Hi there! For my comparative religions assignment, I'm looking to interview someone from the Judaism community to learn more about the beliefs and practices of Judaism. I would love the chance to speak with someone who could share their personal experiences and insights, helping me better understand the unique aspects of the Jewish faith. By interviewing someone from Judaism, I hope to explore how it compares and contrasts with other world religions and gain a more comprehensive perspective on religious practices and values. If you are willing to participate, your perspective would be incredibly valuable to my project. If you're open to it, I'd be so grateful for the opportunity to chat! Please leave a comment below if you are interested to participate,

I was browsing Amazon and found a book called When God Became Jesus, which was meant to respond to Ehrman's when Jesus Became God. This pissed me off because Ehrman isn't even a Jesus mythicist but they went after him anyway. And assuming they somehow had a hypothetically substantial response to his book that wasn't just "Nah uh, we think the events he talked about are unlikely because we can't consider our idea of the regular person doing it", it would still likely try to be in some way a "biblical" defense, since it was about God becoming Jesus in the title.

Long story short, I was wondering who made the argument that, assuming everything in the New Testament is historically accurate and the early church leaders thought Jesus was the messiah instead of the church retconning it centuries later, if Jesus still couldn't be the messiah because he didn't fit the prophecy. I'll take anything from academic works to spiritualist rabbis.

https://ewtn.co.uk/article-three-eucharistic-miracles-which-cases-have-undergone-the-most-extensive-scientific-analysis/

This article is trying to say that, in spite of an inability to procure DNA, human tissue has not only been found in communion wafers, but it was viable when it should be dead.

https://ewtn.co.uk/article-how-does-the-catholic-church-investigate-eucharistic-miracles/

This article proclaims that as part of the determination that something is a miracle, the "Chain of custody" prevents tampering and all scientific tests must be in agreement.

Obviously one could point out a factual or analytical error that I missed, but I was wondering about this all being true on paper, as a hypothetical, what the Jewish explanation would be. For example, if a Rabbi read about all these Catholic miracles one day, got frustrated, and then wrote an essay or something about how they don't prove anything.

The apparent intellectual isolation of contemporary Orthodox Judaism represents a significant departure from the historical engagement of Jewish scholars with secular knowledge. This shift, however, can be understood as a necessary adaptation to the challenges posed by modern academic scholarship.

Historically, Jewish intellectuals have made substantial contributions to various fields of study, including philosophy, science, and technology, often at rates disproportionate to their population size (Efron, 2014). This engagement was not limited to lay individuals but extended to prominent rabbinical figures as well. Many medieval Jewish scholars, known as Rishonim, were deeply engaged with the intellectual currents of their time (Ruderman, 2010). Maimonides' work "The Guide for the Perplexed," for instance, demonstrates a profound understanding of Aristotelian philosophy (Seeskin, 2005). Even earlier, there is evidence of Talmudic sages (Amoraim) in Babylonia interacting with secular intellectuals of their era (Gafni, 1990).

The emergence of Orthodox Judaism as a distinct movement coincides with the modern era, a period characterized by a significant shift in academic perceptions of religious texts. The Bible, once universally regarded as a divinely inspired document in Western academia, came to be viewed by many scholars as a collection of Middle Eastern myths, stories, and laws (Sommer, 2015). This shift in perception, coupled with advancements in various scientific fields, has led to the academic debunking of many traditional claims of Judaism.

In response to these challenges, Orthodox Judaism appears to have adopted a more insular approach to protect its core beliefs (Heilman & Soloveitchik, 1989). This strategy, while diverging from historical precedent, can be seen as a necessary adaptation to preserve the integrity of Orthodox beliefs in the face of academic findings that contradict traditional narratives. The apparent anti-intellectual stance of contemporary Orthodox Judaism is not a flaw, but rather a strategic adaptation that has enabled the movement to maintain its core beliefs in the face of challenges posed by Enlightenment thinking and subsequent intellectual movements.

This adaptation may explain why Orthodox Judaism has demonstrated greater resilience compared to Reform and Conservative movements, which attempted to reconcile traditional Judaism with Enlightenment values and modern academic findings. The founders of Reform and Conservative Judaism, such as Abraham Geiger and Zacharias Frankel, responded to the Enlightenment by accepting many of its fundamental premises (Meyer, 1988). However, these premises often conflicted with core aspects of traditional Jewish belief and practice. In contrast, Orthodox Judaism's relative insularity from secular intellectual trends has arguably allowed it to preserve its traditional worldview more effectively (Heilman, 2006).

The current intellectual isolation of Orthodox Judaism, particularly among its leadership (Gedolim), may be understood not as a flaw, but as a protective measure against ideological threats to its foundational beliefs. The absence of engagement with contemporary scientific theories among Orthodox leaders could be seen as a manifestation of this protective stance. This defensive posture, while potentially limiting engagement with broader intellectual currents, may serve a crucial role in maintaining the continuity of Orthodox Jewish belief and practice in the modern era (Soloveitchik, 1994).

In conclusion, while the current intellectual isolation of Orthodox Judaism represents a departure from traditional Jewish intellectual engagement, it can be viewed as a necessary adaptation in response to the challenges posed by modern academic scholarship. This strategy, though divergent from historical norms, may be crucial for the preservation of Orthodox Jewish beliefs and practices in an era where many traditional religious claims have been questioned or debunked by academic research.

Agree?

References:

[Efron, N. J. (2014). A Chosen Calling: Jews in Science in the Twentieth Century. Johns Hopkins University Press.](https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/chosen-calling)

[Ruderman, D. B. (2010). Early Modern Jewry: A New Cultural History. Princeton University Press.](https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691144641/early-modern-jewry)

[Seeskin, K. (2005). Maimonides on the Origin of the World. Cambridge University Press.](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/maimonides-on-the-origin-of-the-world/B24A2E31E7F6A1639E7A69864DF88172)

[Gafni, I. M. (1990). The Jews of Babylonia in the Talmudic Era: A Social and Cultural History. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center.](https://www.worldcat.org/title/jews-of-babylonia-in-the-talmudic-era-a-social-and-cultural-history/oclc/24014159)

[Sommer, B. D. (2015). Revelation and Authority: Sinai in Jewish Scripture and Tradition. Yale University Press.](https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300234688/revelation-and-authority/)

[Heilman, S. C., & Soloveitchik, H. (1989). Orthodoxy in American Jewish Life. American Jewish Year Book, 89, 19-115.](https://www.jstor.org/stable/23604014)

[Meyer, M. A. (1988). Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism. Oxford University Press.](https://global.oup.com/academic/product/response-to-modernity-9780195051674)

[Heilman, S. C. (2006). Sliding to the Right: The Contest for the Future of American Jewish Orthodoxy. University of California Press.](https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520247635/sliding-to-the-right)

[Soloveitchik, H. (1994). Rupture and Reconstruction: The Transformation of Contemporary Orthodoxy. Tradition, 28(4), 64-130.](https://www.jstor.org/stable/23261216)

https://daatemet.org.il/en/torah-science-ethics/pamphlets/pamphlet-1/

Does anyone know of a response for the halacha of it being ok to kill lice on shabbos because they do not reproduce? How can a halacha be based on something that has been proven scientifically wrong? Lice reproduce via male and female and yet Torah believes them to spontaneously generate from dust or mold ..

I am an Orthodox Jew (modern). I, and most other Orthodox Jews, have a major problem with the position of Reform Judaism—and any other non-Orthodox movement—as a valid form of Judaism. I don't often bring it up, because many people (quite understandably) take offense and therefore don't respond. I think, however, that this space is the perfect place to discuss the issue.
Before I begin, I want to clarify that my intent is simply to learn the position of Reform Judaism regarding the validity of the second part of its own title. I will here provide the Orthodox approach in the most thorough way I can think of, and then ask my question. Again, my description of the Orthodox approach may be offensive to some, but that is not at all my intent. I am simply stating the perspective from which I approach this issue, in order that you are able to phrase your answer in the context of my current position. I thank you all in advance.

I will explain by way of a very unusual parable. It won’t perfectly represent Judaism, but it will be enough to explain my point. Please bear with it:

In the medieval era, in an anonymous kingdom, there was a prestigious guild of stonemasons. These stonemasons crafted the most exquisite buildings and monuments, a skill passed down through generations. The guild had a stringent training process: apprentices would spend years honing their craft under the guidance of master stonemasons before being officially and legally recognized as true professionals.
One day, a disgruntled guild member, tired of the arduous work and nervous at the jealousy of his non-member peers, declared that he didn’t need to adhere to the traditional methods. “Why toil for years when we can simply call ourselves master stonemasons?” he announced. Some, frustrated with the demanding process and the growing jealousy of other guilds, rallied to his side. They began to informally recognize anyone who claimed to be a stonemason, without any regard for their actual skill or training, and without lawful officiation. This movement quickly gained momentum. Those who joined were not only former guild members but also many who had no background or understanding of the craft. The once revered title of master stonemason was now casually bestowed upon anyone who wished to claim it.
The actual stonemasons, with their deep-rooted knowledge and experience, watched in confoundment as the standards of their craft were compromised. They saw the new self-proclaimed stonemasons cease to produce structures, and instead produce objects of all sorts, from silverware to furniture to plants to foodstuffs—anything an individual decided to do. The title of Stonemason became nothing but an affiliation. Still, the original guild members, committed to their traditions, continued to uphold the rigorous standards that had defined their craft for generations.
As the movement of self-proclaimed stonemasons grew, it became dominated by those with no real connection to the craft. Their numbers swelled, and soon they vastly outnumbered the true stonemasons. The world, seeing the sheer size of the new group, began to question the legitimacy of the original guild. They accused the traditional stonemasons of being elitist, arguing that they had no right, as a minority, to define what it meant to be a stonemason. The true stonemasons, although surprised and somewhat angered, stayed firm to professional stonemasonry.

End of parable. I want to focus on the last bit: How can the Reform movement claim to represent not only Jews, but Judaism itself, as opposed to some alternative religion? It has different fundamentals, different laws of descent, and different conversions. How can it use the name “Judaism”? I find such a concept as absurd, if not more so, than the end of the parable.

This is not to say that Reform isn’t a valid religion; but to categorize it within Judaism seems logically impossible. Yet, that is how members of the movement categorize themselves. Why? What is the logical basis for doing so?

Again, I am entirely aware that this is a very sensitive subject, and I sincerely hope that the phrasing of my parable and my questions did not offend anyone. Nobody has to bring up how offended they are at the Orthodox view—I already understand. But this is genuinely the way that I see this topic, and I am looking to understand the perspective of Reform Jews.

I will likely ask questions on some of your responses. I will say here so I don’t have to before every reply—please do not take offense. Any questions I ask are not meant to be provocative, but productive. Thanks again.

I’ve recently embarked on a journey to explore different perspectives on the existence of God, specifically through literature that uses scientific evidence to argue for or against the concept of God. However, as someone who is not a scientist, I find myself questioning the utility of reading these books.

On one hand, these books offer a wealth of information and can provide valuable insights into the intersection of science and religion. On the other hand, without a deep understanding of the various scientific fields these books delve into, I wonder if I’m truly grasping the arguments being made or if I’m merely accepting the author’s interpretation of the science.

Furthermore, I recognize that no one, not even a scientist, can be an expert in every field of science. This leads me to question whether it’s worth investing time in reading these books, given the potential for misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

In addition to this, I’m also interested in finding books that purely discuss science and are universally accepted in their scientific accuracy. I believe such books could serve as a solid foundation for understanding the science referenced in theistic and atheistic literature.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this matter. Is there value in reading scientific arguments in theistic and atheistic literature for non-scientists? Are there any universally accepted scientific books you would recommend?

Jesus knows this really super funny joke where knock knock is the punchline. I don't want to apologize for it.

But when Wisdom (your sister) tells a joke, laughter is the punchline.

Because Heaven is for Jesus sheep, and sheep say Bah.

But when Wisdom say something you say aha!

And when you hear something funny you say haha,

So when your sister made the joke they said

bah aha! haha

Just looking for a respectfull debate about this topic.

Statement 1 - It is not the place for man to intervene between the faith of God and another man. If God so wills it, the mans faith will be tested - but we aren't supposed to be the one putting blockades on the way to God.

Statement 2 - In the Book of Ruth (1:16-18) we see Ruth convert and become a believer in God, and Naomi doesn't argue against that. So, Tanakh considered, it is the faith that makes you a Jew, no so-called "test" you are supposed to pass.

Statement 3 - "We are the chosen people" I don't see how that relates. We are chosen because we obeyed God and didn't need to hear His entire plan first - if they are willing aswell, there should be no problem.

Statement 4 - It is an enforcement of cultural tradition of the Jews on God, to have to do 1,2,3,4,5,6, etc before you get to actually become a believer in God. This just goes back to my views in statement 1 - that we aren't the ones to be testing the faith of man, and that it is Gods role to do so.

Thanks ahead of time for answering!

I am not Jewish and I am a frequent viewer of Sam Aronow’s YouTube channel and he frequently says that being against tattoos are part of Jewish-American customs and compares the prohibition against tattoos to other non-binding cultural traditions of other Jewish communities like Ashkenazi Jewish superstitions against naming a child after a living relative or Sephardi Jews being allowed to consume rice during Passover.

Leviticus 19:28 says “You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves.”, it seems like a pretty unambiguous prohibition against tattoos universal to all Jews, not just American Jews. Do only American Jews interpret this verse as a prohibition against tattoos? If so could it possibly be a result of lingering influence from the Puritans that are usually blamed for the more puritanical aspects of American culture?

Our Sages said that it is permissible to kill lice sometimes found in one’s hair on Shabbos since such lice do not reproduce and are merely created from the sweat in one’s head. The Rambam (Chapter 11 of Hilchot Shabbat) and Maran Ha’Shulchan Aruch (Chapter 316) rule likewise.

modern science has proven that lice reproduce through male and female like any other living creature. What I've seen as far as responses is that we do not have the authority to overrule what our saged said even if it's been proven otherwise by modern science. I don't really understand this rationale and am having a hard time accepting this. Can anyone provide a reason as to why this is still in effect today? Practically speaking, is it a practice to kill lice on Shabbos, do people actually do this?

Wondering if anyone knows the current thinking (or consensus if there is one) on the origins of Ashkenazi Jews?

I saw a paper that seemed to indicate there is very little Levantine DNA in Ashkenazi Jews - much more Iranian. This surprised me, because I know members of the Judaen population ended up in what’s now Iraq, but didn’t know they were in Iran. Here is the paper: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087/full

Am wondering if there is very little direct relation between ancient Israelites and modern Ashkenazi Jews.

Greetings. The obvious meaning of the promised land throughout the Jewish bible (I'm a Christian, forgive me if I botch terminology) is the physical land of Israel. When there was a Temple, it was assumed that God resided there ... he was geographically present. However the more time I spend with the prophets and other writings, the more it seems there's an ... I don't know ... spiritual? meaning. Ezekiel's vision shows that God moved with his chosen people into exile and presumably is with them no matter where they are.

So my question is, in Judaism is there a concept of "the promised land" being not only physical but also a wider relationship with God and that that wider relationship is at least as important as the land of Israel?

Sorry, this is worded badly. Hopefully you understand what I mean. I've been thinking about this for a while but can't quite get my mental model into a concise question.

The Torah prescribes the severe label of mosser, informer, for those who resort to secular courts. However as with any point of Jewish law, it has extenuating conditions.

Manny Waks suffered sexual abuse by a Yeshiva staff which was covered up. He later took the leaders to court and attained vindication. Nevertheless, what he did drew the ire of Chabad all over, with some calling him an informer.

I’ve suffered psychological and social abuse from my orthodox community. The Beis Din tried but could not do anything. So to me it’s time to summon the Human Rights Tribunal.

Do you think Jews can achieve a unanimous opinion on whether to get secular authorities involved? Which positions are objectively right? What Manny did has raised awareness of sexual abuse in the Jewish community (sexual abuse exist in similar rates across all communities). Was he justified in going outside the Jewish court which may itself be part of Jewish law when situations warrant it?

UPDATE: I now see that I have made two enormous assumptions that are both false. This post is therefore incorrect.

My first incorrect assumption was that I did not realize that the majority of ultraorthodox and even modern orthodox Jews are young earth creationists. This is a very extreme position that I did not realize was common among Jews. For radical hardcore science deniers, scientific facts would cause no issues for their literal reading of Gen 1 or any other part of the Tanakh. Once one denies the validity of the scientific method and the facts learned through it, there would be no problems with the scriptural conflicts with science.

My second incorrect assumption was that even weakly religious people ascribe at least some input from God in the Torah. If one accepts that the Torah is written entirely by humans without input from God, then it is easy to accept that the humans got stuff wrong. What I don't understand in this case is why one would still be religious at all given that belief.

Major thanks to /u/0143lurker_in_brook for this explanation of what Jews at different levels of religiosity actually believe.

I will continue to reply to anyone's comments on this. But, my understanding of other people's beliefs is now radically different than it was when I posted this.

Original post, unchanged and left for posterity:

My Background:

I'm a 59 year old atheist who was raised weakly Jewish in an American Conservative synagogue. I had a bris, a bar mitzvah, and was married to my wonderful wife of 35 years and counting by the rabbi who officiated my bar mitzvah. I do not speak Hebrew.

While I have absolutely no problem typing or writing the name, out of courtesy and respect for the religious Jews on the site, I will use Hashem. I do not want some minor offense at using the name typed out in any form to distract from the very real issues I'm intending to discuss.

However, when I quote the translation I am using, it will spell out one of the names. I apologize for any offense caused by this. But, I do not want to alter the Chabad Lubavitchers' translation in any way for fear of changing meaning.

My Assumptions:

1. I'm going to assume that the 7 days of creation are not literal. I don't know if there are any young earthers here. But, I will be assuming that it is irrelevant to the bigger questions here since no one can tell me what an earth day would mean before the creation of the earth and sun anyway.

2. I will assume that everyone will be OK using the Chabbad Lubavitcher's website for the translation of the text.

3. If you would like to dispute the translation, I have no objection. But, I would like you to do both of the following:

   a) Give your preferred translation of the verse in question.

   b) Explain why you think the difference between your preferred translation and this translation is a material difference that truly changes the meaning AND negates my point.

The Problems for Judaism:

1. The order of creation is provably false.

   Even if we just treat the literal seven days as some vague time brackets indicating the order of creation, Hashem does not seem to know how He created any of it.

2. The universe described in this text is not the universe in which we live.

   In fact, it is very much unlike our universe in significant and meaningful ways. This would indicate that if there is any divine inspiration for the Torah, that Hashem did not know what He created.

My Premise:

Hashem did not know what He created or how He created it. There is no reason we or anyone else should believe that He is indeed the creator of the universe?

Here is a link to the Chabbad translation of Genesis 1. I will be using only the English since I do not speak Hebrew. But, the parallel of original Hebrew and the English translation are both here.

My argument begins here.

Genesis 1 The Beginning

1 In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth.

In reality: In the beginning the universe was a hot dense mass.

The earth would come roughly 9.25 billion years later, about 60 million years after the sun.

Facts:

• Age of the universe (since the big bang): 13.8 billion years

• Age of the sun: 4.6 billion years

• Age of the earth: 4.54 billion years

• Age of the moon: 4.51 billion years -- important later.

2 Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water.

In reality: The earth was molten rock. But, the sun had already formed. So, darkness was not over any surface of water because A) the surface was glowing hot (not dark) molten rock (lava), way too hot for liquid water and B) the sun was already here.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

In reality: There was light from the time that the universe was about 370,000 years old and had cooled and expanded sufficiently for photons to travel.

So, talking about light being created over 9 billion years later is clearly false.

Facts:

• Universe became transparent at [370,000 years old.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe#Recombination,_photon_decoupling,_and_the_cosmic_microwave_background_(CMB\))

• The first light sources (stars) formed at [1 billion years after the big bang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe#Recombination,_photon_decoupling,_and_the_cosmic_microwave_background_(CMB\)), still more than 9 billion years before the sun.

7 And God made the expanse and it separated between the water that was below the expanse and the water that was above the expanse, and it was so.

So, this verse indicates some physical barrier that separates the water above from the earth. So, the sky is some kind of physical barrier above which is water.

However, when astronauts flew to the moon, they did not use a submarine. Instead of water above an expanse, they found our atmosphere trailed off and they flew through mostly empty space.

Hashem thinks there is water there. Even our most distant space probes have found space to be mostly empty.

11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.

Ah, now we get to evolution. This is clearly wrong because here Hashem is stating that He created plants before He created the sun. I'm not sure what light these plants had. He did make some kind of light prior to this. But, it wasn't the sun.

Worse, the first plants arrived on land about 470 million years ago (MYA). This is well after the Cambrian explosion in the sea which began roughly 539 MYA. So, complex life in the sea predates land plants by around 69 million years or so.

Worse still, fruiting plants didn't evolve until about 100-125 MYA. But, the Torah has them evolving before the Cambrian explosion.

Again, Hashem does not seem to know the order in which He created things, casting a lot of doubt on whether He did indeed create them.

14 And God said, "Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens, to separate between the day and between the night, and they shall be for signs and for appointed seasons and for days and years. 15 And they shall be for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shed light upon the earth." And it was so. 16 And God made the two great luminaries: the great luminary to rule the day and the lesser luminary to rule the night, and the stars.

Those plants had been waiting very patiently for the Sun to be created. Good thing they didn't die in those many millions of years.

Now we come to another major problem.

The sun is older than both the earth and the moon. But, Hashem says He created the sun and moon after plants evolved and creating them at roughly the same time. But the sun is almost 100 million years older than the moon. And, both are more than 4 billion years older than plants.

Also, the moon reflects sunlight. It is not in itself a light.

So, Hashem did not know when He created the sun relative to plants. Hashem did not know that He created the sun before the earth. Hashem did not know that the moon is younger than the earth. Hashem did not know that the moon only reflects light, rather than actually creating it, as the sun does.

These are some pretty serious problems if Hashem is alleged to have given the Torah to Moses. Hashem is supposed to know what He created and in what order He created it.

17 And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to shed light upon the earth.

So, Hashem thought He put the sun and moon at roughly the same distance from the earth and in that physical expanse that is holding back the waters above the expanse.

But, the moon is only ever at most under 407,000 km from earth. Compare that to the sun at an average distance of 149,600,000 km from the earth, or more than 367 times as far from earth as the moon.

Again, Hashem does not seem to understand the universe He is alleged to have created.

20 And God said, "Let the waters swarm a swarming of living creatures, and let fowl fly over the earth, across the expanse of the heavens."

Now we finally got to the sea life that was here 69 million years before the first plants and more than 400 million years before the fruits Hashem had allegedly already created.

This is completely out of order.

26 And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth."

Here Hashem is explicitly creating humans very separately from the rest of the animals and in Hashem's own image. This is clearly wrong since we evolved from and are apes. I was personally born so many weeks premature that I still had my ape fur (lanugo) to prove my evolution from apes.

And, if we are created in Hashem's image, that brings up a whole enormous host of problems.

80% of humans have back pain at some point in their lives. The design of our bodies is exactly what you'd expect from evolution, good enough to survive. But, from a perfect designer, that good enough is pretty sucky. Our backs are a horrible design. Does Hashem also suffer from back pain if we are in His image?

There are numerous other problems in our design including that our sinuses that drain up, our testes that start in our abdomens and must drop to our scrota leaving a cavity that puts the males of our species at high risk of hernias, knees that cause problems for a lot of people, eyes with blind spots because the rods and cones in our retinas are backwards, our pharynx that creates high risk of choking, and quite a few others.

All of these point to evolution rather than to a perfect designer who designed us in his image. Even if we assume that the problems in the design of our brain are the result of our fall from grace in the Garden of Eden, that does not explain all of the physical flaws in our bodies.

With Orthodox Judaism, the basic claim is that the Jewish people were enslaved in Egypt, and God freed them and brought them to Mt. Sinai where he gave them the Torah through Moses, and the Oral Law which was handed down through prophets and rabbis, with its authority going through the rabbinical leaders of the Tanaaim, Amoraim, Gaonim, Rishonim, etc.

For Conservative Judaism, I used to be under the impression that they also believed in the same giving of the Torah, but that there needs to be more flexibility on the rabbinic side of things (including application of rabbinic law, changing laws with the times, and being more flexible with interpretations of the Tanach, like maybe Noah’s flood was a metaphor). However, I once saw a video of the preeminent Conservative rabbi David Wolpe where he says that the exodus could not be historical based on archeological evidence (I believe he said he was persuaded by Israel Finkelstein). But that left me wondering, if that is acceptable in Conservative Judaism, what exactly is the fundamental basis of the faith? Is it faith that the scriptures were in some way divinely inspired? Is there a belief in any historical mandate that the Jewish people were actually commanded by God to do anything, or is it more about following in our people’s past traditions and efforts at knowing God regardless of how they developed?

Hi, apologies if this has been asked before.

​

I would like to know, given that the Christian theory of Jesus's resurrection has supporting evidence in the form of eyewitness testimony (albeit recorded several decades later in the four gospels), why does Judaism believe that Jesus did not resurrect in this way? What evidence conflicting with the Christian theory indicates that a different set of events occurred?

https://www.docdroid.net/s0qMN0R/ben-sira-on-ot-canon-again-the-unknown-pdf

During the time when Daniel was supposed to have been written, documents were dated by the reign of Nabonidus while he on numerous occassions (eg. Daniel 8) dates things by the alleged reign of Belshazaar. This seems to indicate that Daniel was not written in the 6th century.

Do you believe that the book of Daniel is historical or ahistorical and why?

The largest gathering in history was ~70 Million people (mid-estimate). Suppose all of them decided to play Russian Roulette for some reason. All of them respin the cylinder before shooting (and only shoot once) and all survive. The odds of this happening are 1.1904761904761905e-08 or .00000001904761904761905. Is this evidence of supernatural intervention?

What would convince the believers here that Judaism was untrue and for the unbelievers here what would convince you that it is, in fact, true?

Marc Shapiro in his paper on Orthodoxy (especially the MO) and Biblical Criticism shows an increasing openness to it. How do you think this will affect the Orthodox?