deuteronomy 34

[John]

Deuteronomy 34 is an account of mosheh dying.

tradition says that Y'hoshua wrote this. However, this is tradtion.

do you think that this chapter is inspiried?

also, if it wasnt there, do you think it would be easier to expect that mosheh is the second witness. maybe he never died at all. he was SUPPOSED to die, but because of the dispute btwn sammael and mikhael (jude 9), the plans were changed.

maybe it was just written by mosheh before he died?

what do you guys think?

[anochria]

What leads you to think that Jude 9 means that Moses didn't die?

[John]

i dont have an opinion on this. i just know that there is an interpretation that jude 9 proves that the body of mosheh was disputed over, so the adocates of this view say that Mosheh was ressurected so it couldnt be found and made into an idol.

but like i said, i dont partciularly believe ths. perhaps my wording was wrong. yes it is, soory.

but yeah, i havent found much on i, it seems to be a prominant view among those who thing the 2 witness is mosheh, but there is not hat much info on it, just that it is a view. perhaps this is becusae there is no real proof.

shalom- john

[anochria]

Resurrected is different than "didn't die".

I don't think that Moses is one of the "two witnesses", but, he did appear on the mount of transfiguration along with Elijah- which could indicate a resurrection I suppose.

[John]

yeah... that is the only reason why mosheh is the best candidate. that account gives a lot of leverage to that witness theory.

also, it is a sin to perform necronomancy, which would have been what Yeshua was doing had mosheh been dead and not ressurected.

but then there is the problem on how he couold die again, which i have no probblem because i have already studied the ressurections, but others may have the problem.

but yeah, i did word it wrong. sorry for the confusion.

shalom- john

[itiswritten]

Hey Everyone,

Finally got another computer. Anyway, I have pondered passages like this a lot. I think that there is a component or two that can't be overlooked in dealing with these kinds of issues. Time and Space.

Once someone is resurrected are they still subject to the laws of time and space like we are? Or, once someone is resurrected (yet future in our time) could they not then enter into a past time and space?

I think that this component is the only way to reconcile some passages of scripture. Food for thought....

As to the other part of the discussion, I think it is apparent that another writer recorded the death of Moses.

[John]

i dont know. it depends on whether the style or such differs. if not, than mosheh may have written it before his death, and his death instead got postponed because sammael fighting over the body of mosheh.

as for the time-space thing, that would be one of my last options. i would try to find something that scripture says first. if not, than i will look for what it implies, and it would definitely imply something like that with situations like this.

interesing though, itiswritten,.

shalom- john

[anochria]

but then there is the problem on how he couold die again

Well, Lazarus died after he was resurrected- although of course he wasn't resurrected with an imperishable body, but....

BTW, isn't Jude 9 considered to be quoting an intertestimental Jewish writing? Any info on that?

[John]

jude 9 quotes the assumption of moses and jude 14-15 quotes enoch... jude actually quotes alot of different scripts. he seems to see the bible as being a lax guide to life, not to be treated as a strict source of the word of God, as some do. he seems to see apocraphyl writings like this as well. he pulls the truth out of certain things as Sha'ul does with pagan poets.

and i was going to bring up lazerus as he ws ressurected and died again. and Yeshua was the firstfruits of all who rose in imperishable bodies. but then we have to explain the verse in hebrews that sys "every man must die once." i take it to mean "at least once" but others like David Stern think of it to be against reincarnation.

shalom- john

[anochria]

he seems to see the bible as being a lax guide to life, not to be treated as a strict source of the word of God, as some do. he seems to see apocraphyl writings like this as well. he pulls the truth out of certain things as Sha'ul does with pagan poets.

Why does Jude's quotation of other literary sources mean that he thought the bible was a "lax guide to life"?

[John]

it is his style of writing compared to other litereature. anyway, scholarship on this very interesting book indicates that Jude thought of the bible not as the overruling guide to life, but one of them, and that God coudld speak through other works, and spoke through prayer and such juust as much as the bible. he didnt have nearly as strict a view on the biblebeing infallible. it didnt matter to him. to him no part was really relevent unless it spoke to him (or rather, god spoke to him throuhg it). this is a typical gallilean idea of the bible and such. most of their spiritual eexperiences came from farming and such.

shalom- john

[anochria]

I agree with you that he seems to have not limited the ways in which, and the means through which God speaks, but I don't see him as casting any doubt or dispersion on the Law and the Prophets or the writings of the epistles in any way, or demonstrating a desire to "pick and choose" from what we would call the canonical writings.

[John]

he doesnt show that, although there is no proof for either view. either way, that is not what i was saying. i was saying that the bible is the instruction manual, but not a hard one to follow. it is a light yoke. and the truths are found in the noncanonical writings just as much as in the canonical. we have to realize that literature was not really a big part of religion until christianity. the jews had Torah, but no one really read it except for the rabbis. the christians were the first to take their religious writings so strictly. the ancienct jews (until the midievel period) often believed that the Torah was just the brief description of real lifestyle one was to take. ugghhh.... this is really hard to explain. i have got to go, and will talk alter, and i will explain more.

shalom- john