60 Scholars On Messianic Expectation At The Turn Of The Era

[Secret Alias]

And what kind of retarded logic is it to cite Jeremiah to understand what the author of Deuteronomy meant? I don't know why I come here sometimes. Maybe it's to reinforce my inherited understanding that there are only a limited number of honest people in the world. At least with Neil I get why he is being deceptive. But at least that shows brains on his part. I'd like to believe that being smart doesn't necessarily mean doing evil against history and humanity. But maybe that's another inherited prejudice. But this? Deuteronomy speaks of ONE, one from among the brothers right? What the fuck does Jeremiah have to do with this? What's the connection? That they are all Jewish books 'spoken through the word of God'? I'm trying to understand the logic here and coming up with a big blank. Please explain the logic to your statement.

[John2]

This issue is discussed here:

The text consistently uses a singular form when discussing a hypothetical, not to say that that hypothetical will happen on only one occasion but that the rule applies to whenever it happens. Devarim 24:1 speaks of finding a corpse, but does in the singular. This doesn't mean that it can only happen once. Even 18:10 which discusses the impermissibility of sorcerers says that A sorcerer should not be found among you. This doesn't mean that you must have more than one at a time for it to be OK. The use of the singular is to make a general case, not an exclusive moment. When Bamidbar 13 speaks of taking a man afflicted with tzara'at to THE kohen it does not mean that there will be only 1 kohen.

Note that the following verse also uses the singular noun. Note the use of the definitive article:

"But the prophet, that shall speak a word presumptuously in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.'"

See also Deut. 13:2 which also deals with a false prophet: "If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet..."

The language is the same. Here the same term for "arise/raise" is used.

Clearly, there were many false prophets, so obviously the verse is not talking about a singular definitive false prophet. It stands to reason that the early verses are also not exclusive to a single prophet. Indeed, these verses are the source for the commandment to listen to the words of a true prophet. Obviously, this commandment refers to all true prophets through history. For details of this commandment see Maimonide's Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Command #172. The Chabad website provides a full English translation.

http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questi ... or-prophet

[Secret Alias]

Yeah but what the fuck? These are modern Jews who rape the scriptures and pretend that anything written since Moses is on equal footing to Moses (or in the case of gemara SUPERIOR!). If I wanted to find dishonest people like this I'd be on a different forum. נָבִ֨יא = (a) prophet. If he fucking meant 'many prophets' he'd have written נְבִיאִ֔ים. Jeez. The Samaritans rightly take it as ONE PERSON because that's what the text says. And Shiloh. WTF? That means 'many Shilohs? No it means 'another Moses' just as this means 'another Moses.' That's what I love about sports. There are rules and everyone is keeping score and screams out 'breaking the rules' when rules are broken. We've got to keep to the rules and play fair.

[Secret Alias]

It's like if I told my son 'if you play TODAY well I will buy you $175 Mercurials and then every time he plays well he says 'now you owe me new cleats. He's tried. Believe me. But rules are rules.

$175 Mercurials

[John2]

The page I linked to refers to Rambam's positive commandment #172, which says:

The 172nd mitzvah is that we are commanded to obey each of the Prophets, may they rest in peace, and to fulfill all their instructions. Even if his instructions contradict one or many of these commandments, [we are commanded to obey him] as long as his instructions are temporary. This does not apply, however, if he permanently adds or subtracts [from the commandments], as we explained in the Introduction to our Commentary on the Mishneh.

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He), "To him you must listen." In the words of the Sifri: "The verse, 'To him you must listen,' means that even if he tells you to temporarily transgress one of the commandments of the Torah, you must listen to him."

One who transgresses this mitzvah is punished by mita bidei shamayim, as it says in G‑d's statement (exalted be He) "If any person does not listen to My word that he declares in My name, I will punish him." It has been explained in tractate Sanhedrin that three are punished by mita bidei shamayim: one who disobeys the prophet, a prophet who disobeys his own prophecy, and a prophet who conceals his prophecy. All of them are derived from the phrase, "If any person does not listen." Our Sages said, "The phrase, lo yishma ['does not listen'] can also be read, lo yishamei ['does not listen to himself'] and lo yashmia ['does not make others listen']."

The details of this mitzvah have been explained in the end of tractate Sanhedrin.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_c ... nt-172.htm

[John2]

And I think Rambam's reference is to Sanhedrin 89a-b, which says, for example:

HE WHO DISREGARDS THE WORDS OF A PROPHET. But how does he know [that he is a true prophet], that he should be punished? — If he gives him a sign. But Micah did not give a sign, yet he [i.e., his colleague] was punished! — If he was well established [as a prophet], it is different. For should you not admit this, how could Isaac listen to Abraham at Mount Moriah, or the people hearken to Elijah at Mount Carmel and sacrifice without [the Temple]? Hence the case, where the prophet is well established is different.

http://halakhah.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_89.html

[Secret Alias]

But who fucking cares? As I said if I wanted liars to decide the truth I get what I deserve. The Jewish tradition IMHO basically built up the prophetic tradition and gemara to obscure the original sense of the Torah. It was deceitful. So you want to consult deceit? I was talking with a conservative light (as they are called in Israel) at my son's soccer game the other day and we were talking about Purim. 'You know Esther and Mordecai are pagan god's names right?' 'No, that can't be' he says. 'Well that's the way it is,' I reply. 'It's fun,' was his reply. 'But it's still developed from paganism, that's why it's so much fun,' I respond. Change of topic follows.

[Secret Alias]

The Samaritans are the only one's that matter when it comes to Biblical exegesis for the most part BECAUSE THAT'S ALL THE FUCKING DO. One book. One tradition. One prophet. One apostle. It's like the restaurant that sells ONE THING. They only sell ONE THING because they are the best at it IMHO. The text says ONE. That's also where I believe the Marcionites stressed there was only ONE APOSTLE viz. a traditional Samaritan - or should I say 'traditionalIsraelite' because at one times the Jews weren't so dishonest - exegesis.

[iskander]

Deut 18:15 , Acts 3:22
22 Moses said, “The Lord your God will raise up for you from your own people* a prophet like me. You must listen to whatever he tells you.
Acts 7:37
37 This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, “God will raise up a prophet for you from your own people* as he raised me up.”


Jesus was one of the applicants to the vacant position ; he was killed as a false Messiah . Deut : 20 But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak—that prophet shall die.’

[Secret Alias]

No Jesus was the god Man. He wasn't the prophet. It was he who made Moses into the Man of God (because Moses backwards spells god). You have a picture of Moses and an anthropomorphic God standing beside him on Sinai (and grabbing Jacob's balls/thigh). Jesus is the God-man standing beside Moses and grabbing Jacob's balls/thigh. My only question is how did he make Benjamin?