False Prophets

[columbus]

No, but it sure controls their numbers.

Not much, since we keep making new ones. And it does little more to stop the murders than incarcerating them.
I would argue that it increases the likelihood of murders. The cost of providing justice to the accused is huge. Death Penalty cases wind up costing millions more than life in prison, and we still mess up. Better to invest the resources in prevention than vengeance, even if vengeance feels good.
Tom

 

[Grandliseur]

Sure.

Killing a single cancer cell doesn't actually cure the cancer. The better control comes from the actual cure.

You cannot cure humanity; there are always going to be cancer cells on this side of Armageddon, and even after for some time.

 

[Grandliseur]

Not much, since we keep making new ones. And it does little more to stop the murders than incarcerating them.
I would argue that it increases the likelihood of murders. The cost of providing justice to the accused is huge. Death Penalty cases wind up costing millions more than life in prison, and we still mess up. Better to invest the resources in prevention than vengeance, even if vengeance feels good.
Tom

There is no solution that solves the problems we have. Of course, most people do not believe the solutions God has promised.
The funny thing is that some nations have a lot fewer problems than others; and, yet, this cannot be copied. There you have a basic flaw that many times is fueled by money, by existing states of affairs.

 

[Akivah]

The Jewish definition is too narrow and appears to exclude Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael peace be upon them and none of them knew anything about a Hebrew Bible.

You're right. The sentence about not deviating from the Hebrew bible doesn't apply to those that prophesied before the bible was written. Also Ismael was never a prophet. G-d cut him out of the tree.

The issue of the Bible being corrupted following the death of Moses pbuh is a fact,

Utter falsehood and rubbish.

What we learn is not to pay too much heed to what a Jew considers to be a bona fide Prophet, so I guess little to no common ground

And I've learned to not pay heed to what a Muslim considers to be a bona fide prophet. Following a terrorist like muhammad is just an example of your problems.

I do agree with you that our respective beliefs about prophets has no common ground.

 

[Akivah]

That is the problem we have when dealing with old material of thousands of years ago. Intent of material is forgotten, words change.
Strong's said something ...

There's your problem. Strong's concordance is very inaccurate with its Hebrew definitions. It should not be relied on and should only be used as a door stop.

 

[Laika]

Hi, I found it very interesting that the very mission of prophets is the reason you would give to exclude them from being truth tellers. Isn't the mission of every single prophet ever sent not but to bring the path to salvation through God?

I think that the desire to be "saved" has to already be there in a person by some combination of personal, social and historical experiences. There has to be a "need" for deeper spirituality but the task of the prophet is not to abuse those who are dependent on him or her. It is up to prophets to get people to "save themselves" by showing them a way of life that is free from corruption as a path that raises people to a "higher" level of being and consciousness. A prophet can give you the spiritual tools but its still up to you to use them. If you become a means to their ends it obviously in not about helping you better yourself as a spiritual journey to overcome our egotism and insignificance. That's more how I have come to see it.

I do agree that there is no 'quick fix' in terms of our own conduct, I think all people are a work in progress, sometimes climbing successfully, sometimes slipping, but some stagnate.

I believe if we add the creator to the context, acknowledge that He is far above in every aspect conceivable to His creation, then we would have to understand, that first He has the right to determine what pleases Him and to ensure that we are made aware of that.
Prophets then, are the source of connection, they are those chosen to fulfill the rights of man by bringing man the laws of god. I say right, because it would be unjust to give our lives purpose, direction, value, success or failure, but leave us to figure it out for ourselves.

I don't believe in a literal "god" as a being but I think that it projects something we each experience in ourselves when we contemplate the "infinite" and learn to clear away our thoughts of our immediate "everyday" sense of self. There is something within human beings that compells us to want to know and to want to have a sense of place even as we recognise how small we are. We all have a divine spark (or a "soul") but it takes practice to learn to listen to it and to be sensitive to it.

Prophets do not come with their whims, which left to our own selves, we can be quite creative and convinced of our own superior opinions, so for the sake of humility, and to spread peace, it makes perfect sense to send Prophets and Messengers to directly guide us all towards salvation - and due to the facet of free will, it makes then, perfect sense, to give us all the choice in how we do just that. we could be right, or wrong. however, I believe that God will always guide those who are sincere in putting aside 'self' in search of truth.

People either follow their own desires or seek a path that is already prescribed and investigate the conditions of that contract in order to successfully journey on that path. If that makes sense to you?

my guess is that Prophets are selfish, but its an unusual kind of selfishness. When we think of death and our own mortality, there is an entirely rational and selfish desire to escape it as a source of suffering. What makes the prophets (or teachers) sense of selfishness unusual is the awareness of death and of the futility of concern for material things. True, we could spend our lives dedicated to the pursuit of wealth, power and fame, but why? In a hundred or a thousand years, no-one will remember or care and even if we do remember the names and maybe a few details of people who got into the historical books as "notable", they are often distorted and inaccurate representations of the person. I'm a bit of a hedonist so I think that some of the great religions began because these beliefs made people happy and gave them something new that they needed or wanted.

The desire to do good and the desire to be happy are not mutually exclusive, because we are social animals who can learn to love one another, who want to be loved and who want each others affection and approval. We feel a sense of safety in belonging and in not being alone. I would guess that, at certain periods in history, this need becomes very acute and then a number of prophets step forward. By a process of elimination one of the prophets gets it right and starts a religion that then spreads and multiplies.

I think that really, when looking at the lives of Prophets, it is important to look at what has already been verified.

Prophets serve, they are not seeking people to serve their every need and desire.

Prophets guide according to what God commands - they do not differ according to the people they are sent, so the laws don't shift to satisfy mans desires, but rather, to refine the desires of man in order to please God.

Prophets do not accept charity.

Prophets do not become angry for their own accord, but only become angry for the sake of transgressions against /god.

Prophets are merciful, but also firm in their teachings.

Oh, on that note, I believe therefore, that the mission of Prophets, is absolutely, to guide us to the path of salvation, that is their purpose, and that is what our hearts desire - mercy, forgiveness, reward for giving up what displeases God in favour of adopting values, and lives lived for His sake, seeking His pleasure, and therefore, seeking His reward. And, add to that, what we give up is in the temporary, what we seek in return, is what will never end, paradise - forever. Seems like an awesome trade to me. =)

Just some thoughts. =)

Yeah, it does look like an Awesome trade. Its a hard one to be good at though.

I'm pretty much in agreement with you on the specifics of what a prophet is like.

One thing I would add though is that prophets are not fanatics. That's more of a personal choice as I don't think the historical evidence would support me on that, but being a fanatic means to be in a constant state of unrest and distress. Being a fanatic is exactly the opposite of spiritual enlightenment and fulfilment. It is possible to live, die and kill for a cause when you are in that kind of psychological state, because it is a form of spiritual anarchy and a total lack of control or self-preservation. Fanatics do not have the level of humility of a prophet because their beliefs are often a form of disguised egotism. It is self-importance presented as "doing god's works". Fanatics like to be seen to be doing the "right" thing and appearances often take precedence far more than whether they actually need to do it or if they are just obsessing over tiny details. A prophet would recognise how stupid it is to obsess over the small and the trivial whereas a fanatic would define themselves by an unhealthy and compulsive perfectionism. My suspicion is that prophets go through a long process of growth until eventually they become so intune with themselves that they don't have to be fanatics.

To be truly dedicated to a cause means to accept the possibility of failure, that death is inevitable and that all things turn to dust. Human beings will fail you, they will betray you but that is the price of trying to guide them. You cannot control the destiny of mankind from beyond the grave even if you may in this life have tried to show them a better way. To transcend this life, means to let go of trying to control everything. A Fanatic is too insecure to do that. I hope one day I will meet a "prophet" who can.

p.s. Welcome to RF @Asiya Lisa . I hope you enjoy your time here.

 

[Muslim-UK]

You're right. The sentence about not deviating from the Hebrew bible doesn't apply to those that prophesied before the bible was written. Also Ismael was never a prophet. G-d cut him out of the tree.

If being a Prophet means one who supports the Torah, then why just drop Ishmael pbuh from that list? None of them knew anything about a book called the Torah.

God promised Abraham's pbuh descendants the Land between Egypt and the Euphrates, and as I'm sure you know, it's been the descendant of Abraham's pbuh first born Son, Ishmael pbuh who have ruled over it.

Utter falsehood and rubbish.

Ok let's start with some straight forward issues...

Comparing II Kings and II chronicles could you explain the following discrepancies;

Was Jehoiachin 18 years old, (II Kings 24:8) when he began to reign or was he 8 years old? (II Chronicles 36:9)

What about Ahaziah when he began to reign in Jerusalem:

Was he 22 years old, (II kings 8:26 or 42 years old, (2 chronicles 22-2) when he began to reign?

And I've learned to not pay heed to what a Muslim considers to be a bona fide prophet. Following a terrorist like muhammad is just an example of your problems.

Terrorist? Please explain how the Prophet of Islam was different to Moses pbuh.

 

[columbus]

Terrorist? Please explain how the Prophet of Islam was different to Moses pbuh.

I don't think they are terribly different.
They were both warlords whose followers founded a religion by attributing literature to them.

I don't think Jesus was that different either.
Tom

 

[Tumah]

The taqiyah is strong in you. Not only did you borrow animal sacrifices,

Prove that we borrowed animal sacrifice and that G-d didn't intend it.

the sin transfer

There is no such thing.

the piece meals

This is not English.

the music, the trumpets being played, they used to have music on the temple mount.

There's nothing wrong with music...

On yom kippur they would do the sacrifice on the alter,

There were many.

and the high priest used to go to the back by the holy of holies do something with the large blazing fire to make it change color,

There was no large blazing fire in the Holy of Holies.

and then come out and put his hands up and make that weird hand sign and chant out YAHWEEEHHHHHH, and everyone would go down and bow down to their faces.

So much for not trusting those dirty Jews like Josephus...

The judiacs used to pray similar to muslims, but they changed after the roman pagans started mimic them.

No, the Muslims took their way of bowing on mats from the Jews. But bowing on mats was never central to Judaism, it was just because its forbidden to bow on stone outside the Temple. So we could either bow on a mat or not bow on the floor. Most eventually chose to simply not bow all the way to the floor and so we only do that once a year. Muslims saw it and took the idea, not even realizing what the mats are for...

This is all from you midrash, and the talmud. The chamber of parvah where there was a spy network who actually spied on the high priests to try to find out how the high priests would light the fire or change color. They were all in competition with one another.

You definitely did not get this stuff from our Talmud or Midrash because you're clearly just spitting out some random confused facts. It looks like you skimmed through a book or something.

The inner courtyard is the left side of the image. The Parvah chamber is the blue rectangle on the south east side of the inner courtyard. The Sanctuary is the building with the steps in front going eastward. The Holy of Holies is the square all the way at the end of the main hall of the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary was an enclosed structure within the open-air of the courtyard. Do you think that someone standing in the Parvah chamber will be able to see what's going on all the way inside the building?

The greco-romans loved your religion, the only thing they didn't like was the circumcision part, and alot of the dietary laws. They thought it was cooler than worshipping the temple of jupiter. Paul of course made use of these gentile greco-romans.

The Romans literally destroyed the Temple and built a temple to Jupiter.
Aelia Capitolina - Wikipedia

And the angel thing with uzzah, I'm just saying that you guys incorporated an idolistic entity with your religon, just like azazel. Islam doesn't believe in a uuzzah,

Angels are not idols.
Azazel - Wikipedia
Harut and Marut - Wikipedia

or that even angels are allowed to betray god. No such thing as a fallen angel, angels are creatures of command.

In Judaism, there is no such thing as a fallen angel. That's a Christian idea.

You had such a fear in azazel, that you actually had to have sacrifice for him, and call it a scape goat.....come on. you can't deny this.

I sure can.

Ezekiel confirmed everything I just spoke about. You don't need sacrifices, that temple was for worship 1 god, and thats it.

You're not even debating, you're just ranting. Ezekiel has an entire section devoted to describing a Temple and sacrifices.

What kind of religion condones putting a rope around a chicken, and swinging it around and around and around, and then putting your sins in it, and then throwing it out. Come on, this is innovation. This is superstitious stuff.

This is just more lies that your Sheikh has fed you. There is no rope. We hold the chicken from wherever we can and lightly swing it around our heads. The purpose is to realize that we deserve to die for our sins and that we should repent. The chicken isn't thrown out. Some people eat it but most people give it to charity because it says in Proverbs that charity saves a person from death.

Only in judaism, does it say that god needs a seat at some alter where they sacrifice animals and have to spread the blood around the alter and burn animals and food and transfer of sin. Does god need a seat on earth ? He is closer to you than your jugular, why would he need a seat ?

It is not my fault that they don't teach you metaphor in Islamic school. Go blame the sheikh.

And you can't deny the despicable acts of the Pharisees, because in Ezekiel it talks all about it.

There were no Pharisees in the time of Ezekiel.

Try to deny it, god leveled you, destroyed because you rejected his criteria, his messengers and prophets.

I would never deny it. It is 100% true. You are just mistaken because you think that G-d can't see the future.


So now, we've already gone back and forth a few times. You've already established clearly that you don't really actually know anything about Judaism. Fires changing color? Spying from the Parvah to the Holy of Holies? 70 Babylonian Rabbis with greater revelation than Moses? One book of the Talmud?

You have no shame. After the first few mistakes, you keep coming back to show the world your ignorance instead of admitting that you are mistaken.

 

[Tumah]

So some 2,300 years and no New Song. I wonder if to Sing a New Song is the same as to Recite a New Revelation?

History shows the people of Ishmael's Son Kedar ra sung a New Song some 1,400 years ago:

...
and he will defeat his enemies.

Here are all the times "new song" appears in Tanach.

Psa. 33:3 "Sing to G-d a new song, play (as in a musical instrument) well with shouts..."
Psa 40:4 "And He put in my mouth a new son, praise to our G-d..."
Psa. 96:1 "Sing to G-d a new song; sing to G-d, the whole land..."
Psa. 98:1 "A psalm. Sing to G-d a new song. for He has done wonders..."
Psa 144:9 "G-d, a new song I will sing to you, on a lute of ten..."
Psa.149:1 "Sing to G-d a new song, His praise in a congregation of pious..."

As you may know, the Book of Psalms is a book of songs. A psalm is a liturgical poem. So now let's look at Isaiah 42 with the understanding that he refers to an actual song:

Sing to G-d a new song,

His praise from the ends of the earth​

Descend-ers to the sea and [those who] fill it

Islands and their inhabitants <<<<< Different places people live: mainland, sea, island
​

Raise up [their voices] desert and it's cities <<<<< more places where people live: deserts

Villages [where] Kedar inhabits, <<<<< people that live in desert​

Cry out, dwellers of Sela <<<<< people that live on mountain

From the top of mountains they shall shout <<<<< more places where people live: mountains
​

In both these verses, different verb related to "singing" are used: sing, raise up, cry out, shout. Because there will come a day where all these places will sing to G-d in praise, raise up their voices in song to G-d in praise, cry out to G-d in songs of praise, shout out to G-d in songs of praise. This has not yet happened.

Sela, the mountain in Medinah, is never identified in the Tanach. Sela the mountain of Edom is. Your interpretation as the mountain in Medina is self-serving. Kedar is identified with Ishmael and Sela is identified with Esau. We find other places where the children of Ishmael and Esau are singled out among the nations:

Deut. 33:2 "And he said, 'G-d, from Sinai comes; He shone from Se'ir to them, He appeared from Mt. Paran..."

Se'ir is where Esau lived (Gen. 36:8). Mt Paran is where Ishmael lived (Gen. 21:21)

The time for the inhabitants in the settlements of Kedar to be climbing Mountains and crying out in joy has long past.

Apparently it has not.

I've shown it's very possible, and you yourself started by claiming it referred to many prophets, yet could only agree on one name, Joshua pbuh, and I showed 34:10 excluded him. So now you are forced to accept you haven't received a Prophet in almost 2500 years! For this reason your Scholars have suggested Balaam a non Jewish Prophet, yet Muhammad pbuh fits the prophecy like a glove.

No, you are confusing many different things over here. I named one prophet, Joshua, as an example. All the prophets following Joshua also fulfill this passage. Joshua is just an example, because he's the first one.

Deut. 34:1 does not exclude Joshua because 34:10 is only saying that there has never been a prophet in Israel who knew G-d face to face as Moses did. Not that there has never been another prophet in Israel. All other prophets spoke to G-d less directly than did Moses. The Rabbis understand from the qualifier "in Israel" that there was a prophet who was not from Israel who spoke to G-d with some degree of similarity that Moses had and identify him as Balaam. This is completely unrelated to what we're talking about, because we're not discussing the degree of prophetic revelation.

Lastly, the entire passage itself explains to some extent why we don't have prophets now and I kind of alluded to that before, but it seems you didn't catch it, so I will spell it out:

The passage begins in chapter 18 verse 9. There we are told that when we go into Israel there will be various types of diviners and soothsayers. These are methods of obtaining information about the future and they are prohibited to us probably because of their relation to idolatry. However, to make up for not being able to obtain information about the future, G-d explains that He will provide us with prophets. Prophecy is another way of obtaining information about the future and it is permitted to us. We are told that G-d will send us prophets from among the Jewish people and we must listen to them. That's chapter 18 from verse 9 until the end in a nutshell.

And that's exactly what happened: from the time we went into Israel, we had prophets. Prophecy ended with the last prophets to have been born before the exile out of Israel. By the time we came back to the country, diviners and soothsayers are no longer an issue and in fact, during the entire Second Temple, there is no mention of any type of idolatry by the nation. We have already left the country, while the promise was for when we go into the country and we no longer need an alternative to diviners and soothsayers. Hence this passage is no longer relevant.

Muhammad doesn't fit this prophecy as I've continuously explained: he is not from among the Jewish people and he contradicts the prophecy of Moses.

Jewish Law = opinions of Jewish Scholars.
Though you couldn't care less, the Qur'an admonishes Jews ....

That's right.

What does your Torah say....

Genesis 17:9 Then God said to Abraham, “Now, this is your part of the agreement: You and all your descendants will obey my agreement. 10 This is my agreement that all of you must obey. This is the agreement between me and you and all your descendants. Every male must be circumcised. 11 You will cut the skin to show that you follow the agreement between me and you. 12 When the baby boy is eight days old, you will circumcise him. Every boy born among your people and every boy who is a slave of your people must be circumcised. 13 So every baby boy in your nation will be circumcised. Every boy who is born from your family or bought as a slave will be circumcised. 14 Abraham, this is the agreement between you and me: Any male who is not circumcised will be cut off from his people[d] because he has broken my agreement.”

At this point Abraham pbuh only had One Son, His First Born Ishmael pbuh...

22 After God finished talking with Abraham, God went up into heaven.23 Then Abraham gathered together Ishmael and all the slaves born in his house. He also gathered all the slaves he had bought. Every man and boy in Abraham’s house was gathered together, and they were all circumcised. Abraham circumcised them that day, just as God had told him to do.

24 Abraham was 99 years old when he was circumcised. 25 And Ishmael, his son, was 13 years old when he was circumcised. 26 Abraham and his son were circumcised on the same day. 27 Also, on that day all the men in Abraham’s house were circumcised. All the slaves born in his house and all the slaves he had bought were circumcised.

Any descendant of Ishmael pbuh would have kept the Law and obeyed the religion of their Grandfather, despite what 'Jewish' Law had to say on the matter.

No, circumcision and the Law are two different things. Abraham was commanded in this chapter to circumcise himself and all of his descendants. 17:10 specifies a specific covenant between G-d and Abraham's children: the covenant of circumcision. Let's get the exact words:

v. 10 "This is My covenant that you shall keep, between Me and between you and between your seed after you: circumcise for you, the flesh of your males"
v. 11 "And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a sign between Me and between you.
v. 12 "And 8 days old you shall circumcise for yourself every male, for generations, [those] born to the house and bought with money from every stranger who is not from your seed."
v. 13 "Circumcise those born of your house and bought of money. And my covenant shall be in your flesh for an eternal covenant."

So Abraham is commanded to circumcise himself, to circumcise his seed, to circumcise the members of his household and to circumcise his slaves.

So let's see where Ishmael falls:

Gen. 21:12 "And G-d said to Abraham...Because in Isaac will be called your seed"

Apparently, Abraham shouldn't be worried about sending Ishmael out of his house, because according to G-d, Ishmael is not considered Abraham's seed. If Ishmael is not Abraham's seed, then Ishmael is only getting circumcised because he was born to Abraham's household. Ishmael's children were not, so they have no such command to be circumcised and would not have done so.

According to Maimonides, only Ishmael was excluded through Gen. 21:12 since he was the topic. Therefore the children of Keturah were not excluded and would have had to circumcise their children. Other opinions argue. But it's pretty clear from the actual text that at lease Ishmael's children were not included.

34:10-12 has been posted, and you can see no mention of speech impediment, being born to a father named Amran pbuh or any of the other red herrings you mentioned.

Deut. 34:10-12 is completely unrelated to 18:9-22 as I keep pointing out. Chapter 34 is talking about the degree of prophecy Moses attained. Chapter 18 is talking about the existence of prophets after Moses. These are two different subject.

Please, Moses pbuh was telling the Israelites about what would come in the future. If GOD had intended Moses pbuh to live a very long life and continue to receive revelation, He could have done just that. Moses pbuh is making it plain and clear, a Prophet like him would arise from amongst their brethren in the future. In the meantime Moses pbuh anointed Joshua pbuh and he led the Israelites.

You're contradicting yourself. First you said that the nation not wanting to be addressed directly includes every individual. I point out to you that Moses is an individual within the nation of Israel. If the passage is meant to include every individual, than it should include Moses as well. Now you realize that the passage can't include every individual. It excludes all the prophets.

I should also point out the prophets living during Moses time:
Aaron, Miriam, Joshua, Eldad, Meidad and an additional 70 unnamed Elders. That's a minimum of 75 exclusions. That's why I explained that the nation as a whole, the laymen, requested that G-d not prophecy directly to them. However, there were other individuals, leaders who were already prepared for prophecy or who would one day be prepared for prophecy, who were not included.

Feel free to start a thread comparing preservation of Torah vs Qur'an.

There is nothing you can say. Without an actual scroll from Moses, you can't prove that the Torah we have today is not the one that Moses wrote. All you can do is prove that there were different versions, not that we don't have the authentic version.

Which commentaries say, 34:10 means a Prophet that God spoke to face to face is the criteria used to explain what 'like' Moses pbuh means?

This is very frustrating.

Verse 34:10 says, "There has not arisen another prophet in Israel like Moses who knew G-d face to face"

The commentaries on this verse explain that there has never been another prophet in Israel who knew G-d face to face, like Moses did.
Moses knew G-d face to face. There has never been another Jewish prophet who knew G-d that way.

You said that "34:10 shows no prophet rose like him, and ancient commentaries show never again in Israel did a Prophet like Moses pbuh appear."

I was explaining to you that it's a specific facet of Moses' prophecy that the commentaries are saying was never seen again in Israel. That was his ability to "know G-d face to face".

 

[Tumah]

And I'll repeat, it's 2 different verses, 2 different subjects matters.

The King(s) in Deut 17 mustn't obtain more horses from Egypt, mustn't marry too many women, mustn't amass Gold and Silver, and MUST remind himself daily of the Laws of God by writing a book from the Torah observant Priests. No King who is foreign must be appointed. Is there any hint here of God communicating directly with this King? None

On the other hand in Deut 18, God will place his words into the Prophet's mouth, and the people must listen to him, and to recognise him, he'll be 'like' Moses pbuh.

This is very frustrating as well.

I'm not saying that these two passages apply to one person. I'm saying that when a word is used in two different places and the context of one place is clear, we can use the context from that place to understand the meaning in the other context.

In chapter 17 about kings, the meaning of the words "from among your brothers" is clearly referring to other Jews. This command was fulfilled three times through G-d choosing Jewish kings. So when the same words are used in the next chapter, we know that these words also mean other Jews.

10And there was no other prophet who arose in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face,
11as manifested by all the signs and wonders, which the Lord had sent him to perform in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and all his servants, and to all his land,
12and all the strong hand, and all the great awe, which Moses performed before the eyes of all Israel.

There arose not a prophet, among all the succeeding prophets none was found so eminent in all respects nor so highly privileged as Moses pbuh; with him God spoke face to face. He was admitted to the closest familiarity and greatest friendship with God. NONE arose 'like' Moses pbuh, and then you had a drought, no Prophets sent for Hundreds of years. No Prophet who defeated their enemies and led the Israelites into the promised land.

According to you, there were going to be multiple Prophets. It's your religion, so feel free to reel off their names.

Deut. 34:10-12 is saying that there has never been a prophet who (1) spoke to G-d face to face, (2) performed miraculous wonders against another nation, (3) performed wonders for Jewish nation.

No Jewish prophet has ever spoken to G-d face to face or performed signs and wonders of the magnitude that Moses had. However, they did have prophecy that was not from speaking to G-d face to face and performed miracles that were less wondrous than those that Moses did. These prophets all lived in the approximately thousand years that followed Moses' death.

From a thousand years after Moses, until now, 2,500 years later, we have no had any prophets whatsoever.

So what exactly is the point you're trying to make?

I know, the truth pill is hard to swallow. To help you feel better, we'll just agree to disagree.

The truth? You can't even understand the meaning of simple words!!

But it is when a status of a Prophet is changed from being a fruitful man in one Torah, to a wild *** of a man in another version. Did God change his mind between inspiring different scribes?

I'm sorry. Can you explain why a wild man can't be fruitful?
Just to be clear, fruitful means "producing many offspring".
Can you explain why being wild and having lot of children are contradictions?

Still no names to put forward? If you don't listen to him, you are amongst the losers.

I guess I will, since you keep asking for their names:

Deborah, Hannah (mother of Shmuel), Avigail (who became a wife of King David), Huldah (from the time of Jeremiah), Esther, Joshua, Phineas, Elkanah, Eli, Samuel, Gad, Nathan, King David, King Solomon, Aidoin the Golah, Micha Ben Yamla, Obadiah, Achiah Hashiloni, Jehu Ben Hanani, Azaryah Ben Oded, Haziel from Bnei Masni, Eliezer his cousin, Morishah, Hosea, Amos, Micha, Elijah, Elisha, Jonah Ben Amitai, Isaiah, Joel, Nahum, Habakuk, Zephaniah, Uriah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Baruch, Neriah, Sharyah, Machsiyah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Mordechai

There are an additional ~ 1.2 million unnamed prophets who didn't write anything necessary for future generations or do anything that was noteworthy, so we have no books or records from them. Just the occasional mention of groups of prophets.

They all lived under the covenant.

Not the Mosaic covenant.

Wait, so you think Moses pbuh may have been a practitioner of Sihr?

Nope. Moses was the first one we know without any doubt wasn't a practitioner of sihr, because G-d revealed Himself to the nation, proving it. After him, the only ones we can really be 100% sure of, are the ones who follow his line, ie. Moses is 100% proven prophet, so if he tells us someone else is a prophet, we can know the other person is as well, if that person tells us that another person is a prophet, we can know that about that third person as well, and so on. For anyone else we can't ever be 100% sure.

 

[Muslim-UK]

@Tumah

Scholarly examination of the Hebrew Bible has proved it has not been preserved, it has been changed to suit the racist agenda of the Scribes. Even the simple examples I gave Akivah have been thus far met with silence.

History as examined by non Muslims shows that the only man who came close to being like Moses pbuh was Muhammad pbuh.

Many historians who have studied the lives of Moses and Muhammad (pbut) have remarked upon the many similarities between them. The late Reverend James L. Dow (1908-1977) who authored the Collins Gem Dictionary of the Bible wrote under the entry of 'Moses':

'The only man in history who can be compared even remotely to him is Muhammed.' Collins Gems Dictionary of the Bible 1972.

The Land promised to Abraham's seed has been controlled by the descendants of Ishmael pbuh, so either I'm right and the Scribes altered the narrative to suit their perceived 'superiority' over their non Jewish Arab brothers, or God changed His mind. Which is it?

Did the Scribes want to attempt to rob Ishmael pbuh of his rightful inheritance? Yes because despite their handy work, they left clues to their deceit.

 

[Akivah]

If being a Prophet means one who supports the Torah, then why just drop Ishmael pbuh from that list? God promised Abraham's pbuh descendants the Land between Egypt and the Euphrates, and as I'm sure you know, it's been the descendant of Abraham's pbuh first born Son, Ishmael pbuh who have ruled over it.

I didn't drop him, G-d did.
G e n 21:10 And Sarah said to Abraham, "Drive out this handmaid and her son, for the son of this handmaid shall not inherit with my son, with Isaac."

G e n 21:12 And God said to Abraham, "Be not displeased concerning the lad and concerning your handmaid; whatever Sarah tells you, hearken to her voice, for in Isaac will be called your seed.

It's obvious from the text that Ishmael inherited nothing from Abraham. All of Abraham's inheritance went to Isaac.

And no, the descendants of Ishmael have not ruled over that land all the time. At least 20 nations have ruled that strip of land. But it is only proper for Isaac's descendants to have it, in accordance with G-d's will.

 

[Augustus]

it has been changed to suit the racist agenda of the Scribes...

Did the Scribes want to attempt to rob Ishmael pbuh of his rightful inheritance? Yes because despite their handy work, they left clues to their deceit.

Apparently Beverly Hills Cop 3 was going to be one of the greatest comedy films of all time, but the devious Scribes altered it to make it excruciatingly unfunny because making Eddie Murphy look bad suited their racist agenda and they wanted to deprive him of his rightful inheritance.

 

[Muslim-UK]

I didn't drop him, G-d did.
G e n 21:10 And Sarah said to Abraham, "Drive out this handmaid and her son, for the son of this handmaid shall not inherit with my son, with Isaac."

G e n 21:12 And God said to Abraham, "Be not displeased concerning the lad and concerning your handmaid; whatever Sarah tells you, hearken to her voice, for in Isaac will be called your seed.

Ok no problem, Ishmael pbuh to have no share of what was Abraham's pbuh. This of course has zero to do with the Land from Egypt to the Euphrates that was promised to the descendants of Abraham pbuh.

It's obvious from the text that Ishmael inherited nothing from Abraham. All of Abraham's inheritance went to Isaac.

Genesis 21:12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Genesis 21:13 And also of the son of the bondwoman this will I make a nation great, because he [is] thy seed.

The Jewish record in the Book of Jubilees makes it clear, Abraham pbuh commanded all his Sons and their descendants to live under the covenant he made with GOD and he settled them in the promised Land.

And no, the descendants of Ishmael have not ruled over that land all the time. At least 20 nations have ruled that strip of land. But it is only proper for Isaac's descendants to have it, in accordance with G-d's will.

Correct, the Ishmaelites along with their brethren haven't always been custodians over the Land, but History has also shown the Israelites were expelled from the Land by GOD Himself, the last time being around 70 A.D. That's been a common theme, the stiff necked, (choice words from Moses pbuh) Israelites defied God and were punished into exile.

And they say, "Never will the Fire touch us, except for a few days." Say, "Have you taken a covenant with Allah ? For Allah will never break His covenant. Or do you say about Allah that which you do not know?" Qur'an 2:80

Jews have lived alongside Muslims for over 1,400 years, but this new apartheid being practised since the 40's does not have God's blessings and won't end well unless people repent and have fear of God.

Obviously as per God's plan, nothing will change, things will just get worse, but ultimately rejection of God's Prophets, Jesus and Muhammad pbut will come back to bite hard.

 

[Muslim-UK]

Apparently Beverly Hills Cop 3 was going to be one of the greatest comedy films of all time, but the devious Scribes altered it to make it excruciatingly unfunny because making Eddie Murphy look bad suited their racist agenda and they wanted to deprive him of his rightful inheritance.

This isn't a movie script, it's their word of God. Go and read the account of Ishmael pbuh being made to leave his father's house, and tell me how old, (approximately) you think he was when it happened.

Genesis 21:8-19 Berei**** - Genesis - Chapter 21 (Parshah Vayeira)

 

[Augustus]

This isn't a movie script, it's their word of God. Go and read the account of Ishmael pbuh being made to leave his father's house, and tell me how old, (approximately) you think he was when it happened.

Genesis 21:8-19 Berei**** - Genesis - Chapter 21 (Parshah Vayeira)

People are going to believe what they want about their own scriptures, it's just funny that it always comes back to the devious Scribes deliberately perverting the word of God for their own nefarious ends.

For some reason it reminds me of what he says about Rocky Marciano in this skit

 

[Jumi]

God doesn't prefer one creature over the other. He didn't create mankind because one is better than the other. He created mankind for worship. He loves all humans, there is no such thing as a god that prefers one kind of people over the other. If you think god chose a particular people over the other than you sound genocidal. What kind of merciful god is this ? He is the merciful isn't he ? The majestic ? The sublime ?

God prefers one over the other ? just like that ? If god chose a certain kind of people then whats the point in ALLLL of this ? Whats the point of our lives carrying on right now ? Wouldn't he have brought the day of judgement already ? There is no such thing. Everyone is gods people.

God created 3 kinds of people, the believer, the unbeliever, and the hypocrite. The most people that go to the hell-fire is the hypocrite.

Seems to me like you believe God doesn't love all humans and prefers one type above the other. Surely no one would sent loved ones to eternal torment.

 

[Muslim-UK]

It is true that there is a place called Sela in Medina. However, the Sela in Medina is never mentioned in the Tanach. The Sela of Edom is. This Sela is the one in Edom. Verse 11 is saying that the children of Ishmael and the children of Edom will one day sing G-d's praises.

Out of interest, I found another mention of Sela in the Hebrew Bible:

Isaiah 16:11 Send lambs from Sela as tribute to the ruler of the land. Send them through the desert to the mountain of beautiful Zion.

I also found a people who according to the Torah, dealt in the best Lamb...

Ezekiel 27:21 Arabia and all the princes of Kedar were your favored dealers in lambs, rams, and goats; in these they did business with you.

We know the sons of Kedar lived in Saudi Arabia, and we have a Mountain called Sela in Medina, an area from which the finest Lamb was sent across the desert to the Israelites.

I also found another prophecy of Isaiah..

Isaiah 21:13 The burden (oracle, prophecy) upon Arabia:
In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye travelling companies of Dedanim.

14 The inhabitants of the land of Tema brought water to him that was thirsty, they prevented with their bread him that fled.

15 For they fled from the swords, from the drawn sword, and from the bent bow, and from the grievousness of war.

16 For thus hath the Lord said unto me, Within a year, according to the years of an hireling, and all the glory of Kedar shall fail:

17 And the residue of the number of archers, the mighty men of the children of Kedar, shall be diminished: for the Lord God of Israel hath spoken it.

Breakdown:

The land of Tema (i.e Madina) brought water to him that was thirsty, they prevented with their bread him that fled.” Tema is Madina where Prophet Muhammad pbuh and his companions immigrated to. Each immigrant was brothered by one inhabitant of Medina and given food and shelter.

Isaiah 21:15: “For they fled from the swords, from the drawn sword and from the bent bow, and from the grievousness of war.” This is when Prophet Muhammad pbuh and his companions were persecuted and left Mecca to Medina.

Isaiah 21:16: “For thus hath the Lord saith unto me, Within a year, according to the years of an hireling, and all the glory of Kadar shall fail.” Exactly in the 2nd year of Hijra (immigration) the pagans were defeated in the battle of Badr.

Finally Isaiah 21:17: concludes with “...the mighty men of the children of Kedar, shall be diminished: for the Lord God of Israel hath spoken it.” Kedar is the 2nd son of Ishmael (Genesis 25:13) from whom ultimately Prophet Muhammad pbuh arose. In the beginning the children of Kedar were attacking Muhammad pbuh and his companions. But as many of them accepted Islam, the number of the children of Kedar who resisted diminished.

We know God's chosen servant in Isaiah is Israel, but 42 mentions a New Song, (which you say hasn't been sung yet) and this particular servant will abolish idolatry in Arabia. There is no record of Israel having done this in Arabia, but we know Muhammad pbuh wiped it away in the 7th Century and that has endured to this day. Further proof this can not be foretelling a event that hasn't happened yet.

 

[MohammadPali]

Prove that we borrowed animal sacrifice and that G-d didn't intend it.


There is no such thing.


This is not English.


There's nothing wrong with music...


There were many.


There was no large blazing fire in the Holy of Holies.


So much for not trusting those dirty Jews like Josephus...


No, the Muslims took their way of bowing on mats from the Jews. But bowing on mats was never central to Judaism, it was just because its forbidden to bow on stone outside the Temple. So we could either bow on a mat or not bow on the floor. Most eventually chose to simply not bow all the way to the floor and so we only do that once a year. Muslims saw it and took the idea, not even realizing what the mats are for...


You definitely did not get this stuff from our Talmud or Midrash because you're clearly just spitting out some random confused facts. It looks like you skimmed through a book or something.

The inner courtyard is the left side of the image. The Parvah chamber is the blue rectangle on the south east side of the inner courtyard. The Sanctuary is the building with the steps in front going eastward. The Holy of Holies is the square all the way at the end of the main hall of the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary was an enclosed structure within the open-air of the courtyard. Do you think that someone standing in the Parvah chamber will be able to see what's going on all the way inside the building?



The Romans literally destroyed the Temple and built a temple to Jupiter.
Aelia Capitolina - Wikipedia



Angels are not idols.
Azazel - Wikipedia
Harut and Marut - Wikipedia




In Judaism, there is no such thing as a fallen angel. That's a Christian idea.


I sure can.


You're not even debating, you're just ranting. Ezekiel has an entire section devoted to describing a Temple and sacrifices.


This is just more lies that your Sheikh has fed you. There is no rope. We hold the chicken from wherever we can and lightly swing it around our heads. The purpose is to realize that we deserve to die for our sins and that we should repent. The chicken isn't thrown out. Some people eat it but most people give it to charity because it says in Proverbs that charity saves a person from death.


It is not my fault that they don't teach you metaphor in Islamic school. Go blame the sheikh.


There were no Pharisees in the time of Ezekiel.


I would never deny it. It is 100% true. You are just mistaken because you think that G-d can't see the future.


So now, we've already gone back and forth a few times. You've already established clearly that you don't really actually know anything about Judaism. Fires changing color? Spying from the Parvah to the Holy of Holies? 70 Babylonian Rabbis with greater revelation than Moses? One book of the Talmud?

You have no shame. After the first few mistakes, you keep coming back to show the world your ignorance instead of admitting that you are mistaken.

God doesn't replicate pagan traditions into his covenant with man. He didn't intend on mankind to mimic the gentiles or the pagans with a alter and a holy bbq right next to the holy of holies. Even if you think judaism didn't copy the temple of moloch from the canaanites or any other in Ezekiel GOD IS VERY ANGRY WITH THE JUDAICS BECAUSE THEY TURNED TO IDOL WORSHIP. So don't look at me and say im ranting, it says so in the book of ezekiel, im not lieing its there. God made ezekiel perform all kinds of acts, he was testing him. This is a messenger and phrophet who was not just tested by god, but TESTED by HIS OWN PEOPLE, the jews, and in babylon, the shock at them leaving jerusalem alone was a test. Did they abandoned the criteria of god ?

I'm just repeating everything im saying, did you abandon moses ? Not even a year, some 40 days you abandon moses, so why the hell wouldn't you copy another pagan idol or deity or practice ?

Ezekiel said the people did worship and practiced rituals that are NOT from the criteria of god. Do you know what they call those kind of people ? HELLENISTIC. And there was many many hellenistic jews at the time of ezekiel and jesus peace be upon them. There was even a hellenistic pagan prophet at the time of jesus who studied the same place as PAUL, and was coverting followers and was saying he had the marks of STIGMATA from some sort of pagan lord.

Islam doesn't need to follow judaism, and it will never follow it. We even call you the people of the book, and now you call yourself the people of the book, We are the ones that named you that.

I don't even know how or what the mistakes I made. The quran and the hadith cover more than enough for peoples lifetimes.

The tankah consists of some 24 books, and most of them are interpretations of the commandments and laws, and various discussions about every aspect of life, It would take decades to study all this stuff.

God has sent down sooo many prophets, so many messengers to the hebrews, why couldn't they get it right the first time ? And each time he sent a messenger or phrophet it was to help guide them. And each time they would listen a little bit, and then abandon the criteria.

The prophet Mohammad peace be upon him in 23 years spread the word of god faster and more successful than all the other prophets combined, and guess what. 1 book, 1 hadith.

1 book and 1 hadith verse 24 books. The talmud defines more about jewish life, than the torah, and the talmud is just a commentary a guide does god really make life that hard to follow ? 24 books ? Have you seen the size of the tankah ? My god, this is a religion ? God the merciful would have all this for his creatures ?