IamJoseph

E.g.?

Moses was a Messiah of his time. No other human made such an impact on the third rock from the sun. In fact, logically both Christians and Muslims can only get valid answers with the return of Moses: how else can they affirm what others say on his behalf - the reason behind the chaos of this region's beliefs?

semiopen

For example

List_of_Messiah_claimants

I think Yoshki makes the hall of fame.

If you want to believe that God is going to send a direct descendant of David to answer everybodiy's stupid questions while Jewish women play tamborines, that's your privilege. The reincarnation of Moses is a nice touch, although Rabbi Akiva was supposed to be sharper. Of course he thought Bar-Kochba was the messiah.

J-D

There is insufficient evidence to conclude that he really existed.

And given your objections to 'Judas' as not being good Hebrew, why do you refer to 'Moses' instead of 'Moshe' or 'Mosheh'?

IamJoseph

There is no hard proof of Moses existing, but there is evidence on a wide and manifold basis, and the contribution to humanity of what is subscribed to Moses is enormous, if not transcending of any other human . With JC, there is issues of fiction of historicity and the status given him - which is based only on belief, as well as doubt and debate of any contribution to humanity.

J-D

No, there isn't.

IamJoseph

The appliable factor is that two religions are making claims based entirely on their belief it is what Moses represents, and also that their belief in this transcends. In this case the NT & Quran are making claims of what another figure said. But neigher Christianity nor islam can argue with Moses about what Moses meant, and thereby it becomes an affirmation either those religions are correct or not.

Hypotehtically, what if Moses were to re-appear and say something which contradicts what the Gospels or Quran is saying about Moses and the Hebrew bible: what if the trinity is absolutely negated, and what if he says certain things in the Quran are incorrect: what then? Basically, it is a problem that two religions are speaking on behalf of one who laid down certain premises 2,500 years before they emerged - and both are in contradiction of each other's positions. This is a Moses job - no way around it.

IamJoseph

That is a deflection of the issue. This stuff was always said before for David, Solomon, and almost everything was in denial before the scrolls were discovered. Today, many also say the Jerusalem temple is a myth.

Better, to respond to the issue what if Moses was found to be a historical figure - because all the laws in the Mosaic cannot be deemed fictional, nor can one say the Hebrews did not return to a homeland 3000 years ago, or that any other figure has 55 prophetic books in allignment with the narratives of Moses. There are other good reasons why ancient Egypt does not record Moses.

J-D

Which issue?Even if there is strong evidence for the historicity of David and Solomon (and I'm not aware of any), it makes no difference. It is illogical to argue from the fact that some individuals once thought to be mythical have been shown to be historical to the conclusion that any individual once thought to be mythical should be regarded as historical. There is no reason to regard Moses as historical, no matter what the facts about David and Solomon may be.I don't know which scrolls you're referring to.If you like. My response is that it would be interesting but wouldn't make any practical difference.'The Mosaic'? 'Mosaic' is an adjective. 'The Mosaic' what? Do you perhaps mean 'the Mosaic code'? I don't think anybody ever said that the laws in the Mosaic code are fictional, and I don't see any relevance of that issue to what we were previously discussing.But one can say that. I do say that. However, once again, I don't see what that has to do with what we were previously discussing.

semiopen

Your argument as usual is mystifying.

I think you are taking a Chabad style position. After the death of the Rebbe (who is listed on my false messiah list) some elements of Chabad said that the Rebbe was the most qualified person of his generation to be the messiah and therefore blah blah. Your Moses Messiah statement seems derived from this same logic.

Whatever the merits of your argument, this is not the way most people interpret the messiah.

The main difference between the Christian and Jewish positions seem to be that the Christian messiah was personal, while the Jewish version would redeem the entire population. As I've mentioned previously, this difference seems to be mostly technical to me.

Your concept of the messiah seems to be different than the usual, and therefore people are having difficulty understanding. Personally, I'm quite used to people misunderstanding the simplest things I say, and try not to get upset. Why get upset when there is a legitimate reason for misunderstanding?

IamJoseph

I believe there are upto 10 factors which deem the Messiah criteria, mostly described in Isaiah - and not one was near seen in the Gospels version - that is the technicality here.

With regard Moses, there is no question he ushered in more than any human to date. With regard non-vindicated Messiahs and nominating them as potential candidates - this is acceptable, provided the candidate was also agreed was an error - which I believe is the case with Chabad and all others ever nominated. The problem with Europe is, it accepted when no Messianic factors were seen.