"The Prophet is Joshua, not Muhummad"

As LoAmmi uttered, "Sure, the prophet was Joshua."

So, please divulge your opinion why you believe The Prophet was Joshua, and feel free to persuade me (and others).

The entire context of Deut 18, taken from the beginning, is that HaShem is not going to leave the people without guidance when they enter the land promised to them. Moses isn't going to go into the land. A prophet will be raised up to lead them. It also shows how to tell who is a prophet and who isn't. This is not only Joshua but telling the people and future generations that as long as they were in the promised land they would have leadership in the form of prophets.

You make an important point, LoAmmi. Once again, this would disqualify Muhummad as The Prophet because he was not raised among the israelites in Israel, nor was he a prophet that had stepped foot in the land promised to the jewish people, and their descendants.

Hey fella, do you happen to have any source or citation for that interpretation you just uttered in your post?

I might be able to find something, but I was taught this directly. We read the text and follow what it says. There were no chapters or verses in the original, so if you are basing an idea on two sentences out of context, you're probably doing something wrong.

I can walk you though it if you would like. I'll even use a Christian translation if you give me one providing it isn't too far outside of what it originally said.

Sure, sure, LoAmmi. Feel free to walk me through.

You say "There were no chapters or verses in the original," so I'll accept this as an oral tradition passed down to you and make a note of it.

Not bashing anything at all. I'm trying to learn, maybe even persuade--in love--- not bash. Actually, dishonouring others for the prideful sake of upholding one's faith is breaking the commandment of Jesus to love others, because I wouldn't be loving you as I'd love myself. This comes from the heart though, not merely because it is a rule or principal to live by.

Deut 18:15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, 16 according to all you desired of the Lord your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.’

17 “And the Lord said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good. 18 I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. 19 And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him. 20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ 21 And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’— 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him. NKJV


I don't see how this passage refers to Christ. It only makes sense that it refers to Joshua, as well as each of the other prophets that the Lord used to speak His words to Israel.

Perhaps in a stretch of the imagination we can see some veiled prophecy of the Messiah?

HiddenChalice said:

Sure, sure, LoAmmi. Feel free to walk me through.

You say "There were no chapters or verses in the original," so I'll accept this as an oral tradition passed down to you and make a note of it. .

Click to expand...

I will post the verses later today but the chapters and verses isn't some obscure oral tradition. Christians in the middle ages put them in as a matrix to direct people to places in the Bible quickly. Jews adopted it because it was a good idea. It's just a basic fact of history most Christians I know acknowledge.

LoAmmi said:

I will post the verses later today but the chapters and verses isn't some obscure oral tradition. Christians in the middle ages put them in as a matrix to direct people to places in the Bible quickly. Jews adopted it because it was a good idea. It's just a basic fact of history most Christians I know acknowledge.

Click to expand...

Chapter divisions were middle ages I believe. The further subdivision into verses is even later. There were no verse subdivisions in the Bible during the Protestant Reformation just as an example. That's actually how recent they are, and it's also why Protestant and Catholic references sometimes disagree, or rather they disagree on the numbering of the Psalms. One of the more famous Psalms that begins "The LORD is my Shepherd..." is the first verse of Psalm 23 in Protestant Bibles, but is Psalm 22 in Catholic Bibles such as the Douay-Rheims.

This has also affected the numbering of the Decalogue, Roman Catholics and Lutherans use the older numbering of the Decalogue used since at least St. Augustine of Hippo, whereas non-Lutheran Protestants follow a different numbering scheme.

The Roman Catholic/Lutheran numbering of the Decalogue has the first commandment as "You shall worship no other god... make no graven image..." whereas in other Protestant numbering schemes these are divided as two commandments. The first is "you shall worship no other god" and the second is "make no graven image". This has led certain less-than-knowledgeable Protestant polemicists argue that Roman Catholics have removed the second commandment or have "changed" the commandments. When it's simply a matter that Catholics (and Lutherans) follow the older scheme in use since late antiquity, whereas non-Lutheran Protestants have come up with a new scheme, one that also tends to follow how the verse divisions introduced in the early modern period subdivide Exodus 20.

I've also noted that the Psalms are divided differently in Jewish Bibles, in Christian Bibles the introductory to a Psalm is not regarded as a verse but a heading, and thus introductories such as "A Psalm of David" are unnumbered in Christian Bibles, but numbered in Jewish Bibles.

-CryptoLutheran

HiddenChalice said:

As LoAmmi uttered, "Sure, the prophet was Joshua."

So, please divulge your opinion why you believe The Prophet was Joshua, and feel free to persuade me (and others).

Click to expand...

Of course the Prophet is Jesus; Peter is quoted as saying so in Acts 3:22-24---CASE CLOSED.

2PhiloVoid said:

Of course the Prophet is Jesus; Peter is quoted as saying so in Acts 3:22-24---CASE CLOSED.

Click to expand...

Acts 3:22-24 carries zero weight when discussing Judaism or the Hebrew Bible. So no....not 'Case Closed'.

gordRedeemed said:

Acts 3:22-24 carries zero weight when discussing Judaism or the Hebrew Bible. So no....not 'Case Closed'.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm definitely NOT going to kowtow to the Islamic interpretation of the Prophet to Come from Deut. 18.

2PhiloVoid said:

Well, I'm definitely NOT going to kowtow to the Islamic interpretation of the Prophet to Come from Deut. 18.

Click to expand...

Who said this? I don't think anyone on this thread.

gordRedeemed said:

Who said this? I don't think anyone on this thread.

Click to expand...

No, nobody has brought it up yet, but I'm heading it off at the pass...

A number of Muslims will claim that Muhammad is the Prophet that Moses prophesied about in Deut. 18 (see the link below as an example, Gord).

Prophet Muhammad in the Bible by Dr Naik

This I firmly reject.

fair enough.

HiddenChalice said:

As LoAmmi uttered, "Sure, the prophet was Joshua."

So, please divulge your opinion why you believe The Prophet was Joshua, and feel free to persuade me (and others).

Click to expand...

It is certainly not Muhammed. It was referring to any prophet, and since Yehoshwa followed Mosheh, it makes sense it would apply to him.

HiddenChalice said:

You make an important point, LoAmmi. Once again, this would disqualify Muhummad as The Prophet because he was not raised among the israelites in Israel, nor was he a prophet that had stepped foot in the land promised to the jewish people, and their descendants.

Click to expand...

Deuteronomy is not that specific. It simply says there will be a prophet from among your brothers. Since Arabs are 'brothers' to the Jews (via Abraham) Muslims have applied this verse to Muhammad. However, I might add that Deuteronomy says this Prophet would be "like unto me" i.e. Moses. Later one Deuteronomy describes what being a prophet 'like unto Moses' entails, namely seeing God face to face. I don't think that would apply to Joshua.

This is one of these things that make prophecies so tricky. Let's take the verse from Isaiah which begins with the words "Unto us a child is born" (I just came back from a spectacular performance of Handel's Messiah.) Loammi, as well as the bulk of academic scholarship would say that this passage refers to a child which had just been born in the king's household. Christians say it refers to Jesus, Baha'is apply it to Baha'u'llah. On some level they might all be right. Prophecies may well mean one thing in the context in which they are revealed and come to mean something else in a later age.

Hoshiyya said:

It is certainly not Muhammed. It was referring to any prophet, and since Yehoshwa followed Mosheh, it makes sense it would apply to him.

Click to expand...

Uh, there were lots of prophets between Moses and Jesus. By this logic wouldn't Loammi's interpretation make more sense?

smaneck said:

Deuteronomy is not that specific. It simply says there will be a prophet from among your brothers. Since Arabs are 'brothers' to the Jews (via Abraham)

Click to expand...

Edomites were not called jews, yet are called Brethren because they were related to the child of promise, Isaac. Gentile Christians are called brethren because they were grafted on as adopted sons(Ephesians 1:5) because of Jesus, a descendent of Isaac.

As far as I am concerned, Israelites and their descendants are not the brethren of the descendants of Jacob and are cut off from the covenant of Moses, and are neither considered adopted sons unless they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior through the christian faith. So, since Ishmaelites and their decendents have nothing to do with the covenent of Moses or the new covenant of Jesus, I consider Deut as considering them(the arabs during that era) as neither bretheren nor adopted sons. They were merely gentiles cut off from God, it seems.

HiddenChalice said:

As far as I am concerned, Israelites and their descendants are not the brethren of the descendants of Jacob

Click to expand...

They are not brethren of the descendants of Jacob, they *are* his descendants!

and are cut off from the covenant of Moses

Click to expand...

Paul argues quite the contrary in Romans 11.

So, since Ishmaelites and their decendents have nothing to do with the covenent of Moses or the new covenant of Jesus,

Click to expand...

They had something to do with the Covenant of Abraham. That's why Ismael was circumcised.

I consider Deut as considering them(the arabs during that era) as neither bretheren nor adopted sons. They were merely gentiles cut off from God, it seems.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. Personally I think your god is too small. Fortunately I see no evidence that Deut. shares your views.