False Prophets

[Grandliseur]

your understanding of Jewish law is superior to that of Jewish experts in Jewish law. It is a position that reeks of an almost comical arrogance. Meanwhile, your appeal to an English dictionary is a joke at best. The relevant word in question is "mamzer".

Do you even know what is being discussed? This is not about present day stuff, or Jewish tradition from the last 2000 years. I am answering according to the tanakh, the OT. In this, I am second to very few. If you read the scriptures quoted, you might even understand the subject. Especially, if you followed the discussion as it progressed.

I am sure our many great translators were able to get this one word correct.

Quoting:

If a man marries a girl who is claimed to be a virgin, and then finds that she is not, “they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her father’s house and there her townsmen shall stone her to death” (Deut. 22:20)

If a man has relations within the walls of a city with a maiden who is betrothed, “you shall bring them both out to the gate of the city and there stone them to death.” (Deut. 22:23) but if they were in the open fields, “the man alone shall die”, because if it was in the open fields, “though the betrothed maiden may have cried out for help, there was no one to come to her aid.” (Deut. 22:25-27)

If the maiden in question is not betrothed, the punishment is different. “The man who had relations with her shall pay the girl’s father fifty silver shekels and take her as his wife, because he has deflowered her. Moreover, he may not divorce her as long as he lives.” (Deut. 22:29)

And:
Deuteronomy 23: 2 A b a s t a r d shall not enter into the assembly of Jehovah; even to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into the assembly of Jehovah. (ASV)
ESV: 2 “No one born of a forbidden union may enter the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD.​

If a non-virgin young woman gets married and found out to not be virgin and is stoned, how do you suggest unmarried women have children when they are stoned upon being found out?

Reason from scriptures please, and don't just come down all haughty and mighty - when you make no arguments based on facts.
I don't care what the customs are today or the last 2000 years. I only go with scriptures. Why don't you do the same.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you even know what is being discussed? ...

Yes.

]Deuteronomy 23: 2 A b a s t a r d shall not enter into the assembly of Jehovah; even to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into the assembly of Jehovah. (ASV)

JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy (Tigay)

23:3 No one misbegotten shall be admitted into the congregation of the Lord; ...

misbegotten The meaning of Hebrew mamzer is not certain. Derivation from the root m-z-rm "rot," has been suggested. There is no evidence that the term refers to a 'b a s t a r d', a child born out of wedlock. Talmudic exegesis, noting the proximity of verse 1, holds that it refers to the offspring of incestuous or adulterous intercourse. [28] The Septuagint and Targum Jonathan understood the term as referring to the offspring of a prostitute, while others take it as a term for foreigners or the name of a particular foreign (cf. vv. 4-9 and possibly v.2)

note 28: Sifre 249; Mish. Yev. 4:13; Yev. 49a; Bekhor Shor; cf. Rashbam at v.1; S. E. Loewenstamm, s.v. mamzer, EM 5:1-3; E. Neufeld. Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws (London: Longmans, Green, 1944) 224-227. This view is consistent with the dact that the next verse deals with the Ammonites and Moabites, for according to Gen. 19:30-38 these two nations are the offspring of incest.
​

The Five Books of Moses (Everett Fox)

23:3 A mamzer is not to enter the assembly of YHWH; ...​

mamzer: Pronounced mom-zare; apparently one born of a forbidden union (e.g., incest or adultery). The child of two unmarried parents, while rare in the Bible, is not condemned in the manner of this verse.​

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The Qur'an says they were believers and called their people to do the same. Beyond that I would just be speculating.

Then why aren't all believers prophets?

 

[Muslim-UK]

Then why aren't all believers prophets?

Prophets receive revelation from GOD and are usually accompanied with signs, (miracles, gift of prophecy etc). We are not given full details on the Prophets mentioned earlier, but they weren't just believers.

 

[Jumi]

You seem unable to understand the culture of this ancient nation. In this culture, if a child was born *******, that child was not permitted to live in Israel, nor would its children be permitted. If the woman became pregnant because of the rape, this was the only way for the child to be raised with a father and mother and not be a *******.

So instead of God sending a law to treat b*stards better, there is a law to force the raped women to suffer until the end of their lives like captives.

The law didn't deal with what people wanted in this situation; it dealt with was was necessary. That you don't agree is not the issue. A young virgin who got raped might never ever be able to be married off in that society; thus, the point that this rapist should marry her was perhaps the only way now for her ever to marry. And, where did I say they were 'happily married.'?

So it's like fixing broken machinery with a bubblegum.

You didn't say they would be happily married, but only the rapist and perhaps his family might have been happy with this, if he had someone who he was attracted to or needed to marry. On top, he might marry more women as was the order of the day also.

Where did I say that? The fact is that this was the reason for there being no serial rapist or murderers in Israel of the past.

We don't know that, unless you have some proof to present it's just how you feel it might have worked.

I do not live in that culture, and surely my mindset is not adjusted to it. I live in a culture where rape is a common occurrence. Naturally, I would not want my daughter to marry a rapist. If I lived in that culture of the past, a culture where rapist didn't exist without being killed, so that in those cases it is as explained above, the only way for the woman perhaps to ever marry, for the child to be permitted in Israel - my mindset would not be what it is today. Would it now?!

Of course not. You would perhaps be heartbroken with the rules, giving away your daughter to some bad guy. But at least you could have a grandson who would not be an outcast. If I understood your view correctly.

 

[Tumah]

And I think that's where things took a dive.

I won't disagree. According to the Jewish tradition, we heard the first two commandments. But the intense...pressure?...holiness? I don't know what.. of having G-d directly talking to laymen caused everyone to be thrown backward dead. Then the angels had to return their souls and start the process over again. So apparently being spoken to death is uncomfortable and a request was made.
Still, if G-d was doing it, chances are He has better ideas.

 

[Tumah]

You quote judaism. I quote scripture, the law:

If a man marries a girl who is claimed to be a virgin, and then finds that she is not, “they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her father’s house and there her townsmen shall stone her to death” (Deut. 22:20).​

​

This passage is talking about when she had relations after she was betrothed. His complaint is about after he took the woman (ie. betrothed her, v.14). If it was prohibited for a non-betrothed woman, this part would be superfluous, it should just say, "I married my wife and found her to not be a virgin".

If a man has relations within the walls of a city with a maiden who is betrothed, “you shall bring them both out to the gate of the city and there stone them to death.” (Deut. 22:23) but if they were in the open fields, “the man alone shall die”, because if it was in the open fields, “though the betrothed maiden may have cried out for help, there was no one to come to her aid.” (Deut. 22:25-27)

A betrothed woman (and the adulter) get's a punishment of stoning if it was willing. The example of the city is because it's likely that someone would have heard her had she screamed for help. In the field where no one is, it's not so likely. But the passage is just differentiating between willing and rape.

If the maiden in question is not betrothed, the punishment is different. “The man who had relations with her shall pay the girl’s father fifty silver shekels and take her as his wife, because he has deflowered her. Moreover, he may not divorce her as long as he lives.” (Deut. 22:29)

This is talking about rape. Verse 28 says "he grabbed her and laid with her". Similarly, verse 25 says he "held her and laid with her". None of the other passages in this chapter mention that.

Compare with Ex. 22:15-16. Both of these cases are strictly talking about girls ages 12-12.5.

A woman simply couldn't hide in Israel of the past. Either she was married and had children, or she was stoned if found not virgin when marrying. This should tell you what the meaning was with the word b a s t a r d. (the program doesn't like the work, thus double spaced.)

No, that's not the case. There is no Biblical prohibition to having relations when not engaged or married. A ******* in the Biblical sense is strictly a child born from a union between two people who may not be married to each other (barring one of two cases).

 

[Tumah]

There absolutely is a New Covenant, New song mentioned and it involves the Ishmaelites and Gentile Nations:

“I am the Lord; I have called you in righteousness;
I will take you by the hand and keep you;
I will give you as a covenant for the people,
a light for the nations,
7 to open the eyes that are blind,
to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon,
from the prison those who sit in darkness.
8 I am the Lord; that is my name;
my glory I give to no other,
nor my praise to carved idols.
9 Behold, the former things have come to pass,
and new things I now declare;
before they spring forth
I tell you of them.”
Sing to the Lord a New Song
10 Sing to the Lord a new song,
his praise from the end of the earth,
you who go down to the sea, and all that fills it,
the coastlands and their inhabitants.
11 Let the desert and its cities lift up their voice,
the villages that Kedar inhabits;
let the habitants of Sela sing for joy,
let them shout from the top of the mountains.

This is a song. A song is not a covenant. There are lots of songs in the Tanach that are described as being songs. This passage is just describing a song that people will praise G-d with. To move past this, you are going to need to first prove that a song is a covenant.

Kedar was a Son of Ishmael pbuh and The Mountain Sela is located in Medina.

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.

I would expect nothing less from you.

The issue here is what the texts say, and whether GOD could send Prophets to non Jews:

Natanel al-Fayyumi, a 12th-century Yemenite rabbi, to suggest that God established an eternal covenant with Moses and the Children of Israel, but that He also established a covenant with Muhammad and the Muslims.

Additionally, al-Fayyumi finds it critically important to reiterate the Torah's warning that if a prophet comes to change the laws of the Torah, he is not to be seen as a prophet for the Jewish people. Seeing that many of the laws and ideas in Islam are contrary to those of Judaism, and that the language of the Quran is different to that of the Torah, al-Fayyumi holds that a Jew must remain a Jew. However, the fact that the Seven Laws of Noah (a moral code passed down to Noah from God for non-Jews) are stated in the Quran, may suggest that Islam is a Noahide religion for non-Jews.

The Emeritus Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, promotes a similar idea in a much-maligned and controversial paragraph in the first edition of his book, The Dignity of Difference. He wrote, "In the course of history, God has spoken to mankind in many languages: through Judaism to Jews, Christianity to Christians, Islam to Muslims."

Al-Fayyumi specifically said that G-d sent prophets to all the nations. Not just Islam. According to him, Baha'i's prophets and Christianity's Paul are all valid prophets. Although he is a minority opinion and Yemenites in general were not known to have the greatest scholars, his position doesn't help your argument that Muhammad is prophesied about in Deut.

Rambam himself mentions in his corpus of Jewish law, Mishneh Torah: "Muhammad and Jesus served to clear the way for King Messiah, to prepare the whole world to worship God with one accord."

https://www.thejc.com/judaism/features/how-should-non-jewish-prophets-be-viewed-1.55332

You have grossly misunderstood Maimoindes. Partly because you didn't read further. All Maimonides is saying here is that there existence indirectly prepares the world for the true Messiah. And he explains in the lines following the one you've quoted: they do so by making Jewish theological concepts familiar to the world, albeit with mistakes.

So although the possibility exists to accept Jesus and Muhammad pbuh as Prophets sent to Gentiles, Jewish Scholars are clear, Jews should and must not convert, but this is at odds with Deut 18:19. Free will I guess.

There are two problems here:
1. You've quoted a minority opinion (alFayyad) as reason all Jews must accept something. That's simply not how minority opinions work.
2. You assume that because a non-Jewish prophet could theoretically have been sent by G-d, it follows that he can negate Torah Law. This is false. Even a Jewish prophet will be stoned to death if he says something that contradicts Torah Law (outside some limited cases). No prophet, Jewish or not, may do so.

 

[Magus]

The word Kedar as nothing to do with Arabia and most likely a poetic word for the Levant relating to the Greek word κέδρῳ and ἀρκεύθω ( ארז ).

 

[Tumah]

Disagree on plurality of Prophets, the verse makes it clear.. ONE Single Prophet:
15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen— 16 just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’ 17 And the Lord said to me, ‘They are right in what they have spoken. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.

The verses clearly speak of ONE Prophet who would be like Moses pbuh.
Yes I agree the Nation didn't want a repeat of the day of assembly, and likely did request ALL future Prophets act as intermediaries, however 15-18 which I posted above is regarding ONE Special Prophet who would be like Moses pbuh and you still haven't put forward any names as to who this may have been.

Minus the plurality of Prophets

He and him suggests a single prophet. God could easily have said Prophets, but didn't.

This is called a collective noun. It's always in the singular. If it would be in the plural, we'd expect to always have multiple prophets in every generation. This language limits our assurance to one per generation.

The same is true for the previous chapter when it speaks about kings. The passage talks about a king, yet G-d chose kings three times and we actually had many kings over an almost 500 year period.

Yes that's quite clear, no foreigners to rule over the Nation. This means we have to agree upon what brethren/brother meant in the time of Moses pbuh. I suggest it included all those that intermarried with the Israelites, their cousins from Keturah and Hagar, may God be pleased with them both.

Let's also include their cousins from Esau, Haran, Japheth and Ham.

This is kind of self-serving, no?

The nation of Israel is recognized as a unit. They are their own brethren. There is no reason to include anyone from the extended family tree.

Before disputing this consider Balaam was a non Jewish Prophet and Cyrus the Great of Persia was anointed by God.

Balaam is completely irrelevant. This passage is talking about prophets who will lead people in place of diviners and soothsayers of the Canaanites. Balaam was not a leader of the Jews. His prophecy also precedes this passage. There is no question that non-Jewish prophets have existed, there are a number listed in Jewish sources. But that's just no the subject here.

Cyrus was not literally anointed. He wasn't made king by G-d. It just means that he was appointed by G-d to fulfill a certain task. Like everyone who was anointed. There was no oil involved.

Includes cousins and fellow Countrymen. Nothing about having to be from a specific Tribe there. Any names who may fit the bill yet?

You're right that they don't need to be from a specific tribe. But they do need to be from among the Jewish brethren: ie. a Jew.

From amongst their brethren, though I'm sure the Jews would have selected someone from amongst their own kin. Good job it's GOD choosing in Deuteronomy 18 and not the Jews themselves.

I'm guessing you didn't read the passage in chapter 17. It says that G-d will choose the king and that we have to select the king that G-d will choose. That's what happens. The nation goes to Samuel asking for a king. Samuel turns to G-d and asks what to do. G-d tells him to make Saul king. See 1 Sam. 8.

I understand, Jews only accept someone IF they accept what has been established without question. Anyone looking to rock the boat like Jesus or Muhammad pbuh are rejected outright.

That's right. That's part of Moses prophecy about the commandments being eternal. G-d is not a man who changes His mind.

I quote them because they line up with the Qur'an and more importantly YOU believe the verses to be the unchanged word of GOD, otherwise we would make little progress.

Yes, and I also understand that Jeremiah was making a complaint about the Scribes of his generation. This complaint is not repeated by any other prophets, so we assume it didn't continue to be a problem after the punishment they received. We don't need to worry that these Scribes changed G-d's Word because Jeremiah was there to ensure the correct message was passed on. He's the one who wrote the Book of Jeremiah.

Yes I can accept the ones who wrote much of the Torah were relaying oral traditions which showed their forefathers as not being the best in obedience to GOD.

Just because.

The Pagans of Mecca and Medina didn't even know of the Exodus story. When Allah swt tells it to Muhammad pbuh, He tells him to ask the people of the book if he is in doubt. Qur'an 10:90-94

And We took the Children of Israel across the sea, and Pharaoh and his soldiers pursued them in tyranny and enmity until, when drowning overtook him, he said, "I believe that there is no deity except that in whom the Children of Israel believe, and I am of the Muslims."

Now? And you had disobeyed [Him] before and were of the corrupters?

So today We will save you in body that you may be to those who succeed you a sign. And indeed, many among the people, of Our signs, are heedless

And We had certainty settled the Children of Israel in an agreeable settlement and provided them with good things. And they did not differ until [after] knowledge had come to them. Indeed, your Lord will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which they used to differ

So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.

The Jews of my town do not know the Qur'an. And yet, this Jew that you're talking to was just taught a passage from the Qur'an. Don't assume that generalities are the only possibility. Most of them, maybe did not. However, it's very likely that some few did.

Valid point, anything is a possibility.

It doesn't matter as there is no mention of him in your accounts.

Do you keep a list of every Muslim that converts to Christianity?

You mentioned Deuteronomy 13:2-6 which mentions those who call to other Gods, hence my explanation Muslims worship the same God as Abraham pbuh.

Re-reading what you wrote, signs could come from Sihr is a fair point, but the message being preached usually shows if GOD is behind a particular Prophet or not. Both Jesus and Muhammad pbut taught belief in the One True God and encouraged their followers to submit to His will.

Except that unlike all other Jewish prophets, they didn't start a new movement surrounding themselves. Which kind of calls the genuineness of their intent into question. To put it another way, let's say I knew how to practice sihr. And I come to you and claim that I'm a prophet of the One True G-d and I do all these signs using sihr. Except that it's all rubbish and I really just want you to follow me.

I was quoting Respect Rabbi Tovia Singer.

Then the good rabbi was either mistaken or over-exaggerating to make a point. It is idolatry, don't get me wrong. But it's a class of idolatry called ****uf, which means that there's an element of non-idolatry in their worship of G-d (whom they call the "Father").

Many consider the promise of being made a Great Nation was fulfilled in the 7th Century when Islam wiped away Idolatry in favour of worship of GOD alone, and carried this message far and wide.

What many consider and what it actually says do not have to be the same thing. It doesn't say that G-d will make Ishmael's children wipe idolatry in favor of worship of G-d. Nor is that implied in the words "a great nation". The Jews were called "a great nation" while in Egypt as I pointed out, even though we were practicing idolatry there. It can simply mean great in number. It doesn't have to be that. But it also doesn't have to be more than that either.

 

[Magus]

נְבוּאָה ( Prophet)
נְבוּכַדְנֶאצַּר ( Nebuchadnezzer )

Is Nebuchadnezzer a Prophet ?

His name could be read ' Prophet Kadanasar whom
came from Chaldea , as in Prophet Abraham ( Gen 11:31)

Was Malak Kadanaser a prophet

Alksindrs pbuh

 

[Muslim-UK]

This is a song. A song is not a covenant. There are lots of songs in the Tanach that are described as being songs. This passage is just describing a song that people will praise G-d with. To move past this, you are going to need to first prove that a song is a covenant.

As you are convinced it's a song, then perhaps explain which song? It must be very well known, after all GOD says it will be sung all around the World.

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.

Kedar settled in Edom? Do you have any ancient maps pre 7th Century to show this?

Al-Fayyumi specifically said that G-d sent prophets to all the nations. Not just Islam. According to him, Baha'i's prophets and Christianity's Paul are all valid prophets. Although he is a minority opinion and Yemenites in general were not known to have the greatest scholars, his position doesn't help your argument that Muhammad is prophesied about in Deut.

He and others like him accept God sends Prophets to non Jews, that was all I was interested in. As for the Single Prophet mentioned in Deut, you still haven't put forward a name and offered no reason to prove it could not be a non Jew.

You have grossly misunderstood Maimoindes. Partly because you didn't read further. All Maimonides is saying here is that there existence indirectly prepares the world for the true Messiah. And he explains in the lines following the one you've quoted: they do so by making Jewish theological concepts familiar to the world, albeit with mistakes.

Yes that was his view, and he also noted the Muslims were perfect Monotheists. He and Scholars like him viewed Islam as some sort of Jewish heresy.

There are two problems here:
1. You've quoted a minority opinion (alFayyad) as reason all Jews must accept something. That's simply not how minority opinions work.

Yes minority view, but I also showed non Jewish Prophets did exist, Balaam being amongst the ones named in the Torah itself.

2. You assume that because a non-Jewish prophet could theoretically have been sent by G-d, it follows that he can negate Torah Law. This is false. Even a Jewish prophet will be stoned to death if he says something that contradicts Torah Law (outside some limited cases). No prophet, Jewish or not, may do so.

I also showed 900 years of no Torah Laws as presented today. So, did the rules on not mixing fabrics come from God or were they made up later by Priests? The answer isn't important as no one can show they came from God in the first place.

If following Moses pbuh and the Torah is the only thing acceptable to God, and we know you have to have Jewish blood, then what about non Jews? How are they saved; by following the Noahide Laws, but very few do. This means God's plan wasn't a very good one, unless one uses logic and reasoning, studies later Prophets like Jesus and Muhammad pbut and conclude the Jews deviated from the truth.

This is called a collective noun. It's always in the singular. If it would be in the plural, we'd expect to always have multiple prophets in every generation. This language limits our assurance to one per generation.

So there were multiple Prophets like Moses pbuh? Took their Nation out of bondage, banished idolatry, fought other nations, stood in the physical presence of God and brought Laws from Him. Can you name them, and explain why Torah commentators have suggested this collective noun applied to one Prophet named Joshua pbuh?

The nation of Israel is recognized as a unit. They are their own brethren. There is no reason to include anyone from the extended family tree.

You're right that they don't need to be from a specific tribe. But they do need to be from among the Jewish brethren: ie. a Jew.

Ok got it, they have to be a Jew, though the text says nothing of the sort. How did the Jews maintain their identity? Was intermarrying banned?

I'm guessing you didn't read the passage in chapter 17. It says that G-d will choose the king and that we have to select the king that G-d will choose. That's what happens. The nation goes to Samuel asking for a king. Samuel turns to G-d and asks what to do. G-d tells him to make Saul king. See 1 Sam. 8.

What's Kings presiding over the Israelites got to do with the Prophet(s) in Deut 18:18? Are you suggesting every Prophet found in the Torah was a King?

Except that unlike all other Jewish prophets, they didn't start a new movement surrounding themselves. Which kind of calls the genuineness of their intent into question. To put it another way, let's say I knew how to practice sihr. And I come to you and claim that I'm a prophet of the One True G-d and I do all these signs using sihr. Except that it's all rubbish and I really just want you to follow me.

You appear to place a lot of emphasis on sihr. Can you name someone who used it and what the signs produced were, whilst the One True GOD sat on the sidelines?

 

[Magus]

Mount Sela , from Sela ( Sliced ) due to the Mountain looking as it was sliced, were-as the word in the Torah is different and written 'Cela ( not Sela) meaning 'Rock , always translated in the Septuagint as 'Petra

A Greek temple carved into a mountain , you won't find architecture like that in the Abrahamic world, they rather worship Hadrian's Wall in Jerusalem .

Petra ( סֶלַע )

 

[David T]

I'm wondering how people try to distinguish between "true" prophets and "false" prophets. If someone walks down the street claiming to be a prophet for a religion (admittedly unlikely) you have to figure out whether you can take them at their word or whether you just move on trying to avoid making eye contact with the crazy person.

I think probably the best way to tell if someone were a false prophet is if they offer salvation. In reality, no-one can save us. There is no quick fix or easy solution to the problems of learning how to live our own lives. It is up to us to "save ourselves" by giving our lives meaning and purpose. The best we can get is to find spiritual and religious knowledge, be open to it and for someone to help us on our own journey. The higher level of consciousness associated with religious being is ultimately part of our own anatomy. It is part of our brain or mind (or soul if you wish). A false prophet can take away our ability to "see" and to "hear" from us by telling us to look for answers outside of ourselves in some external authority. The "true" prophet is someone who can help us regain our sight and hearing and learn to use our own conscience for the purpose of self-discover and self-creation.

Do you think this is a reasonable view? Or is there something missing?

We used to stone em to death if they made predictions that came out to not be true. Too bad we got rid of that policy it would make it more exciting. Since making false claims comes at no cost I would say, all self proclaimed prophets are false it costs them nothing to be wrong.

 

[Grandliseur]

The meaning of Hebrew mamzer is not certain

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 you might want to know:

04464:
4464 mamzer mam-zare' from an unused root meaning to alienate; a mongrel, i.e. born of a Jewish father and a heathen mother:--b a s t a r d.​

This is why the question seems to have come down to where the practice was to kill young unmarried women who turned out to not to be virgins.

That somewhat makes it impossible to have children out of wedlock. Of course, young couples who got in trouble could marry quickly to avoid problems. That seems to have been practiced sometimes. Nonetheless, it makes single mothers occurences fairly impossible, at least in my logic.

 

[Grandliseur]

On top, he might marry more women as was the order of the day also.

Perhaps, but he was not permitted to divorce this one!

We don't know that, unless you have some proof to present it's just how you feel it might have worked.

Well, if you kill off all who rape married or engaged women, and the ones who might have raped a virgin are

But at least you could have a grandson who would not be an outcast. If I understood your view correctly.

It seems that the scripture about the b a s t a r d has been challenged by some of the ones here with Jewish background.
The matter seems complicated by time, uncertainty of ancient customs; though, there seem to be a reason to stick with the above for now.

However, one thing I didn't mention to them was the case of King David, since it is a matter of interpretation of the why of it. When he forced himself on the woman he saw on the rooftop, a child ensued. While the two got married, the whole thing angered God so that he punished David for a long time, and would have killed him if he hadn't repented.
The child was killed by God. The only reason I see is the law of the b. mentioned. But, that is assumption for it is not specifically said why God chose to kill the child. I think it was to protect the child for perhaps Paradise when all these things become unimportant. Again, assumption at work.

 

[Grandliseur]

​

This passage is talking about when she had relations after she was betrothed. His complaint is about after he took the woman (ie. betrothed her, v.14). If it was prohibited for a non-betrothed woman, this part would be superfluous, it should just say, "I married my wife and found her to not be a virgin".

​

A betrothed woman (and the adulter) get's a punishment of stoning if it was willing. The example of the city is because it's likely that someone would have heard her had she screamed for help. In the field where no one is, it's not so likely. But the passage is just differentiating between willing and rape.

​

This is talking about rape. Verse 28 says "he grabbed her and laid with her". Similarly, verse 25 says he "held her and laid with her". None of the other passages in this chapter mention that.

Compare with Ex. 22:15-16. Both of these cases are strictly talking about girls ages 12-12.5.


No, that's not the case. There is no Biblical prohibition to having relations when not engaged or married. A ******* in the Biblical sense is strictly a child born from a union between two people who may not be married to each other (barring one of two cases).

Deut. 22:19 . . .because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. 20 But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel; 21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house: so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.​

This case is about a man who accuses his married wife on not having been a virgin when he married her. If this is found true, she was not a virgin when she married, then she is killed.

Again, this kind of practice and law makes it nearly impossible to have children outside marriage, unless the couple who got caught in passion marry quickly.
I think we cannot resolve the issue. I am sure there is the law, and then how it was implemented.

 

[Tumah]

Deut. 22:19 . . .because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. 20 But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel; 21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house: so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.​

This case is about a man who accuses his married wife on not having been a virgin when he married her. If this is found true, she was not a virgin when she married, then she is killed.

Again, this kind of practice and law makes it nearly impossible to have children outside marriage, unless the couple who got caught in passion marry quickly.
I think we cannot resolve the issue. I am sure there is the law, and then how it was implemented.

Except that you're not correct about the case. A naʕarah (translated as "damsel" here) is a girl between the ages of 12 and 12.5. It's only until this age that a father has the right to marry off his daughter. That's why the passage states "I gave my daughter to this man (v. 16)". Over that age, she would be accepting her own marriage and the father wouldn't be involved. She's stoned at her father's house, because even after the betrothal, she remains in her father's house until the marriage. That means that she had an affair with someone while she was still at her father's house. That is why the case and complaint is keeps describing that they were betrothed and then married. Besides for that, like every other judicial matter, without witnesses that saw her, he get's tossed out on his head. That is the principle of Deut. 17:6 and 19:15. You can't just walk into court and say whatever you want. Especially in a case like this where its entirely possible that she lost her virginity from a wound or strenuous activity.

It's entirely possible to have children outside marriage.

 

[columbus]

The "true" prophet is someone who can help us regain our sight and hearing and learn to use our own conscience for the purpose of self-discover and self-creation.

That doesn't really sound like a prophet at all, at least not to me. That sounds more like some sort of teacher or spiritual guide or something. A prophet is a (usually self appointed) spokesman for God(s). I think that whole concept is bogus.
The basic premise that God is unable to deliver a Message to everyone and must rely on human beings to get the Message across is extremely primitive. It would make sense to primitive people who were similarly limited. Even their most powerful kings couldn't mass communicate, they had to relay messages to subjects through middle men. But there is really nothing preventing God from telling everyone the same thing at the same time, if He wanted us to know it.
However sincerely, they're all false prophets if they claim to be speaking for God, from Moses to the NT authors to Muhammad to the myriad of others.
Tom

 

[Tumah]

As you are convinced it's a song, then perhaps explain which song? It must be very well known, after all GOD says it will be sung all around the World.

It wouldn't be a new song if everyone already knew it, right?

Kedar settled in Edom? Do you have any ancient maps pre 7th Century to show this?

What? No! Kedar is a city in the desert and Sela is a city in the mountains. It's saying that people from the desert, such as Kedar and people from the mountains, such as Sela will sing praise to G-d.

He and others like him accept God sends Prophets to non Jews, that was all I was interested in. As for the Single Prophet mentioned in Deut, you still haven't put forward a name and offered no reason to prove it could not be a non Jew.

We didn't need to go to him. There are already non-Jewish prophets mentioned in Jewish sources that are not minority opinions. As I said before, no one is arguing against the existence of non-Jewish prophets.

If it will make you happier to have a name, than Joshua is a name of a Jewish prophet who fulfills all the conditions of Deut.

Yes that was his view, and he also noted the Muslims were perfect Monotheists. He and Scholars like him viewed Islam as some sort of Jewish heresy.

I'm fairly certain that he didn't view Islam as a Jewish heresy. This idea was discussed on another thread. Islam is no more a Jewish heresy than is Christianity.

Yes minority view, but I also showed non Jewish Prophets did exist, Balaam being amongst the ones named in the Torah itself.

We don't need to use a minority view for that. Everyone agrees that Balaam was a non-Jewish prophet. So was his father. If I recall correctly, Aner, Eshkol and Mamre, Abraham's friends were also prophets according to Jewish texts.

I also showed 900 years of no Torah Laws as presented today.

Did you?

So, did the rules on not mixing fabrics come from God or were they made up later by Priests?

Did they?

The answer isn't important as no one can show they came from God in the first place.

I see we're changing opinion here a bit. But that's fine.
There is no problem that no other prophet but Moses can prove unequivocally that he was sent from G-d. That's why we have rules about whom we can and can't listen to and under what circumstances. Ultimately, the command to follow a prophet who satisfies the requirements is by G-d's command (through Moses) and not because of his empirical proof. Except in the case where Moses designates the following prophet and every prophet after that is designated by the one before.

If following Moses pbuh and the Torah is the only thing acceptable to God, and we know you have to have Jewish blood, then what about non Jews?

We don't know this. You don't have to have Jewish blood. That's just what you get from reading antisemitic websites. Judaism accepts any convert willing to accept on themselves the same Laws that the rest of us follow. Many people have converted to Judaism.

How are they saved; by following the Noahide Laws, but very few do. This means God's plan wasn't a very good one, unless one uses logic and reasoning, studies later Prophets like Jesus and Muhammad pbut and conclude the Jews deviated from the truth.

Very few Jews follow the Torah as well. So how are they saved?
Why do you think that everyone needs to be saved in order for the plan to be a good one?

I don't see any logic or reasoning here at all.

So there were multiple Prophets like Moses pbuh? Took their Nation out of bondage, banished idolatry, fought other nations, stood in the physical presence of God and brought Laws from Him. Can you name them, and explain why Torah commentators have suggested this collective noun applied to one Prophet named Joshua pbuh?

What you've done here is extremely silly. You just picked a few attributes of Moses and said that any following prophet needs to have these attributes to be like Moses. Why did you not also add that they must be born of Amram? Or born of a man and his aunt? Or be born in Egypt? Or split a sea? Or spoke to burning bushes?

What you've done is self-serving. You picked the attributes that best fit Muhammad and interpolated them into the verse.

All the verse actually says is that the following prophet would be from the midst of the Jews, from the Jewish brethren - just like Moses was [from the midst of the Jews and from the Jewish brethren].
That's all.

Ok got it, they have to be a Jew, though the text says nothing of the sort.

The text clearly says from their (the Jews) brethren.

How did the Jews maintain their identity? Was intermarrying banned?

Intermarriage was banned, although marrying into another another nation does not remove one's identity as a Jew.

What's Kings presiding over the Israelites got to do with the Prophet(s) in Deut 18:18? Are you suggesting every Prophet found in the Torah was a King?

No. They are related because the same language that the Torah describes in the selection of kings is present in the following passage about the selection of prophets. Whatever interpretation you have for the nature of the kind in chapter 17 will apply to the nature of the prophet in chapter 18. Since we know that the kings selected by G-d were all Jewish it follows that when the same adjectives are used to describe the prophets G-d selects that they will be Jewish as well.

You appear to place a lot of emphasis on sihr. Can you name someone who used it and what the signs produced were, whilst the One True GOD sat on the sidelines?

I have not. I've only used it to establish a point. Rather than deflect the argument, try addressing it.