Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 11-09-2011, 07:50 AM

No Deuteronomy 18:18 has always been taken by Jews and Christians alike to be about the one to come

hylidae · 11-09-2011, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cornbread_r2

Woweee, you guys don't mess around!

Welcome to FRDB.

semiopen · 11-09-2011, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

No Deuteronomy 18:18 has always been taken by Jews and Christians alike to be about the one to come

I'm not sure that this comment would make a list of your most insightful Stephan. I could accept the position that some or many Jews (and/or Christians) might think this refers to the Messiah but not all.

Judaism's_view_of_Jesus

Quote:

According to the Torah (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and 18:18-22), the criteria for a person to be considered a prophet or speak for God in Judaism are that he must follow the God of Israel (and no other god); he must not describe God differently than He is known to be from Scripture; he must not advocate change to God's word or state that God has changed His mind and wishes things that contradict His already-stated eternal word; and the things he does speak of must come to pass.[25]

The wiki doesn't speak of the prophet in Deut 18:18-22 being the messiah.

Take Chabad for example (please take them).

Devarim - Deuteronomy - Chapter 18

Quote:

A prophet from among you, from your brothers, like me, the Lord, your God will set up for you you shall hearken to him. טו. נָבִיא מִקִּרְבְּךָ מֵאַחֶיךָ כָּמֹנִי יָקִים לְךָ יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֵלָיו תִּשְׁמָעוּן:
Rashi - [A prophet] from among you, from your brothers, like me: This means: Just as I am among you, from your brothers, so will He set up for you [another prophet] in my stead, and so on, from prophet to prophet. מקרבך מאחיך כמוני: כמו שאני מקרבך מאחיך יקים לך תחתי, וכן מנביא לנביא:

These guys are crazy messianists and there is no mention of this prophet being the messiah. It's just considered to be the prophets who arose after Moishe.

JonA · 11-09-2011, 08:37 AM

It's just an English translating convention used to avoid confusion and further distinguish the character we know as Jesus from the other characters known as Joshua.

Do we really need three pages of posts just to say that?

Toto · 11-09-2011, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

It's just an English translating convention used to avoid confusion and further distinguish the character we know as Jesus from the other characters known as Joshua.
...

But that's the issue - is it avoiding confusion, or creating a distinction that did not exist at the origins of Christianity?

stephan huller · 11-09-2011, 08:54 AM

As a rule I couldn't give a flying fuck what Jews, Christians or Muslims say about a given passage. The Samaritan usage is almost inevitably taken by me to be the original (unless I can find evidence in the sources about the beliefs of the Sadducees or Karaites). The comment stands because it has the support of the preferred traditions

stephan huller · 11-09-2011, 08:59 AM

behvjhhvkhvjvdjghjfkjckv vjv ffdiuduojvbji uivchxjxjxjhxjcjikuvfufsuiixvjjdivfcuicvjvicvhudfc uvjncfhdchvfbbenjaminhulktoyhulktoy

stephan huller · 11-09-2011, 08:59 AM

Sorry left me son with the computer

JonA · 11-09-2011, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

It's just an English translating convention used to avoid confusion and further distinguish the character we know as Jesus from the other characters known as Joshua.
...

But that's the issue - is it avoiding confusion, or creating a distinction that did not exist at the origins of Christianity?

I don't follow. The convention is a linguistic one; the distinction is a physical and/or conceptual one.

Whether the convention existed or not in early Christianity, it is almost certain that early Christians believed their Jesus/Joshua to be a different character than the other Jesuses/Joshuas in Scripture and lore.

Jon

Toto · 11-09-2011, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

... it is almost certain that early Christians believed their Jesus/Joshua to be a different character than the other Jesuses/Joshuas in Scripture and lore.

How can you be so certain that gospel Jesus was not meant to be an allegorical version of Jesus son of Nun, Moses' lieutenant?

11-09-2011, 08:59 AM	#57
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	xjkxlvjxjvljxlcxljzxjvlkxzjclvjclxjxikcjxlkxjkxclj clvjxjcjcljxljcvlxcjxcjx behvjhhvkhvjvdjghjfkjckv vjv ffdiuduojvbji uivchxjxjxjhxjcjikuvfufsuiixvjjdivfcuicvjvicvhudfc uvjncfhdchvfbbenjaminhulktoyhulktoy

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-09-2011, 07:50 AM	#51
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	No Deuteronomy 18:18 has always been taken by Jews and Christians alike to be about the one to come

11-09-2011, 08:37 AM	#54
JonA Regular Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Minnesota! Posts: 386	It's just an English translating convention used to avoid confusion and further distinguish the character we know as Jesus from the other characters known as Joshua. Do we really need three pages of posts just to say that?

11-09-2011, 08:54 AM	#56
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	As a rule I couldn't give a flying fuck what Jews, Christians or Muslims say about a given passage. The Samaritan usage is almost inevitably taken by me to be the original (unless I can find evidence in the sources about the beliefs of the Sadducees or Karaites). The comment stands because it has the support of the preferred traditions

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.