name. Who was his father/family and what Jewish community did he come from? What evidence is there that he was a Jew and that he spoke anywhere publically and that the events that Acts mentioned about him historically even took place? His words are not so harsh we Jews have heard them from the Spanish Inquisition and the like and such for a quite about a time now. Besides the new testament says he got them from a ghost? That is a bit strange.

Daniel provided some pretty explicit indications of when the Messiah would appear, and reading the New Testament gives the impression that people living in the first century were expectant. As quoted earlier, it also appears in the Talmud [Sanhedrin 97a-97b], that expectation of the Messiah, based on God's prophetic week, was very real.

This is actually not true. One way to prove it is to show a screen shot of the actual Hebrew/Aramaic of Daniel. Here I did a video about that. See below.

Further, you quote the Talmud. Tell me. Is everything in the Talmud accurate? Do you accept everything that the Rabbis who are quoted in Sanhedrin 97a-97b state in other places in the Talmud? If not, what is your filter?

Then you have Hosea 5:15 - 6:1-3. This is also connected to the prophetic week, and shows that Ephraim and Judah have committed an offence against the LORD. What was this offence? Why did God 'return to my place'? Why did he stay away two days? [Hosea 6:2] This is a challenge for you!

Also, not true. Can you please answer my question about Acts 2:1-11? You asked me and I gave you one starting point.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Wow. A very long post and although I don't think my attention span is short, unfortunately your post is too long for me to respond to. Otoh, I do know and agree that mashiach means anointed one. Thank you for bringing that out. Later...

I am a Jew. There are no short answers.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I disagree. Paul's accounts are full of interesting historical detail.

If you look at the history of events during this turbulent time, it's easy to see why few personal records have remained. Christians and Jews were persecuted across the whole Roman empire, and hundreds of thousands died in the destruction of Jerusalem and in the Jewish wars.

Paul's accounts do, however, shed light on the numerous churches that existed in places like Ephesus, Corinth and Rome. I've been to these places and know that archaeological evidence remains of the places mentioned in the texts.

I wasn't asking for Paul's accounts of Ephesus, Corinth and Rome. Paul doesn't even address the events claimed to have happend in Acts 2:1-11. I.e. he doesn't give any names of the Jews from the regions mentioned that witnessed this event he also doesn't mention the events in his letters?

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. Can you provide information about and from the Jews from the locations that the author of Acts took time to list?

If that information doesn't exist there is nothing wrong with saying it doesn't exist.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I don't face any challenges.



First, who is Stephen? That is not a very Jewish name. Who was his father/family and what Jewish community did he come from? What evidence is there that he was a Jew and that he spoke anywhere publically and that the events that Acts mentioned about him historically even took place? His words are no so harsh we Jews have heard them from the Spanish Inquisition and the like and such for a quite about a time now. Besides the new testament says he got them from a ghost? That is a bit strange.



This is actually not true. One way to prove it is to show a screen shot of the actual Hebrew/Aramaic of Daniel. Here I did a video about that. See below.

Further, you quote the Talmud. Tell me. Is everything in the Talmud accurate? Do you accept everything that the Rabbis who are quoted in Sanhedrin 97a-97b state in other places in the Talmud? If not, what is your filter?



Also, not true. Can you please answer my question about Acts 2:1-11? You asked me and I gave you one starting point.

What you have given me is a passage of scripture that mentions the regions from which Jews had traveled to be in Jerusalem for Pentecost. Why should I doubt the accuracy of this list? It's easy enough to provide evidence that these places existed, but much harder to give the names and addresses of every Jew present! Does that invalidate the text. Of course not.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

What you have given me is a passage of scripture that mentions the regions from which Jews had traveled to be in Jerusalem for Pentecost. Why should I doubt the accuracy of this list? It's easy enough to provide evidence that these places existed, but much harder to give the names and addresses of every Jew present! Does that invalidate the text. Of course not.

I didn't say that you should doubt it. If you want to accept Acts that is up to you. You asked "me" about historical issues, ignoring the authorship issues, and I am presenting one of many. I also stated that as a Torath Mosheh Jew I am required to determine the sources of information.

I also didn't ask for names and addresses of "every" Jew from the various locations that the author of Acts brought up. I said eye witness accounts from Jews from those locations and I even said it would be enough even if it comes from one of their descendants.

So, if the information doesn't exist I accept that it doesn't exist. Would you like me to present the other historical issues I, and other Jews like me, have or is that enough?

 

[1213]

But why would Moses be referring to someone 1300 years or so later and not to a contemporary such as Joshua who took over from him?

It doesn’t fit to Joshua. But it fits to Jesus. And I believe the idea was to tell things early so that the people would know what is from God and what is not.

 

[Mitty]

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 if.

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’.

That's just her personal opinion.
Mary's parents, however, were Joachime and Anne. Joachim - Wikipedia
And besides, female lines were irrelevant to Jesus' claim to be the Jewish king in a paternalistic society anyway.

Obviously the two genealogies are male lines, even though the line in Matt 1 was irrelevant to Jesus' claim to have an inherited right to be the Jewish king if Jacob's son was only Jesus' adoptive father.

The genealogy in Luke 3 is that of Jesus' supposed biological father who was coincidentally also named Joseph, and was presumably based on a relationship between Mary and Heli's son.
While maternity is a matter of fact, paternity is just a matter of opinion without reliable paternity tests. Therefore Jesus' biological father could have been a Roman centurion as some claim, or even the milkman. But either way, Jesus' claim was false and why the Romans mocked him as the false "King of the Jews" when they executed him for sedition and why Peter denied knowing Jesus to avoid being executed for sedition too.

You know it makes sense.

 

[Mitty]

It doesn’t fit to Joshua. But it fits to Jesus. And I believe the idea was to tell things early so that the people would know what is from God and what is not.

It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense that Moses was telling his three million relatives who followed him for 40 years that his successor wasn't going to replace him for another 1300 years or so after he died.

 

[YoursTrue]

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 ...

Huh? And yet I know many mothers think they may give birth to the Messiah (moshiach...anointed one). Plus you scared me slightly when you yelled at me...anyway nice talking to you and I shall keep looking forward to a wonderful future. Who knows, I might even meet Rebbe Schneerson some day...per Maimonides. I hope so.

 

[YoursTrue]

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 provide 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."



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.



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.

Ok recognizing your position, I say with respect that even Jesus argued with the religious 'leaders' regarding the scriptures. Anyway, they killed him.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Huh?

I'm sorry that you're confused.

And yet I know many mothers think they may give birth to the Messiah (moshiach...anointed one).

I'm sorry that they're confused as well.

Plus you scared me slightly when you yelled at me...

Again, I'm sorry that you're confused.

...anyway nice talking to you ...

And yet you go out of your way to paint it as anything but nice. More confusion perhaps?

... and I shall keep looking forward to a wonderful future.

I guess if one is to be confused it's best to temper it with optimism.

Who knows, I might even meet Rebbe Schneerson some day...per Maimonides. I hope so.

Oy vey ...

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

No, Joshua was not necessarily lesser. Remember that Moses never accomplished bringing the People into the promised land. Joshua did that. He spoke for God to the people. That makes him a prophet like unto Moses.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ok recognizing your position, I say with respect that even Jesus argued with the religious 'leaders' regarding the scriptures. Anyway, they killed him.

I thought your scripture says that the Romans killed him. I sure hope that you didn't come here to spread that old anti-semitic "christ-killer" trope.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Ok recognizing your position, I say with respect that even Jesus argued with the religious 'leaders' regarding the scriptures. Anyway, they killed him.

The authors of the NT claim that Jesus argued with religious leaders about "scripture." There is no evidence from a valid Jewish source, or Roman source, that anyone killed him for that. There are even debates, even among Christians, about the historacity of the the gospels to begin with. Besides the NT claims that the Romans killed him. The NT, as a text, meets the standards that Christians have set forth but not ones the Torah set forth for Jews to hold by.

 

[YoursTrue]

Rebbe Schneerson is was not a prophet nor is he now since he passed away a number of years ago.

Are his admirers still in the graveyard looking for his resurrection?

 

[YoursTrue]

I thought your scripture says that the Romans killed him. I sure hope that you didn't come here to spread that old anti-semitic "christ-killer" trope.

Do you even believe a trial happened before Pilate? You might as well say that no one killed anyone, politically or religiously. But the good news is that one day this Earth will be free of death, plagues, and war. Did Maimonides teach something similar? You know the Law of Moses is interesting, to say the least.