Who is the prophet in Deuteronomy 18:18?

Bushmaster said:

Also I am interested in the deliberate OMISSION of this statement when you have provided the paragraph about Paul.

Eisenman's own theories, themselves not always convincing, merely attempt to relate the career of James the Just and Paul to some of these documents.

Click to expand...

I gave the link, and said there are arguments on both sides. The reader can do further research.

crystalpc said:

give me a date!

Click to expand...

Give me an exact date for Jesus birth... does that mean there was no Jesus?

4 bc when the last year of Herods rule. The only confusion with BC and AD is when we stopped using the gregarian calendar.

IronEagle said:

Give me an exact date for Jesus birth... does that mean there was no Jesus?

Click to expand...

Now I gave you a date. Now it is muslims who claim the bible was corrupted yet can provide no date.

One thing, I need to calrify. Here people asked what are the arguments and information against corruption of Bible; I'm only showing this information... I'm not saying bible is corrupt or not. It is up to the reader to take it, leave it, refute it, or do further research.

4 bc when the last year of Herods rule. The only confusion with BC and AD is when we stopped using the gregarian calendar.

Click to expand...

Lot of people won't consider it to be a true date. Infact, there is a lot of argument even the birth of Jesus. But that is offtopic.

The point is nit picking on giving the date isn't a good argument. Maybe it seems to you but to non-christians it is not. It is not like people were sitting there and noting it down when bible was being corrupted. There are texts in bible that have no dates associated with them. Does that mean they are corrupt?

Not to mention, you don't see things like crusifixion, trinity, and these other symbols of modern christianity, in ealry christian art. I always wonder why is that?

Click to expand...

Honestly and seriously? Sorry that I doubt. I wish you could show me a VERY early Christian piece of artwork where Paul was NOT commissioned by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Do you know what date Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus?

Why can't this have a logical reason? Paul didn't belong to early Christianity? Yes He did, so there is no hardly early Christianity without Paul. Have the Christian art circulate and let the Romans find and crush you, pretty logical to me, huh?

Crucifixion? In the Scripture and in tongues of people.
Trinity? In the Scripture, needed to be defined when the heretics arise to distort the truth.

These are not symbols of Christian faith, these are facts of it. I am not sure what you try to mean by symbols of modern Christianity.

First, I don't what you mean by PC life, but I'm talking about modernism (specifically: sex, nudity, abortion, etc.)

Click to expand...

Politically correct life, and your description that is...

Have a good day (or night)

Click to expand...

Same to you too...

I gave the link, and said there are arguments on both sides. The reader can do further research.

Click to expand...

I will certainly comment if the presentation was its worst in terms of biasness. That discredits you. Sure the reader can always do further research just like I clicked on the source link for once and saw it.

I'm not saying bible is corrupt or not. It is up to the reader to take it, leave it, refute it, or do further research.

Click to expand...

The matter is WHAT you believe and WHY you believe ... You are showing what you believe, aren't you?

Lot of people won't consider it to be a true date. Infact, there is a lot of argument even the birth of Jesus. But that is offtopic.

The point is nit picking on giving the date isn't a good argument. Maybe it seems to you but to non-christians it is not. It is not like people were sitting there and noting it down when bible was being corrupted. There are texts in bible that have no dates associated with them. Does that mean they are corrupt?

Click to expand...

I think you are trying hard to shift the topic bud! Point is not what is a good argument or not! You have been informed of a date upon asking to your question, true or not, arguable or acceptable, now people would expect you to do the same and produce a date backing with further information. What is it called when you charge something and don't provide proof? Even it is arguable?

IronEagle said:

.

The point is nit picking on giving the date isn't a good argument. Maybe it seems to you but to non-christians it is not. It is not like people were sitting there and noting it down when bible was being corrupted. There are texts in bible that have no dates associated with them. Does that mean they are corrupt?

Click to expand...

It is very important, since history and modern day archeology disproves it. Very important indeed.

IronEagle said:

Give me an exact date for Jesus birth... does that mean there was no Jesus?

Click to expand...

There is no specific date but I think He was born on or near the Feast of the Trumpets, which is known today as Rosh Hashanah. That would make His birth in September, most likely. He was born when the sheep were still out on the ranges. Also harvest time was near.

Oh! I forgot. Rosh Hashanah is currently celebrated on Sept 25th if I recall. Jesus was born about 6 months after John the Baptist, who was born near what we call Easter. The pregnancies of both mothers were about 6 months after apart if I remember from looking at scripture.

Sorry, I had to reedit because I caught an important error. So reread.

Honestly and seriously? Sorry that I doubt. I wish you could show me a VERY early Christian piece of artwork where Paul was NOT commissioned by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Do you know what date Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus?

Why can't this have a logical reason? Paul didn't belong to early Christianity? Yes He did, so there is no hardly early Christianity without Paul. Have the Christian art circulate and let the Romans find and crush you, pretty logical to me, huh?

Crucifixion? In the Scripture and in tongues of people.
Trinity? In the Scripture, needed to be defined when the heretics arise to distort the truth.

These are not symbols of Christian faith, these are facts of it. I am not sure what you try to mean by symbols of modern Christianity.

Click to expand...

Yup, honestly and seriously, but you are entitled to your opinion.
I found out this when I took my art class. Early christians made pictures of christ in catacombs and they always showed him in good scenario. They didn't show him in pain like on a cross. You can confirm this with any good history of art teacher. If salvation through the death of christ was so important, than why didn't they depict the crucifixion like later christian art. If Roman authorities were the cause than they wouldn't have drawn biblical stories in the catacombs in the first place. This one of my questions related to christianity, and I didn't post them earlier, because I didn’t want to offend christians on this forum.

....I think you are trying hard to shift the topic bud!...

Click to expand...

if you are speaking about the arguments over the existance of Jesus, my intention was not to shift the topic. I only tried to show the birth date of Jesus is not concrete evidence. And don't say muslims and christians don't believe this. I've an atheist background, I converted to atheism (almost) from christanity, therefore, I see reason in these arguments. (I don't want to go into this at the moment, but if you are interested we talk about it some other time.)

I will certainly comment if the presentation was its worst in terms of biasness. That discredits you. Sure the reader can always do further research just like I clicked on the source link for once and saw it.

Click to expand...

What you are trying to do? Attacking my credibility? And how just one post discredits me? If you go through my previous posts, you will see I show both side of the arguments except when a person is demanding for the arguments of one of the perspective. If I wanted to hide the information, than why would have chosen a neutral source, post a link to the source, and say to look into book sides of arguments?

The matter is WHAT you believe and WHY you believe ... You are showing what you believe, aren't you?

Click to expand...

What I believe doesn't count... I'm showing other side of the coin, not to mention, I'm only responding to a demand.

So Jesus is the Prophet, have we settled this yet?
Jesus and Moses have many similarites, and a good number of very unique similatrities sthat set the aside from other people. Muhammed and Moses's similarities are rather vague and include millions of other people.

Jesus as a man was a Jew, okay. Jesus and Moses are brothers. Jesus was a brother to the Israelites of the 12th century BC. Children of Israel are brothers to each other.
Muhammed was a second cousin to Moses and the Israelites.

Since Jesus was the Word incarnate, God put every word into the mouth of Jesus. Jesus alone is a body, it's God the Son in Him that was His soul that gave Him life and put the words in His mouth.
Not every single word Muhammed spoke (if any) was from God.

Is this clear?

I found out this when I took my art class. Early christians made pictures of christ in catatombs and they always showed him in good senario.

Click to expand...

Certainly that doesn't support your grounds that He didn't go thru all the bad scenarios. But still, HOW EARLY was that Christian artwork? I would like to see basis on this argument not do your own research thing.

They didn't show him in pain like on a cross. You can confirm this with any good history of art teacher.

Click to expand...

See above.

If Roman authorities were cause than they wouldn't have drawn biblical stories in the catatombs in the first place.

Click to expand...

Again depends on the circulation of the type of artwork, catacombs/good scenarios and cross/crucifixion are different things. But certainly the artwork is NOT the basis for faith or what to believe, it is the Scripture, artwork has always been effected by freedoms that given to mankind. So unfortunately, artwork doesn't explain anything.

This one of my questions related to christianity, and I didn't post them earlier, because it might offend christians on this forum.

Click to expand...

Certainly not, go ahead and post a new thread.

You seem already in a ****ed off mood. If most christians won't mind these questions, I'll make a new thread.

Click to expand...

Uh oh, what is the need for the foul mouth my friend, who teaches you words to be covered with asterisks? I haven't come off to you with a harsh attitude right? Not even rebuking, all I did was freely criticize! You have earned yourself a report point. (Edit: I am pointed that this might be a lesser word but still a word that is censored by CF, see below)

if you are speaking about the arguments over the existance of Jesus, my intention was not to shift the topic. I only tried to show the birth date of Jesus is not concrete evidence. And don't say muslims and christians don't believe this. I've an athiest background, I converted to athiestim (almost) from christanity, therefore, I see reason in these arguments. (I don't want to go into this at the moment, but if you are interested we talk about it some other time.)

Click to expand...

These are irrelevant too my friend, I don't need to know these, nor I am interested, each time crystal demanded an answer, you have failed to provide one. That is my point. You have certainly moved to show that it is an unnecessary argument, well she didn't start it.

What you are trying to do? Attack my credibility? And how just one post discredits me? If you go through my previous posts, you will see I show both side of the arguments except when a person is demanding for the arguments of one of the perspective. If I wanted to hide the information, than why would have chosen a neutral source, post a link to the source, and say to look into book sides of arguments?

Click to expand...

Certainly not, those words above that are CENSORED by CF boards using asterisks shows your credibility ALREADY. You are talking about showing both sides but you are omitting important information, due to bias, not everyone WILL go to that link to find that out, that is where you failed to show a good example of showing both sides. If you were honest then you may explain why you omitted the part I pointed out which was following right after the paragraph in question.

What I believe doesn't count... I'm showing other side of the coin, not to mention, I'm only responding to a demand.

Click to expand...

Interestingly you haven't responded Crystal's demand yet my friend, you said it is unnecessary to argue that. And I do not see you are showing the other side of the coin, unless you know the other side of the coin.

If you wish to continue to argue, (just not with the F word) I am well-versed and prepared, I have the responses to anything, I can keep this going on until you quit, so I hope that you see my point.

Bushmaster said:

(just not with the F word)

Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think the F word was used as it doesn't really fit. Another "lesser" word was used that many (not saying that I think it isn't) don't even recognize as a "bad word.

Okay, back to the show.
-Catherine

Oh then my bad, I apologize, and take back what I said if I had come off harsly but it is common to see 4 asterisks (****) and an "ed" ... I guess I should have thought about the urinating word

peaceful soul said:

There is no specific date but I think He was born on or near the Feast of the Trumpets, which is known today as Rosh Hashanah. That would make His birth in September, most likely. He was born when the sheep were still out on the ranges. Also harvest time was near.

Oh! I forgot. Rosh Hashanah is currently celebrated on Sept 25th if I recall. Jesus was born about 6 months before John the Baptist, which was near what we call Easter. The pregnancies of both mothers were about 6 after apart if I remember from looking at scripture.

Sorry, I had to reedit because I caught an important error. So reread.

Click to expand...

peaceful soul I have to agree with you on the season. Because the shepherds were in the fields with their sheep. But I always thought John was born 6 months before Jesus, I will have to go back and reread about Johns conception.

JCBeliever said:

So Jesus is the Prophet, have we settled this yet?
Jesus and Moses have many similarites, and a good number of very unique similatrities sthat set the aside from other people. Muhammed and Moses's similarities are rather vague and include millions of other people.

Jesus as a man was a Jew, okay. Jesus and Moses are brothers. Jesus was a brother to the Israelites of the 12th century BC. Children of Israel are brothers to each other.
Muhammed was a second cousin to Moses and the Israelites.

Since Jesus was the Word incarnate, God put every word into the mouth of Jesus. Jesus alone is a body, it's God the Son in Him that was His soul that gave Him life and put the words in His mouth.
Not every single word Muhammed spoke (if any) was from God.

Is this clear?

Click to expand...

And that is the topic. Thank you Jcbeliever.

If you genuinely inquire, please read, because I took some time writing this. I am a direct person, so if this comes off offensive, sorry. I write with little or no emotion, just arguments.

JCBeliever said:

So Jesus is the Prophet, have we settled this yet?
Jesus and Moses have many similarites, and a good number of very unique similatrities sthat set the aside from other people. Muhammed and Moses's similarities are rather vague and include millions of other people.

Click to expand...

First let me quote the verse in question, Deut. 18:15-22. This, in its entirety, is crucial.

15 - The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
16 - According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, "Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire anymore, that I die not."
17 - And the Lord said unto me, "They have well spoken that which they have spoken."
18 - I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19 - And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
20 - But the prohet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
21 - And if thou say in thine heart, "How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?"
22 - When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

1-
With that stated, we must look at what is said in verse 16 and understand it. This verse refers directly to God's revelation of the commandments to the Jews during the assembly on the mount. The people elected Moses to go near and hear all that God would say, so that the people would not be consumed by God's presence if he showed to all of them, all the time. Therefore, Moses became the prophet to communicate God's Will to the people at this time. This can be found in Deut. 5:22-27 and Ex. 20:18-19. I strongly suggest that you read these before continuing.

Summary: God promised prophets to communicate His Will to the people, the Jews.

2-
In context of Deut. 18, Moses refers to the continuity of the Church's governing system, and not a specific time or period of time. The phrase "a prophet", while reading does not signify only one person, but it is used as an enallage for a number of prophets. It would be absurd to argue that this specifically speaks solely of Jeremiah or Joshua, or even in this discussion Jesus and Muhammad. This is because Moses here treats this in a continual manner of the Church's government and the succession of future prophets.

Summary: This passage does not signify one prophet, but a prophethood among the brethren, or the Jews.

3-
In addition, the latter verses quoted above in Deut., specifically 21 and 22, supports that Moses speaks of a line of prophets. The people ask how can they discern who is and who is not a prophet and God answers Moses, "When a prophet speaketh..." (22) The language used in these verses indicate that there will be more than one prophet by using "a prophet" instead of "the prophet".

Summary: As a whole, the verses indicate that Moses speaks of a line of prophets.

4-
Moses' words "from among their brethren, like unto thee" do not always denote equality. Therefore, it is true that there was no Prophet like Moses, that is to say, similar to him in every respect, or in whom so many gifts were displayed; yet it is no less true, that they were all like Moses; because God set over His Church a continual succession of teachers, to execute the same office as he did.

This is referred to in the words, "Forall the prophets and the law prophesied until John," (Matt. 11:13, and Luke 16:16,) where we see others united as colleagues with Moses in the government of the Church, until the coming of Christ. Yet Peter aptly and elegantly accommodates this testimony to Christ, in Acts 3:22, not to the exclusion of others of God's servants, but in order to warn the Jews that in rejecting Christ they are at the same time refusing this benefit of God (the prophethood); for the gift of prophecy had so flourished among His ancient people, and teachers had so been constantly appointed to succeed each other.

Summary: Like I said in the above premises, God promised a succession of prophets. Now, they are to be like unto thee.


We can go around in circles on this topic trying to decide who is more like Moses because we do not understand what this last premise indicates. Put it in context of the entire passage and and its references.

This passage does not refer to Muhammad. Period. That is an argument that arose in South Africa about 35 years ago. No scholar in history has recorded this "prophet" to be Muhammad. He was not a Jew, a brethren, or a leader of Jews.
In addition, this passage does not specifically refer to just Christ. It refers to the entire line of prophets promised by God. This argument has occurred more than once, and with other prophets, but holds no water. I suggest for those who believe that it is Christ, like I did a while ago, to look at some commentaries and, more importantly, the whole picture.


Thanks for your attention,
Steve