Why think that the Torah is eternal?

It is not written anywhere in the Torah that it is eternal. There are indeed variations of the phrase “forever” and “eternal law,” but this can be interpreted in the sense of a very long time, such as “and serve forever” in the case of a Canaanite slave who is until the jubilee. In the Book of Proverbs (3:16), he went on to explain that the Torah itself has no proof that it is eternal.
What the Rabbi brought from the verse “Nevi Akim” and “Gosh,” I did not understand what he meant. Where does it say here that there will be prophets forever and ever? The Holy One only said that there would be prophets, and indeed there were prophets in Israel for a very long period of time.

Tradition says it is eternal.
I didn't understand your argument. I'm supposed to provide evidence that there should always be prophets, otherwise there's no problem with what I'm saying, but can you argue that there should always be God's involvement and not need to provide evidence?

What is “Today God does not interfere with creation.”
We keep the Sabbath because God rested on the seventh day, after He finished with creation. Are you actually asking Him to stop the Sabbath rest and desecrate it for you?

Regarding the eternity of the Torah.

The Torah is not eternal. But the punishments that the people of Israel have suffered and will suffer for not keeping the Torah will not cease as long as we do not cleanse the Torah. This is written in the Torah.

“I didn't understand your argument. I'm supposed to provide evidence that there should be prophets forever, otherwise there would be no problem with my words, but can you claim that there should be God's involvement forever and no need to provide evidence?”

I didn't understand a word of what our rabbi said. I never claimed that ”there should be involvement forever”. I claimed that since the Torah speaks of a state of involvement, and its commandments are given as a covenant between the Creator (who intervenes) and the creatures (who keep the commandments), then apparently it is intended only for this period in which the covenant between the two parties is fulfilled.
What does this have to do with the verse נבי אקים וגו’? If anything, perhaps we should learn from that that the Torah is intended only for the period of prophecy in which there was God's involvement in creation.

So yes, you understood every word perfectly. That's exactly what I argued: According to you, everything in the Torah should be eternal or alternatively, when it is abolished, there is no longer any religious obligation. I disagree with that.

I did not claim that everything must be, etc., certainly not a specific passage in the Torah (-the example from the verses about a prophet).
I only claim that since throughout the Torah(!) a covenant between two parties is presented, and not a unilateral obligation, then apparently God did not intend to command us to run away, but to make a covenant with us. And if we see that at a certain point the covenant ceased (since He no longer fulfills His part), then apparently He intended the Torah to be temporary and intended only for the period of God's involvement in creation.
There are other reasons to assume that the Torah was not intended to be eternal at all. According to the Maimonides, the Torah commandments were intended to bring people to abandon idolatry, there is certainly no reason to think that God would require us to keep the commandments even when idols had almost disappeared from the world (certainly from the civilized world. I am not talking about pagan tribes in the Far East). Apparently he intended the Torah to be temporary, until the civilized world abandoned idolatry. And now his goal was achieved, and through Judaism (mainly through its daughters Christianity and Islam) the idols passed from the world.

Of course, the Torah is eternal.
And this is the Torah that Moses gave before the children of Israel = that is, as long as Hitlers of all kinds do not succeed in their plot to destroy us, then the Torah of Moses is before us.

There is a clear and simple difference that ”I will raise up a prophet” and so on did indeed take place. To verify the verse, one prophet is enough for me. On the other hand, the ”conditions” that God gave to the keeper of His Torah are not fulfilled (“I gave you your rains in their season” for example) due to lack of private oversight, for example, if so, a fundamental condition for the fulfillment of the contract of the giver of the Torah is missing here. And therefore, it is difficult to know what Torah observance is today if its conditions, which are explained in the verses, are not fulfilled.

Where have you seen that it is not being observed and you have given your bodies to them?
In general, where have you seen anyone keeping the Torah? Even the important year of Shemitah has been uprooted.

I saw it in the perception that private providence had ceased.
I saw many who kept the mitzvot.
Shmita was uprooted because the condition for the mitzvah was not met. So it was not uprooted but was not said in the cry of the island of Gavana. And precisely because of this I say that the non-fulfillment of the condition of “And I gave you your rains” which stems from the absence of private providence, therefore a condition is null and void, a mitzvah is null. And since this condition is for all the mitzvot (as is explained there in the verses), therefore when it is not met, all the mitzvot do not apply at all. And your words are uprooted from the root.

Where does it say that there is private supervision?
The Torah speaks mostly at the level of the people. Your sins are public. If one keeps a commandment and the rest do not, it does not interest the Torah. The people of Israel are important.
In any case, the year of Shemitah was abolished because the Jews would not be able to keep it. Especially the Shemitah of debts. In this, the Jews followed the laws of the Gentiles.