tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post4206495933109982226..comments2024-03-19T12:13:34.854-04:00Comments on Yeshivat Deah VeHaskel: In The BeginningRabbi Joshua Maroofhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12585369620887846940noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-65879199322873090772022-06-09T11:29:26.301-04:002022-06-09T11:29:26.301-04:00site cheap designer bags replica click here for ... site <a href="https://www.dolabuy.ru/wallets-c-157_158_201/louis-vuitton-n60357-aaa-croisette-chain-wallet-damier-azur-canvas-pink-p-3541.html" rel="nofollow"><strong>cheap designer bags replica</strong></a> click here for more <a href="https://www.dolabuy.ru/new-bags-c-157_158_167/" rel="nofollow"><strong>basics</strong></a> discover this <a href="https://www.dolabuy.ru/strap-c-157_224_225/replica-dior-shoulder-strap-aaa-camouflage-embroidered-canvas-p-1597.html" rel="nofollow"><strong>his comment is here</strong></a>seeseighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13086737656606515777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-87949044736592602372022-05-20T00:35:42.095-04:002022-05-20T00:35:42.095-04:00check my site high quality designer replica brow... check my site <a href="https://www.dolabuy.ru/tote-c-157_168_185/gucci-7-star-453705-tote-bag-gg-pattern-pvc-for-sale-online-p-1709.html" rel="nofollow"><strong>high quality designer replica</strong></a> browse around these guys <a href="https://www.dolabuy.ru/ch%C4%81nei-c-209_211/7-star-shoes-apricot-p-2297.html" rel="nofollow"><strong>replica designer bags</strong></a> click here to find out more <a href="https://www.dolabuy.ru/ch%C4%81nei-c-209_211/best-espadrilles-shoes-016-p-2164.html" rel="nofollow"><strong>high end replica bags</strong></a>tetishahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07007348895183214436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-83650295689763909462011-08-21T17:27:41.399-04:002011-08-21T17:27:41.399-04:00I really liked the article, and the very cool blog...I really liked the article, and the very cool blogAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-12734342171178782612008-07-30T16:02:00.000-04:002008-07-30T16:02:00.000-04:00Wow, talk about resurrecting an old post - I would...Wow, talk about resurrecting an old post - I would never have seen these new comments if not for the fact that the blog is linked to my email account.<BR/><BR/>Shlomo, I understand your point but I don't fully agree with your premises. Judaism has very much to do with ideas, values and principles. Simply performing mechanical actions is not sufficient.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me an unfortunate modern fallacy to proclaim that Judaism is about "deed not creed", when in reality, in human life, deed is nothing other than the concrete manifestation of creed. We are thinking beings and, as a result, our activities are inseparable from our ideas.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, one who subscribes to idolatrous beliefs, or declares his acceptance of other heretical notions, is treated no differently in Jewish law than a person who physically prostrates himself before a graven image. To distinguish between the two is to arbitrarily sever the concrete action from the worldview, values and goals it ultimately represents.<BR/><BR/>The prophets certainly did not exhort us to live lives in accordance with the law alone - they tried to inspire us to adhere to its spirit, which requires deep reflection and conviction in the philosophical and moral message of Judaism and not only its practical aspect.<BR/><BR/>However, your point that allegorical interpretation must stop when it crosses from the purely intellectual dimensions of Torah into the normative realm has a lot of merit and is well taken.Rabbi Joshua Maroofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12585369620887846940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-52601045978182531852008-07-30T15:49:00.000-04:002008-07-30T15:49:00.000-04:00"I see that you are willing to understand in a pri..."I see that you are willing to understand in a primarily allegorical fashion parts of the Torah when the historical evidence points to such an understanding. Besides for being very foundational to Orthodox Judaism, what stops you from applying that method to TMS?"<BR/><BR/>"you said their approach was not always to interpret literally. so, my question still stands. maybe the meaning of torah min hashomayim or torah m'sinai is also allegorical??"<BR/><BR/>=====<BR/><BR/>The "point" of religion is not that we proclaim allegiance to certain specific verbal formulations, but that we act in certain ways. This orientation is apparent throughout the (Jewish) Bible, and it would seem obvious to all of us, were it not for the immense influence of Greek philosophy and Christianity on Western ways of thought.<BR/><BR/>Coming from that starting point, the limits on Jewish Biblical interpretation are obvious. The details of the Breishit stories have little to no influence on our life, so if necessary, we can explain them however we like. In contrast, most non-traditional explanations of the events at Sinai have the effect of removing all the practical implications of TMS from our lives. Therefore, we must reject them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-51837432270890573442008-07-30T15:25:00.000-04:002008-07-30T15:25:00.000-04:00"but are these stories fact or fiction?"R' Maroof'..."but are these stories fact or fiction?"<BR/><BR/>R' Maroof's analysis would be valid in either case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-53833821993563291822008-05-15T21:07:00.000-04:002008-05-15T21:07:00.000-04:00"Daganev,How is it that you avoid getting banned b..."Daganev,<BR/><BR/>How is it that you avoid getting banned by XGH? For this accomplishment, I salute you :)<BR/><BR/>May 14, 2008 5:59 PM<BR/><BR/>"<BR/><BR/>I think its because I argue both sides of the argument sometimes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-73740402456543937432008-05-15T12:51:00.000-04:002008-05-15T12:51:00.000-04:00Sorry for the mixup. I also don't think in terms o...Sorry for the mixup. I also don't think in terms of a movement at least if Orthodoxy is defined in denominational terms like in Hungary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-70179101700184616342008-05-15T08:26:00.000-04:002008-05-15T08:26:00.000-04:00Perhaps Avrum since you claim to be Conservative X...<I>Perhaps Avrum since you claim to be Conservative XGH has no use for you as a Fundie Conservative</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, I don't consider myself Conservative, and think the movement (which I worked for) to be a mess. I don't really subscribe to any movement per se, though my beliefs are closer to Heschel.Avrum68https://www.blogger.com/profile/00035235825142137265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-69835239260498360162008-05-15T01:03:00.000-04:002008-05-15T01:03:00.000-04:00David A it should be pointed out that Chazal were ...David A it should be pointed out that Chazal were not presented with a set of books called the Bible preset with set interpretations and decided to alter the interpretations. Judaism always contained many traditions and books. Chazal determined which books and which texts for them to use for the Bible but they did not abrogate the right of various and conflicting traditions to have their say.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-53549443889527091692008-05-15T00:20:00.000-04:002008-05-15T00:20:00.000-04:00"avrum68 said... Daganev,How is it that you avoid ..."avrum68 said... <BR/>Daganev,<BR/><BR/>How is it that you avoid getting banned by XGH? For this accomplishment, I salute you :)"<BR/><BR/>Well if XGH thinks Daganev can get whipped that would be one reason. If Daganev boosts up the the number of comments that would be another reason. Perhaps Avrum since you claim to be Conservative XGH has no use for you as a Fundie Conservative. See repent and become an Orthodox Fundie. :-)<BR/>Today I got unbanned by him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-6908268227649130602008-05-15T00:05:00.000-04:002008-05-15T00:05:00.000-04:00correction: that should be "people who do believe ...correction: that should be "people who do believe in .... posit"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-21839728438628505742008-05-15T00:02:00.000-04:002008-05-15T00:02:00.000-04:00RJMyou said their approach was not always to inter...RJM<BR/><BR/>you said their approach was not always to interpret literally. so, my question still stands. maybe the meaning of torah min hashomayim or torah m'sinai is also allegorical??<BR/><BR/><BR/>Avrum68<BR/><BR/>>>>>> I've yet to witness a better display of Chutzpah.<BR/><BR/>I'm not quite certain what you mean by this remark. But what I meant to say was that it is correct that a basic argument that people who don't believe in a divinely authored book posit the corollary of TMS that the Torah is "perfect" and timeless. but based on the knowledge, worldview, and moral attitudes of OUR time, the book and its tenets are far from perfect. chazal made "corrections" and over time judaism made some more. and even these "corrections" might be changed in the future as mankind changes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-37497895648032483712008-05-14T23:21:00.000-04:002008-05-14T23:21:00.000-04:00David A.,My post was not intended to demonstrate T...David A.,<BR/><BR/>My post was not intended to demonstrate TMS, so I am not surprised that you didn't find it to be good evidence for TMS. <BR/><BR/>Sometimes it is appropriate to set aside the abstract question of divine authorship and actually study some Torah content.<BR/><BR/>Again, I never said Hazal were mistaken about the veracity of the historical experiences of the Jewish people. What I said was that their approach to interpreting the text of the Torah, and the specific details it presents, was not literal. <BR/><BR/>This is especially true of the early parts of the Book of Genesis, which chronicles not the national experiences of the Jewish people but the primordial evolution of mankind and civilization that forms the backdrop for the establishment of Am Yisrael.Rabbi Joshua Maroofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12585369620887846940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-46404524823871763352008-05-14T23:18:00.000-04:002008-05-14T23:18:00.000-04:00to an unsophisticated reader like me, it was mostl...<I>to an unsophisticated reader like me, it was mostly just a bunch of words</I><BR/><BR/>David A... what is a blog post if not "a bunch of words"? Surely you didn't anticipate that, after reading RJM's post, your laptop would spin 360 degrees, spew vomit from the screen, and talk in tongues (for the William Blatty fans).Avrum68https://www.blogger.com/profile/00035235825142137265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-21394147788124470922008-05-14T23:11:00.000-04:002008-05-14T23:11:00.000-04:00But you are most correct in pointing out the flawe...<I>But you are most correct in pointing out the flawed commandments as an argument against TMS.</I><BR/><BR/>I've yet to witness a better display of Chutzpah.Avrum68https://www.blogger.com/profile/00035235825142137265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-2454833653340890092008-05-14T22:23:00.000-04:002008-05-14T22:23:00.000-04:00RJM,Thank you your explanation on how you view the...RJM,<BR/><BR/>Thank you your explanation on how you view the historical aspect of the Torah, especially the first few chapters of breishis. You write eloquently and I did learn from it. Yet at the end of the day, to an unsophisticated reader like me, it was mostly just a bunch of words. If I were to sit on a jury empanelled to decide whether the book in question is divinely authored, I would have to vote that little of what you said constitutes proof or evidence. All I get (if i understood it correctly) from your “testimony” is that we (traditional Judaism) have been wrong in interpreting the book, that it can’t been taken all that literally. And to me if chazal as well, were allegorical to a degree in their interpretations, why can’t we simply modify (a la R. Louis Jacobs or similar) their literal meaning of TMS and say that it was humanly authored, (maybe with some kind of inspiration) to conform to the more likely “truth” or reality. After all, stating that chazal can be mistaken in historical events, isn’t what happened at Sinai (if it happened) an historical event?<BR/><BR/>Fedup,<BR/><BR/>It seems you don’t learn much from these interactions. You keep confusing Judaism with the Torah. But you are most correct in pointing out the flawed commandments as an argument against TMS. And to me, the amendments, and improvements that Judaism, especially Talmudic Judaism made to the Torah constitutes an important argument that even chazal consciously or unconsciously knew that there were flaws to fix. (abrogation of the death penalty, killing amelek, interest, shmiitah loans, ben sorer, etc.)<BR/><BR/>BTW I know it’s trivial, but I believe the word you both wanted is “unfazed” not “unphased”, unless you Americans spell it differently than we Canadians.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-34256991603296374962008-05-14T17:59:00.000-04:002008-05-14T17:59:00.000-04:00Daganev,How is it that you avoid getting banned by...Daganev,<BR/><BR/>How is it that you avoid getting banned by XGH? For this accomplishment, I salute you :)Avrum68https://www.blogger.com/profile/00035235825142137265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-56572839078317063822008-05-14T16:26:00.000-04:002008-05-14T16:26:00.000-04:00Bad dog Spot. See Jane run. Yeah very clear. They ...Bad dog Spot. See Jane run. Yeah very clear. They were fun to learn when you didn't know English spelling. So let me see FedUp says that Spinoza wrote better and yet the better a work the more difficult it is to understand. Yet somehow a mirtacle is supposed to happen yet with books written thousands of years ago and we don't need explanation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-70105038370395600442008-05-14T15:58:00.000-04:002008-05-14T15:58:00.000-04:00"I can certainly imagine a book with no need of in..."I can certainly imagine a book with no need of interpretation and further explanation but I don't know of any. Certainly many books written by humans are in need of interpretation and explanation. I just wouldn't imagine a Divine Text to be in need of such things.<BR/>"<BR/><BR/>Never read hop on pop by doctor sues? No explantion or interpretation necessary.<BR/><BR/>Another book up for the title of "perfect book" would be "See Spot Run"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-40285079202383027992008-05-14T12:11:00.000-04:002008-05-14T12:11:00.000-04:00RJM it is very interesting about the 70 Nations an...RJM it is very interesting about the 70 Nations and the 70 descendents. It is interesting and realted how we have signicance in the number ten and in the number 7. Combining it sends a message. This seen even more since in the list of names of those who went down to Egypt we have 69 so mentioning 70 descendents is requiring some meaning behind it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-37666954388306044012008-05-14T09:21:00.000-04:002008-05-14T09:21:00.000-04:00RJM,I respect your willingness to discuss issues o...RJM,<BR/><BR/>I respect your willingness to discuss issues of Torah with your fans/foes on-line. And yet, perhaps debating outspoken atheists, who celebrate their new found atheism, while mocking religion isn't the best use of your time, or this blog.<BR/><BR/>Both FedUp's challenges and your responses are akin to watching the movie Groundhog Day. It's like XGH's site over, and over, and over again. <BR/><BR/>Heschel was right... there's too large a gap/valley, whereby the believer and the non-believer can ever see eye to eye.Avrum68https://www.blogger.com/profile/00035235825142137265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-63549526502030773722008-05-14T04:16:00.000-04:002008-05-14T04:16:00.000-04:00FedUp your argument concerning the Oral law is wea...FedUp your argument concerning the Oral law is weak. It is no argument to say that violation of the law meant the lack of it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-4390028220492062192008-05-14T04:04:00.000-04:002008-05-14T04:04:00.000-04:00"I quote you on this one "at the end of Parashat Y..."I quote you on this one "at the end of Parashat Yitro: "And the entire nation witnessed the thunder, the fire, the sound of the Shofar and the smoking mountain..."" That seems like a pretty simple, pristine event if I ever heard one. Nothing out of the ordinary. Just natural occurrences like thunder, lightning, shofar sounds and smoky mountains."<BR/><BR/>Ah FedUp that wasn't supposed to happen on Mt. Sinai and also as for a bald faced lie politicians do it when people don't know it is a lie. <BR/><BR/>Also FedUp the people heard even though Moses communicated what was said. Deuteronomy Chapter 5<BR/><BR/>1. And Moses called all Israel, and said to them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that you may learn them, and keep, and do them.<BR/>2. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.<BR/>3. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, who are all of us here alive this day.<BR/>4. The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire,..."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33081113.post-70825768903833773722008-05-14T03:49:00.000-04:002008-05-14T03:49:00.000-04:00"I don't attempt to prove that the Torah is not Di..."I don't attempt to prove that the Torah is not Divine. I attempt to get you to prove to me that the Torah is Divine. I do assume that the Torah is not divine much as I would assume that the New Testament, the Koran, The Vedic Traditions, and any other book with such claims, as not divine. Man-made until proven divine is the best policy, otherwise we'd be very busy disproving all kinds of texts."<BR/>RJM is not assuming Divinity unless proven otherwise. He is just being open to Divinity and feeling it proven enough in the case of the Torah's origin. You by contrast say that in the absence of proof you have to assume no Divinity and then you discount the proof and say that that proves no Divinity involved. You are making a leap when a nonleap would involve you not taking a position. You fail to realize that you making an assumption of no Divinity in the absence of proof is arguing from doubt to then saying that it is for sure then not true. You're missing the leap you are making in your logic. Further you are not endlessly postulating Divinity when you have decided on one claim as that precludes any other. By contrast RJM admits there is no scientific proof but admits that just as you are making a leap based on arguments seeming reasonable to you he is making such a leap for him. You want so much to have an all simple and powerful argument for yourself that you fail to admit that you have to engage in argumentation the hard way. On your site you say that Christianity has apologetics and so does Judaism. This is irrelevant to your argument for Judaism's nonuniqueness. All apologetics are are arguments on behalf of something like what you do Fedup, and not a part of the uniqueness claimed by a faith. Apolegetics discusses such uniqueness it doesn't claim to be a part of it. The idea that atheists cannot be engaged in apologetics is semantic nonesense. It is not making sense to imply with TalkReason that apologetics is a sign of being wrong as it just means making arguments on your behalf and TalkReason is one hyperapologetic site. The idea of saying that your side needs no arguments and therefore has no apologetics is nonsense. You are then saying your side which claims to be based on reason need not be examined.<BR/>"Agreed. That of course is a very big claim. Wouldn't perfection leave no room for questions or doubt, meaning wouldn't it be perfectly understandable? Yet there have been countless books explaining and interpreting the Torah in exclusive ways for thousands of years.<BR/>Wouldn't a such a book be immediately recognized by the world as such? Yet it has been disputed by all, including it's followers, throughout the generations.<BR/><BR/>Wouldn't such a book be complete? Yet it is supplemented by the "Oral Torah" and countless commentaries."<BR/>You are making assumptions that would involve making people supermen. If we are to have meaningful morality and law it will have to involve complexity and that means forcing us to think and struggle for the meaning of what is being said. There is no growth with it being all easy with no struggle.<BR/>"Wouldn't such a book stand the test of times? Yet most people today find the cruelty towards the Amalekites, Egypt's firstborn, it's attitude toward slavery, the laws of agunah, and much more to be highly unethical."<BR/>Who determines the test? Those whose morality involves changing the time's morality to involve killing and allowing the suicide of those who are sick? Is it those who like Dawkins or especially some environmentalists who cannot see anything morally special about a human over a cow. The only evidence for Amalek's existence last I heard is from the Tanach and yet that is unquestioned by those seeking to defame us. In reality Amalek was continually being at war with us and we did not wipe them out and still Shmuel only condemned Shaul for sparing King Agag. He did not ask why Amalek was not literally wiped off the map. As for Egypt's firstborn if you are G-d you cause people to die and have other disasters and you can because you are G-d and you utilize the natural to your ends. He can do what towards his ends we cannot. As for slavery it was hard enough and there was lack of success shown at times too in having there be no Jewish slave class but even a Gentile slave was considered a human being working for you. The classical Greek philosophical conception was of a slave as an animated tool. As for the laws of Agunah when a man is lost we want to make sure he is really dead before she remarries. It is a balance and it is one in which the Rabbis exercised great sensitivity. You were not there to see it done time and again through Crusades, inquisitions, Pogroms and the Holocaust and other calamities. If one spouse is denying a divorce to another then complication begins just as in any legal system and it is likewise traditionally dealt with sensitivity by the rabbis. In any event the death penalty is something regularly imposed in the United States when by contrast in Israel it is not imposed and that is because of the force of religion and that based on the Talmudic Rabbis who endeavored to have it be so rare that it either was not imposed by them or else was almost never. Even in the days of the Tanach we find the enemy saying let us surrender to the King of Israel since we heard that the kings of Israel are merciful. The king was yet an idolater, King Ahab and yet he was still used to certain behaviors. Elijah condemns him to his face, Naboth doesn't give him his vineyard and yet it is only Ahab's Gentile wife who thinks of plotting against them. When a Prophet spoke in the name of G-d he dispensed with niceties to royalty. I am as yet unaware of such parallels. It is interesting that you FedUp are arguing against Judaism's uniqueness and yet you pile up it's supposed sins as if it's uniqueness is that it is evil. So instead of your argument being what is the probability you have the true faith you are arguing the faith you were a part of must for sure be really bad but Taoism for instance which you were not born into can be spared because of that accident.<BR/><BR/>"Wouldn't such a book be especially unique and not have glaring similarities from other ANE texts including the Code of Hamurabi, the Enuma of Elish, the epic of Giglamesh and other similarities."<BR/><BR/>It would have similarities too if it wants to have any relationship to the people as they are. Further there are many points of dissimilarity and the similarity is exaggerated if not outright untrue in many cases. Where is the conflict between G-d and others in the Creation story we posses? Where is the gruesome violence in it? <BR/><BR/>"On the particular of theology, I dont' understand the whole concept of theology when God is completely unknowable, according to Rambam."<BR/><BR/>You misunderstand the Rambam. He did not say G-d is completely unknowable. To whatever extent the Rambam said we cannot know about G-d it is that there is nothing for us to be physically capable of picturing with G-d. If I say you cannot understand the fourth dimension I only mean you can form no picture of it not that there is nothing told of it but if there would be we could picture it. On the contrary we cannot picture even in principle more than three dimensions as those are the only spacial dimensions we posses.<BR/><BR/>"IMHO, the Moreh was a much better book on theology, philosophy, and ethics and Spinoza's works were better still. That of course is none of our concern."<BR/><BR/>You are complimenting great rabbis including the Rambam by your comment as Spinoza was profoundly influenced in his conception of G-d. He however unlike the Rambam did not believe in the freewill to do right over wrong. <BR/><BR/>"If you are willing to dismiss the evidence brought by hundreds of scholars over about one hundred years in the most advanced time of technology and methodologies, from different lines of study, then perhaps we should regroup and discuss some more basic questions. Repeating a false claim doesn't make it true."<BR/><BR/>FedUp the theorizing of DH involves making assumptions about the Biblical text that would condemn the literature in the sourounding nations of the time to the same treatment and yet we know that would be false. Further the language of the Torah is not identical to later times. Friedman himself admits that that and he also admits that the foundations of DH as promulgated are not true but he still argues for DH by saying how much JED and P support DH. Of course JED and P were postulated by DH so of course they will help DH but yet no individual who is not a DH expert is allowed to postulate in its name. It is authoritarian not something any layman can postulate. If something doesn't fit and is noticed it may be switched by the DH experts to then conform. We have no tradition of JEDP and it has not been dug up and it is by now so filled with details that could not be thought up in advance that to think it could be dug up would be the same miracle as writing a novel and then finding it dug up by archaeologists and conforming word for word what you wrote centuries later. This would be a miracle that would violate causality in time much more serious than the splitting of a sea or a snake turning temporally into a staff in the palace of Pharaoh. The Biblical claim by contrast has the benefit of actually having been believed and passed down as the only belief that was claimed by those affected.<BR/><BR/>"There were 40 million people there and the experience was repeated over the course of several days. This makes it all the more believable, though IMHO the entire ordeal is very unbelievable."<BR/><BR/>The Aztecs did not claim to have had everyone see it. Nor is there trace evidence. With the Torah there is trace evidence. The Torah is out of time and place and whether given on a mountain is trivial. It is the trace evidence left behind.<BR/><BR/>"In Devarim, Moshe tells the people, presumably sometime later, that everyone heard God speak and what he told them. This claim however wasn't confirmed as far as we know by the other Israelites at that time and as you suggested, it may have been a ventriloquist's trick in the service of Moshe's agenda."<BR/><BR/>RJM suggested it concerning the Aztecs not Moses. Moses could not have done it as he was in open view. In any event the experience at Sinai and the going out from Egypt after being slaves there is referred to over and over again in the Tanach in such strong terms and as the very basis of Israel's existence and experience not as a piece of information and incidental but as known to all Israel with such clarity. There is a difference between that and being able to make up a visitation of Mary. It is avoiding the full issue to be pretending that any claim no matter how trivial to the experience of the people are equal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com