Judaism: Who did force YHVH to end the prophecy?

[Tumah]

I do know.

In this case, if children do not die in their father's stead, your Father in heaven would not have commanded that women and children be killed in this case:

Numbers 31:9-20
And the sons of Israel take captive the women of Midian, and their infants; and all their cattle, and all their substance, and all their wealth they have plundered; and all their cities, with their habitations, and all their towers, they have burnt with fire. And they take all the spoil, and all the prey, among man and among beast; and they bring in, unto Moses, and unto Eleazar the priest, and unto the company of the sons of Israel, the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto the camp, unto the plains of Moab, which [are] by Jordan, [near] Jericho. And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the company, go out to meet them, unto the outside of the camp, and Moses is wroth against the inspectors of the force, chiefs of the thousands, and chiefs of the hundreds, who are coming in from the host of the battle. And Moses saith unto them, `Have ye kept alive every female? lo, they -- they have been to the sons of Israel, through the word of Balaam, to cause a trespass against God in the matter of Peor, and the plague is in the company of God.`And now, slay ye every male among the infants, yea, every woman known of man by the lying of a male ye have slain; and all the infants among the women, who have not known the lying of a male, ye have kept alive for yourselves. And ye, encamp ye at the outside of the camp seven days -- any who hath slain a person, and any who hath come against a pierced one, ye cleanse yourselves on the third day, and on the seventh day -- ye and your captives; and every garment, and every skin vessel, and every work of goats' [hair], and every wooden vessel, ye yourselves cleanse.'

This is not an example of children dying in place of their father, its an example of children dying in addition to their father. And their mothers who were party to the crime if you'll recall back in Num. 25.
And you'll need to prove that their deaths are related to what their parents had done. Only the male children were killed and not the female, while it was both the male and female adults that had crimes against Israel. The verse doesn't say that they were killed for what their fathers had done, it says that they were killed for either being male or having relations with one.

Jacob, the Son of Adam, should know to stop wrestling with God, and forgive his brother before the sun goes in, and certainly before it rises again.

The prophecy you quoted to me has to do with returning from Babylon after the First Temple was destroyed. It was mainly the Judean kingdom that was exiled to Babylon and returned from there. Hence "Even Judah, a time of harvest for you, when I return the captured of my nation."

Jacob wrestled with an angel, not with G-d. G-d doesn't have a body with which to wrestle. That's probably why the verse doesn't use the ה prefix as it does in other cases when someone is speaking about G-d. The word elohim doesn't literally mean G-d. It can be used to refer to G-d, but it can also and does refer to other things as well throughout Tanach.

As to everything else there. There's not a single thing that you underlined that was not cherry-picked:

He doth revive us after two days, In the third day He doth raise us up - your intent is obviously to show that this is talking about Jesus being resurrected after 3 days. You divorce it from the first words of the verse that have no parallel in Jesus' alleged death and revival story.
In actuality, there is no word "revive" in Hebrew. Revive means "to return to life". The word this verse uses is "יחינו". It means "He will enliven (ie. give life to) us". It makes no mention of a previous life that was given. That's because the days refer to the Temples. The first two were destroyed and by the Third Temple G-d will raise us up and we will live before Him like we never had.

For kindness I desired, and not sacrifice, And a knowledge of God above burnt-offerings. - Here you mean to say that G-d never wanted sacrifice and Jesus fulfilled it anyway. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Of courseyou have to cherry-pick it out of tons of chapters where G-d describes exactly the sacrifices and burnt-offerings that He desires.
But because sacrifice is played down in Christianity, you are probably unaware that there are many types of sacrifices described in the Torah. Its the two that are for sins that G-d doesn't want. G-d doesn't want people to sin and then have to bring a sacrifice in repentance. He'd rather we don't sin at all. That's what's being described here.

As for these two that you didn't underline:
I have hewed by prophets, I have slain them by sayings of My mouth - Not sure what killing Zechariah and Isaiah have to do with anything.

iniquity, Slippery from blood. - not sure what a city known for bloodshed has to do with anything.

My turning back [to] the captivity of My people! - Not sure what G-d returning the Jews from the Babylonian captivity has to do with anything.

 

[Sleeppy]

This is not an example of children dying in place of their father, its an example of children dying in addition to their father. And their mothers who were party to the crime if you'll recall back in Num. 25.
And you'll need to prove that their deaths are related to what their parents had done. Only the male children were killed and not the female, while it was both the male and female adults that had crimes against Israel. The verse doesn't say that they were killed for what their fathers had done, it says that they were killed for either being male or having relations with one.

Obviously these women and children were killed "in addition to" their husbands, fathers and leaders. The addition was not lawful.

The children had no iniquity of their own. In other words, these children were killed in their father's stead.



But let's make this even clearer:

You say, "It says that they were killed for either being male or having relations with one."


So which of these things is iniquity?

 

[Tumah]

Obviously these women and children were killed "in addition to" their husbands, fathers and leaders. The addition was not lawful.

The children had no iniquity of their own. In other words, these children were killed in their father's stead.



But let's make this even clearer:

You say, "It says that they were killed for either being male or having relations with one."


So which of these things is iniquity?

Don't put the ball in my court. The verse says that only girls who never had relations with a man were kept alive. Something about being or sleeping with a man got those Midianites killed. Whatever explanation you're going to give is going to have to address what the verse actually says. If the children were being killed for the sins of their parents, then there is no reason to absolve the girls who had not slept with men.

 

[Sleeppy]

Don't put the ball in my court. The verse says that only girls who never had relations with a man were kept alive. Something about being or sleeping with a man got those Midianites killed. Whatever explanation you're going to give is going to have to address what the verse actually says. If the children were being killed for the sins of their parents, then there is no reason to absolve the girls who had not slept with men.

There is no rational or lawful explanation for it.

 

[Tumah]

There is no rational or lawful explanation for it.

Well. I guess that's one road to travel down.

 

[Sleeppy]

Well. I guess that's one road to travel down.

Show me another.

Being alone, who do you say Jacob wrestled with?

 

[paarsurrey]

Judaism: Who did force YHVH to end the prophecy?

One may like to read post #73 in the other sub-forum that is related here. Please
Regards

 

[Tumah]

Show me another.

The other way is:
I can't think of an answer myself, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

Being alone, who do you say Jacob wrestled with?

An angel.

 

[Sleeppy]

An angel.

Sure. In any case, the result was Israel calling that place Peniel, and then Penuel. The face of God was shown in Jacob's pacifism toward his brother Esau. I suggest, Hosea is given to the descendants of the Babylonian captivity, so that Penuel, they are turned back towards God's face.

 

[Tumah]

Sure. In any case, the result was Israel calling that place Peniel, and then Penuel. The face of God was shown in Jacob's pacifism toward his brother Esau. I suggest, Hosea is given to the descendants of the Babylonian captivity, so that Penuel, they are turned back towards God's face.

You lost me with this one.

 

[Sleeppy]

You lost me with this one.

What do you think about that chapter? God tells Israel's captives that He desires kindness above sacrifice, and knowledge of God above burnt offerings. Why?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

There is no message needed.
The Divine Presence didn't rest on the Second Temple and onward. The only prophets to make it into the Second Temple period were those who were already prophesying at the end of the First Temple. When they died, lacking the Divine Presence to initiate them into prophecy, no more prophets arose.

Commentaries also explain that during the beginning of the Second Temple, the members of the Great Assembly (which included the remaining prophets as well as other leading rabbis of the time) removed the inclination to perform idolatry (that is to commune with an impure spiritual force) from the world (this is mentioned in the Talmud). According to the principle of balance in Judaism, the effect of removing this inclination was that prophecy (the ability to commune with the Divine) need also be removed.

Just seems strange to throw the baby out with the bathwater, though: "Hey, let's avoid talking to other gods by banning talking to ours."

In this case, if children do not die in their father's stead, your Father in heaven would not have commanded that women and children be killed in this case:

They aren't really dying for the sins of the fathers, though. Rather, they are dying so that the kids don't grow up and try to get their rightful land back.

 

[Sleeppy]

They aren't really dying for the sins of the fathers, though. Rather, they are dying so that the kids don't grow up and try to get their rightful land back.

In either case, the law is breached.

 

[Tumah]

Just seems strange to throw the baby out with the bathwater, though: "Hey, let's avoid talking to other gods by banning talking to ours."

Its not two separate things. They're two sides of the same coin. The cost was not worth the gain, so the coin was tossed.

 

[Tumah]

What do you think about that chapter? God tells Israel's captives that He desires kindness above sacrifice, and knowledge of God above burnt offerings. Why?

Because G-d didn't give us the sin- and fault- offerings so that we should sin and thereby be required to bring them. He prefers we not sin altogether and never be required to bring them. This is a theme mentioned in a number of places.

 

[paarsurrey]

In either case, the law is breached.

The Judaism people are deft to breach the law and teachings of Moses. They breached it when Moses was alive and Moses had to kill 3000 of them for that breach, while the one who came "like unto Moses" did not reach to that number exactly and just exiled . Right? Please

Regards

 

[rosends]

The Judaism people are deft to breach the law and teachings of Moses. The breached it when Moses was alive and Moses had to kill 3000 of them for that breach, while the one who came "like unto Moses" did not reach to that number exactly and just exiled . Right? Please

Regards

Wrong.
1. The 3000 was a small percentage who broke a law. Sometimes people break laws and there are punishments. Also, there's the issue of the eirev rav...
2. The one who came like unto Moses didn't exile anyone. I mean, can you find me a place where Joshua exiled people?

 

[Flankerl]

Judaism people

You do that on purpose, don't you.

 

[RabbiO]

The Judaism people are deft to breach the law and teachings of Moses. They breached it when Moses was alive and Moses had to kill 3000 of them for that breach, while the one who came "like unto Moses" did not reach to that number exactly and just exiled . Right? Please

Regards

The Muslim person is deft to breach common decency - making a mockery of his signature line by engaging in character assassination. Right?

As they say in golf, "That's paar for the course."

Please.

 

[RabbiO]

אֲדוֹן הַסְּלִיחוֹת בּוֹחֵן לְבָבוֹת
גּוֹלֶה עֲמוּקוֹת דּוֹבֵר צְדָקוֹת
חָטָאנוּ לְפָנֶיךָ רַחֵם עָלֵינוּ

Nice seasonal signature lines.