False Prophets

[Tumah]

We have similarities and thats it, we didn't steal constant temple sacrifices like judaism stole from the temple of moloch.

Similarities? I have bad news for you...

The rabbis today confirm back in the days of the temple, the Judaic people at the time needed to have some sort of competition or ritual to feel some sort of sakina. A temple was for worship, not for throwing things into the fire. This is all innovation wasn't prescribed because it led to more innovation.

In the Jewish Temple that's how worship was done: by throwing animals into the fire. And a bunch of other things, but also that.

Now you got 5 jewish books and 1 big book to help you translate all these commandments and fulfillment and understand the debates. Look at this innovation. This is why we call it a forgery.

No, I said I have 500.
I assume by the "1 big book to help you translate all these commandments and fulfillment and understand the debates." you're actually talking about the 63 big books of the Talmud?

Your "Jewish source" is spot on.

Also, I don't think you know what the word forgery means.

At the kaaba, people gated through god with idols, such as habal, uzzah(which jews believe is some sort of angel and may have interbreed with humans)

The angel that Jews believe interbred with humans wasn't located at the kaaba according to the Jews who believe the two angels interbred with humans.

You have alot of practices with idolatry. Even the transfer to sins to goats and animals, who would of thought of that ? I can touch a goats head and say my sin is now being transferred to this animal here, and im going to throw it right into this big blazing alter. This is not what abraham taught. This is all innovation.

I think you need to have a talk with that Jewish source of yours. They're not doing a good job.

Jesus pbuh was against all this. Everyone knew the sacrifices are not a way to get closer to god, Its deeds.

I'm sorry to tell you, you don't know a tenth as much about Judaism as you think you do.

 

[Muslim-UK]

In the Jewish Temple that's how worship was done: by throwing animals into the fire.

I never understood why God would want animals destroyed in such a manner? Waste of meat that could feed the poor.

Can you explain?

 

[Tumah]

And as far as the Father of the Abrahamic faiths is concerned, those obeying GOD and living under the Covenant are brothers to each other.

Says you.

I did, kings and prophets are different matters. I would consider Joshua pbuh a King of sorts,

What the?!?
This is the second time I'm telling you that I'm not saying that the kings were prophets or that prophets were kings. I'm telling you to compare the language of the two chapters. Critical reading! It's called "critical reading"!!! Do they not teach you critical reading in school?!? Compare and contrast language to understand the intent.

but was he 'like' Moses pbuh in prophethood? No, deut 34:10

Can you point to the words "like Moses in prophethood" from Deut. 34:10 please? Just quote the text of the verse and hilight those words so that I can clearly see them.

Foreign >>> Not under the covenant.

Fine. So brothers are those under the covenant and foreigners are not under the covenant.
Happy now?

Metaphorical or not, there's no way without modern DNA testing they could have told who was a brethren or not. Those who kept the covenant were accepted, but to be a King, you would likely have to come from a certain linage as mentioned previously. For example, the Levite Tribe of Israel would more often than not only marry within their tribe in a attempt to preserve their identity.

Actually, up until the destruction of the Second Temple, they used to keep scrolls with family lineages as it was important for certain things, such as a Priest proving he's from the correct line or a different tribe member proving which region he should inherit from. But that's neither here nor there.

The statement was made to the entire nation of Israel. That means a prophet can come from anyone of them since they're all brothers of each other.

G-d could (and did) choose kings from different lineages. The first line was from Benjamin, the second from Judah and the last from the tribe of Ephraim.

Except when they fought the invading Kings and the Ishmaelites melted their golden Jewellery to celebrate....

Zebah and Zalmunna, were 2 kings from Median who invaded Israel.
The men of Israel, both Israelites and Ishmaelites under Gideon fought, captured and subsequently killed them. Gideon said, GOD would rule over them, rather than a King and all the men should give gold. The Ishmaelites gave gold nose rings

Ishmaelites were also referred to as Midianites, so more passages can be found related to intermarriage.

Study guides make clear what Brethren means:
Brethren: denotes any blood-relation or kinsman (Genesis 14:16; 1 Samuel 20:29; 2 Kings 10:13; 1 Chronicles 23:2, etc.)
Strong's Greek: 80. ἀδελφός (adelphos) -- a brother

That's right. Except for one time. You see how that wouldn't make sense in context of Deut.

Pharaohs Court considered Moses pbuh to be practitioner of Sihr when he came to them. What people think is irrelevant, when we know the power behind the signs is Almighty GOD.

Only if what you know to be true, is in fact true. That hasn't been proven yet...

 

[MohammadPali]

Similarities? I have bad news for you...


In the Jewish Temple that's how worship was done: by throwing animals into the fire. And a bunch of other things, but also that.


No, I said I have 500.
I assume by the "1 big book to help you translate all these commandments and fulfillment and understand the debates." you're actually talking about the 63 big books of the Talmud?

Your "Jewish source" is spot on.

Also, I don't think you know what the word forgery means.


The angel that Jews believe interbred with humans wasn't located at the kaaba according to the Jews who believe the two angels interbred with humans.


I think you need to have a talk with that Jewish source of yours. They're not doing a good job.


I'm sorry to tell you, you don't know a tenth as much about Judaism as you think you do.

The taqiyah is strong in you. Not only did you borrow animal sacrifices, the sin transfer, the piece meals , the music, the trumpets being played, they used to have music on the temple mount. On yom kippur they would do the sacrifice on the alter, 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, 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.

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

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.


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.


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


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

 

[MohammadPali]

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.

 

[Muslim-UK]

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.

Sounds like the sort of think Baal would be pleased with.

 

[Rival]

The anti-Semitic nonsense and my-religion-is-better-than-yours coming from a certain Muslim on this thread is so disgusting, I actually think I am just going to stop reading.

Seriously, will Muslims ever learn to accept that their religion is not 'the' religion and drop this s*itty, arrogant attitude they have?

 

[MohammadPali]

Sounds like the sort of think Baal would be pleased with.

They where in competition with that too. This is why god sent so many messengers and prophets. They just kept rejecting the criteria of god. Do we need to go into further than moses and the golden calf to show what we are talking about ? Innovation upon innovation, and its all there. Many jews don't know the history of judaism.

 

[Tumah]

Yet you still have no clue what this New Son was. It was going to be sung around the World and wasn't being sung when Isaiah pbuh was writing.

I'm honestly not sure how to phrase this in a way that will make you more inclined to understanding this.

Isaiah is prophesying that at some unknown future time a new song will be sung by inhabitants all over. What makes something new is that it wasn't known before hand. Otherwise we'd call that "old". I don't know what the "new" song is going to be, because the unknown future time has not yet occurred for me to learn this song. When that time comes, the song will be a brand new never-heard before song. And then I'll know it.

Sorry but as shown they are all classed as brethren in the wider context of the word.

Yeah, but you haven't proven that "the wider context of the word" is what's being intended here.

Those living under the covenant of circumcision were brothers to each other...

The first Muslims were descendants of Abraham's son, Ishmael pbut. The Second Century B.C. Book of Jubilees made clear they were under God's Covenant.

JUBILEES 17
Abraham made a great banquet for Yitschaq was weaned

1 And in the first year of the fifth week Yitschaq was weaned in this jubilee, [1982 A.M.] and Abraham made a great banquet in the third month, on the day his son Yitschaq was weaned.
2 And Ishmael, the son of Hagar, the Egyptian, was before the face of Abraham, his father, in his place, and Abraham rejoiced and blessed YAHWEH because he had seen his sons and had not died childless.
3 And he remembered the words which He had spoken to him on the day on which Lot had parted from him, and he rejoiced because YAHWEH had given him seed upon the earth to inherit the earth, and he blessed with all his mouth the Creator of all things.
4 And Sarah saw Ishmael playing and dancing, and Abraham rejoicing with great joy, and she became jealous of Ishmael and said to Abraham, 'Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman will not be heir with my son, Yitschaq.'
5 And the thing was grievous in Abraham's sight, because of his maidservant and because of his son, that he should drive them from him.
6 And YAHWEH said to Abraham 'Let it not be grievous in your sight, because of the child and because of the bondwoman; in all that Sarah has said to you, listen to her words and do them; for in Yitschaq shall your name and seed be called.
7 But as for the son of this bondwoman I will make him a great nation, because he is of your seed.'

JUBILEES 20
Abraham called all his sons and commanded them to observe the way of YAHWEH
1 And in the forty-second jubilee, in the first year of the seventh week, Abraham called Ishmael, [2052 (2045?) A.M.] 2 and his twelve sons, and Yitschaq and his two sons, and the six sons of Keturah, and their sons.
2 And he commanded them that they should observe the way of YAHWEH; that they should work righteousness, and love each his neighbour, and act on this manner amongst all men; that they should each so walk with regard to them as to do just judgment and righteousness on the earth.
3 That they should circumcise their sons, according to the covenant which He had made with them, and not deviate to the right hand or the left of all the paths which YAHWEH had commanded us; and that we should keep ourselves from all fornication and uncleanness, and renounce from amongst us all fornication and uncleanness.

11 And he gave to Ishmael and to his sons, and to the sons of Keturah, gifts, and sent them away from Yitschaq his son, and he gave everything to Yitschaq his son.
12 And Ishmael and his sons, and the sons of Keturah and their sons, went together and dwelt from Paran to the entering in of Babylon in all the land which is towards the East facing the desert.
13 And these mingled with each other, and their name was called Arabs, and Ishmaelites.

They also mingled with their cousins the Israelites, so in antiquity were considered by Abraham pbuh to be brethren. Deut 18:18

https://www.yahwehsword.org/yahwehswordarchives/book_of_jubilees/book-jubilees-download.pd

The book of Jubilees is not in the Jewish cannon. Still, according to Jewish Law Ishmaelites still do have the commandment to circumcise themselves. Either way though, whom Abraham considered to be brothers is irrelevant since it's G-d talking in Deut. 18, not Abraham.

I've shown it wasn't Joshua pbuh, so still waiting for you to answer who this person, or persons as you prefer were, and remember they were to be 'like' Moses pbuh.

No you haven't. You've interpolated words into the text in order to interpret what "like Moses" means in favor of Muhammad. I called you out on that and you still haven't replied...

They were believers who submitted their will to God or in Arabic, Muslims. The Qur'an doesn't say what tribe they were from or mention their heritage.

Suleiman is called from the "house of Dawud". But I think we both know that you're dissembling.
.

Presumably the nation not wanting to be addressed directly included all those individuals, or did being addressed together make it more scary? Standing alone with no one's hand to hold was doable, but safety in numbers went out of the window...

Did it include all those individuals? What about Moses? Was he not an Israelite? Did it include him?

Prophecy for someone not spiritually prepared for it is scary if not downright painful. That's what they want G-d to speak to the prophets instead of to the nation of laymen.

Produce a Torah from the time of Moses pbuh and let's compare.

You can't even produce a Qur'an from the time of Muhammad and you expect a Torah from twice that amount of time? Cute.

The verse says 'like' Moses pbuh, clearly he was unlike other Prophets, and on studying his life we know he did some things that others Jewish Prophets haven't...

The verse does say "like Moses", but it's not a separate clause to the statement, it refers back to the clause: from their midst, from their brethren, like you Moses. Moses is from their midst and from their brethren. The following prophets would be from their midst and from their brethren just like Moses was from their midst and from their brethren.

You see, when you read it like that, you don't have to interpolate any additional information, because it's all there already.

Took his family out of slavery, banished idolatry, introduced monotheism, became head of State, defeated the enemies of God, brought commandments from God.

...killed an Egyptian, was expelled from Egypt, married an Ethiopian woman, had two sons, buried his brother, had a speech impediment, wore a mask...

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

The Jewish commentaries that say that specifically say that about Moses ability to talk to G-d face to face.

There was a half of a millennium in which God sent NO prophet at all to Israel, fulfilling the prophecy of Hosea: "The children of Israel shall abide many days without king, and without prince, and without sacrifice, and without pillar, and without ephod or teraphim" (Hosea 3:4).

We remain without those things and it's been two and a half millennia since the last prophet.

Also, Micah prophesied of this same thing: "Then shall they cry unto Jehovah and he will not answer them; yea, he will hide his face from them ... concerning the prophets ... it shall be night unto you, and ye shall have no vision; and the sun shall go down upon the prophets, and the day shall be black over them" (Micah 4-6). This dreadful condition of Israel's having no prophetic word lasted for about five hundred years.

It last 2,500 years.

My question to you is, where are all the succession of prophets you mentioned??

Where are all the Canaanite diviners and soothsayers in Israel whom the prophets would replace among Israel?

Yes we do. The Dead Sea Scrolls talk about 2 Messiahs to come and 'that' Prophet, Deut 18:18. Plenty of books have been written on the subject, one being, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman

You may or may not be aware, but the DSS represent the theological views of one sect of Jews. There is some debate about whether this sect is the Essenes or some proto-Christian group. But their opinion views are not the views of the Jewish people. They're the views of one sect of Jewish people. And I'd happily argue with them as well.

We also have to accept the New Testament is a Historical record of Jewish life in the First Century, and there are quotes from Jews asking John the Baptist pbuh if he was 'that' prophet, to which he replied, No.

You are conflating two different things. The NT may be acceptable for the background to life in those times. But there is absolutely no reason to believe every story as being factual.

 

[Bird123]

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?

Yes, you sound reasonable.

Let's look at this world and God's actions. God allows us all total freedom of thought and choice. God places truth and knowledge all around us so that when we are ready to discover it, it can be done.

If the prophet really came from God, they would be the exact same way. In conclusion, if the prophet makes demands, restricts your choices, limits your view to only their box of beliefs or uses fear, threats and intimidation, how can they really come from God? They don't act like God. On the other hand, if they point you in the right direction, give you knowledge or a view without demands or places the truth in your life. They might just be a prophet. If they do all this with Unconditional Love, I would say that they were.

Finally, I think there are a lot of good people prophets in the world today. Perhaps, the best test is that a prophet doesn't really want to be a prophet. They do not want glory or recognition. They just want to be helpful and kind especially if they run into confused people who are so wrapped up on all the stories of the world.

Well, that's how I see it.

 

[Augustus]

No doubt some people would have known the basics behind the various faiths, but certainly not the finer details.

Why would you make oblique references to characters that people were not familiar with as part of a rhetorical commentary on Abrahamic monotheism that people were not familiar with? How does that possibly make sense?

It would seem the desert pagans, getting by with trade and caravan raiding never had rulers from the West or East presiding over them. It's almost as if GOD had a special plan for them.

Arabs from the desert had been serving in the Roman and Persian militaries for centuries.

 

[Tumah]

I never understood why God would want animals destroyed in such a manner? Waste of meat that could feed the poor.

Can you explain?

Sure. There are some sacrifices that are between man and man and some sacrifices that are between man and G-d. Sacrifices between man and G-d help strengthen the relationship between man and G-d. Sacrifices between man and man help strengthen the relationship between man and his fellow. We don't say throw out one in favor of the other. Both are important.

Besides for that, this is an agrarian society and there are already a number of laws for charity:

The corners of every field have to be left for the poor.
Anything that fell outside the an individual bundle of harvest had to be left for the poor.
Any bundles forgotten in the field have to be left for the poor.
Any grapes that fall during harvest have to be left for the poor.
Any immature grapes at harvest time have to be left for the poor.
Every 3rd and 6th year of a 7 year cycle, you have to separate 9% of your total harvest for the poor.

Then you have certain sacrifices whose limited time for consumption and massive quantity forces you to invite other people to join you. For instance, the animal tithe where you're bringing a tenth of all new animals for sacrifice, but you have to eat them and you only have until the next evening. People with large amounts of cattle and flocks are going to be coming with lots of animals. There's simply no way to finish all of that on your own. Another one is the thanksgiving sacrifice. You have to eat 65 pounds of flour made into bread before sunrise.

Charity is already incorporated into the system.

 

[Muslim-UK]

What the?!?
This is the second time I'm telling you that I'm not saying that the kings were prophets or that prophets were kings. I'm telling you to compare the language of the two chapters. Critical reading! It's called "critical reading"!!! Do they not teach you critical reading in school?!? Compare and contrast language to understand the intent.

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.

Can you point to the words "like Moses in prophethood" from Deut. 34:10 please? Just quote the text of the verse and hilight those words so that I can clearly see them.

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.

Fine. So brothers are those under the covenant and foreigners are not under the covenant.
Happy now?

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

Actually, up until the destruction of the Second Temple, they used to keep scrolls with family lineages as it was important for certain things, such as a Priest proving he's from the correct line or a different tribe member proving which region he should inherit from. But that's neither here nor there.

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?

The statement was made to the entire nation of Israel. That means a prophet can come from anyone of them since they're all brothers of each other.

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

That's right. Except for one time. You see how that wouldn't make sense in context of Deut.

They all lived under the covenant.

Only if what you know to be true, is in fact true. That hasn't been proven yet...

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

 

[Muslim-UK]

The anti-Semitic nonsense and my-religion-is-better-than-yours coming from a certain Muslim on this thread is so disgusting, I actually think I am just going to stop reading.

Seriously, will Muslims ever learn to accept that their religion is not 'the' religion and drop this s*itty, arrogant attitude they have?

This is the debate section and things sometimes get heated. The Prophets in the Abrahamic faiths were all Semitic people, so your charge is unfounded.

 

[Rival]

This is the debate section and things sometimes get heated. The Prophets in the Abrahamic faiths were all Semitic people, so your charge is unfounded.

Some of the diatribe that he is making against Jews is unfounded nonsense that if Muslims are actually taught, G-d help us.

 

[Grandliseur]

False. Killing serial killers does not prevent serial killers from existing.

No, but it sure controls their numbers.

 

[Asiya Lisa]

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?

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 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.

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?

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. =)

 

[Muslim-UK]

Isaiah is prophesying that at some unknown future time a new song will be sung by inhabitants all over. What makes something new is that it wasn't known before hand. Otherwise we'd call that "old". I don't know what the "new" song is going to be, because the unknown future time has not yet occurred for me to learn this song. When that time comes, the song will be a brand new never-heard before song. And then I'll know it.

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 from that Century onwards the New Recitation has been 'Sung' around the World:

Just as predicted in Isaiah 42:

10 Sing a new song to the Lord;
praise him everywhere on earth—
all you who sail on the seas,
everything in the sea,
and all you people in faraway places!
11 Deserts and cities, villages of Kedar, <<<<<<< Descendants of Ishmael pbuh
praise the Lord!
People living in Sela, sing for joy! <<<<<<<City of Medina, where they awaited
Sing from the top of your mountain. A New Prophet.
12 Give glory to the Lord.
Praise him, all you people in faraway lands!
13 The Lord will go out like a strong soldier.
Like a man going into battle, he will be full of excitement.
He will shout with a loud cry,
and he will defeat his enemies.

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

Yeah, but you haven't proven that "the wider context of the word" is what's being intended here.

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.

The book of Jubilees is not in the Jewish cannon. Still, according to Jewish Law Ishmaelites still do have the commandment to circumcise themselves. Either way though, whom Abraham considered to be brothers is irrelevant since it's G-d talking in Deut. 18, not Abraham.

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

They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One Allah. There is no Allah save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)! Qur'an 9:31

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 you haven't. You've interpolated words into the text in order to interpret what "like Moses" means in favor of Muhammad. I called you out on that and you still haven't replied...

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.

Did it include all those individuals? What about Moses? Was he not an Israelite? Did it include him?

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 can't even produce a Qur'an from the time of Muhammad and you expect a Torah from twice that amount of time? Cute.

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

The Jewish commentaries that say that specifically say that about Moses ability to talk to G-d face to face.

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?

 

[Asiya Lisa]

This is why I think religion is about people and science is about God.
Tom

Hi,
For me, your comment does not make sense, for me both religion and science have to be about God otherwise, people are bereft of the most important aspect of our reality. Science is a limited filed, in that, it is a limited few who go into the fields of science, and often for limited means. Science does not reach all of mankind, but /god is for all of mankind. Science deals with empirical evidence, but God exists outside the realm of our empirical existence. so, for me, to establish God in a limited arena, limits who and what God is.

God has created us, to worship Him, and the many facets of worship can include sciences, our service to mankind, the efforts of the farmer, teacher, doctor, cook, cleaner, etc... and the formal worship that literally connects us to him at a very conscious level making our efforts in life have meaning, value and that reach beyond our limited existence in this realm. =)

 

[Sleeppy]

No, but it sure controls their numbers.

Sure.

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