Why Jews don't believe in Jesus

[dybmh]

I respect your choice.

What choice?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Advent: Statistical Probability of Jesus Fulfilling Messianic Prophecies

Advent is a period of preparation and purification in readiness to celebrate the first coming of the Lord, Jesus the Messiah. Advent begins November 28 and runs through December 24.

www.linkedin.com

No offense, but this is not what I was asking for.

It is quite common for Christians to say there are hundreds of prophecies (you guys can't even agree on how many), most of which are not considered prophecies at all by Jews. It really is not productive for you to link me with one of these long lists, and for me to simply say that most of these are not prophecies. It just doesn't advance the conversation.

What I would like instead, is for you to give me two or three of your BEST examples, so that we can home in on those two or three.

For example, when I remark that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies, I usually quote one as an example (such as Isaiah 2:4), and that can then be discussed.

I'm just talking History and textual criticism.I think that religious perspective just leads toward bias.

History and textual analysis today are guided by scientific principles.

Standard mainstream Christian theology is literally traditional Christianity.
The Church has been the same , from day one.
You haven't looked in Eastern Christian literature.There is 10x more then what Western is offering.You can not find these things , you can only expirience them by studying them and visit places.
Some Books are out of reach , you can not find everything online.

The doctrine of the Atonement absolutely is mainstream, ordinary, traditional, orthodox Christianity. This includes Eastern Orthodoxy. While Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't include the substitutionary models that we find in the western church, it absolutely does teach that Jesus' for our sins.

I certainly have not studied EO in the same depth that I've studied Catholicism or Protestantism, but I'm not exactly ignorant either. Indeed, it is pretty unusual for a Jew such as myself to have studied these things at all.

I've probably spent more time studying the various world religions that my own religion, but this is because it has been a driving force in my life to pin down just what I believe and why, as well as to simply understand others better. I live in a Christian culture, so I view it as necessary to understand those Christians all around me.

I told you , look up the video , 18 minutes of your time, but when there are things to be settled , nobody usually has the time.

Stop bossing me around. If I've told you no; you need to accept that.
1. I have a limited amount of time during the day that I can devote to these forums, so reading long links or watching long videos is absolutely out.
2. I'm here for discussion. If I want to browse the web, I can do that some other time. So if you want me to respond to a point, you will need to say it yourself, or if you are using a website, you will need to quote exactly that part you wish to draw my attention to.

We teach that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah.

You can teach it all you want. It doesn't make it true.

He didn't converted , but he created new movement in some sense.

I don't think it was ever Jesus' intent for a new religion to form. He preached only to Jews, telling us to keep the commandments, and how best to do that. That's Judaism.

So the events prior to that matter.The events that happend had some influence (I am not saying the events alone had influence)

You are going off on a tangent.

You are simply refusing to acknowledge the fact that a Jewish canon already existed at the time of Jesus and Paul: Moses (Torah), the Prophets, and some would say the Psalms. That an additional section was added at a later date is irrelevant.

How do you know that ?

Because the earlier manuscripts don't have it and later manuscripts do. This is not rocket science.

Who is suggesting that?

Scholars. Take it up with them.

Not interested in reconstructed texts.

Okay, so a scientific approach is out for you. That's fine. I just need to remember that you are anti-science, so that I no longer bring up scientific evidence.

That tells only the line of scholars that you follow.

I'm talking about the consensus of scholars, not sime teeny tiny group. If you don't like what they are saying, take it up with them, not me.

They don't know how to translate Koine.

Seriously? Scholars that have spent the time to develop an expertise in Koine Greek don't know how to translate it properly? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

He was so irrelevant that they needed to tell Pilate about his 'blasphemy'.

Huh? The Talmud never mentions any trial of Jesus by Pilate. The few places he's mentioned is only in the context of Roman governance.

You can jump to 'Judaism and Eden and Eve' and see how irrelevant is Jesus.
You yourself replied there.

I did? Well, I don't remember what I said, but when the topic of Jesus in the Genesis story of Adam and Eve comes up, I pretty much give the standard Jewish response: that the serpent is never identified as Satan, and that seed (meaning an uncountable plural) refers to all humanity, not the messiah.

Then why do you say that he was irrelevant ?

Because not every Jew or Rabbi who engaged the the Hillel/Shammai debate is relevant. Most simply repeat the ideas of others, or advance ideas that were never taken seriously. If Jesus' arguments with bet Shammai were relevant, they would be mentioned in the Talmud, and they are not.

He was so irrelevant that the Jews were afraid that the Romans could have punished them because of his claims?

Huh? Jews were punished by the Romans because:
1. We would not accept Roman polytheism.
2. We had a whole bunch of Jews claiming to be the messiah pushing back on Roman rule.
3. We started two wars for independence from Rome.

Who do you think that told the Romans about Jesus?

Christians.

You can count to 1 milion , it is all the same to me.
To me this is just a discussion.

It is a discussion in which you routinely bring up irrelevancies. This sort of thing makes it very frustrating to try to have a rational discussion, and has the potential to send the discussion off on tangent.

I meant translations from Jewish people.
There are Jewish people who can translate Hebrew to English as best as it gets , or ?

All translations are woefully inadequate, including those translated by Jews fluent in both Hebrew and English (or Greek).

Interpretations change through time.

Irrelevant.

Yes , that is how we narrow the choices of authors.

The point, which you have yet to acknowledge, is that the mention of an event in a text in no way means the text was contemporary with that event. Philip Freeman discusses Julius Caesar in his book by that name. Does this mean that Freeman wrote it back in the days of Julius Caesar? Or did he write it 2000 years later?

IOW you cannot use the fact that Acts discusses the journeys of Paul to prove it was written contemporary to those journeys. It can be written any time after those events, including, as scholars suggest, sometime from 80-90 BCE.

If you still can't understand this point, I don't know what to say at this point. I have very clearly lined out the logic. If you don't get it, that's on you.

Letters , many letters to tell a story.

The intent of a letter is very different from a story. A letter is designed to touch base with someone, telling them how things are going in one's life or giving advice. If I wrote a text composed entirely of a lengthy summary of the War of the Roses and mailed it to you, that would be more rightly classified as a historical brief than a letter.

 

[Betho_br]

Can we say that there are Jews that believe in Jesus?

A video that undermines Christianity highlights several issues, such as questionable identity, the United Nations' stance on ethnic identity, which reports that it is the community that justifies its members and not the other way around, a Christianity based on personal experiences rather than a rational examination of both Scriptures, mixing the Hebrew Bible with the Christian Bible, among other things. If the person in question were a dispersed Jew who had a genuine experience with what Jesus preached in the Gospels, they would logically become a zealous Orthodox Jew, strictly adhering to the Torah, because Jesus lived during the time of the law and had not yet died. All the examples Jesus provided are under the law: Hebrews 9:16-18 "In the case of a will, it is necessary to establish the death of the one who made it, since a will is only valid in the case of death, because it never comes into force while the one who made it is alive." Despite this, the book of Hebrews is not entirely reliable. I couldn’t even finish watching the entire video...

 

[IndigoChild5559]

They are not written in standard English , they are written in Koine.

We not discussing a Koine Greek word, but the English word book.

Ok , what was the reason for the author to not mention the death of Peter' and Paul' - the most controversial figures among the Apostles?

Because the deaths of Peter and Paul, just like the destruction of the Temple, were irrelevant to the theologies Acts is designed to teach.

Yes you can , you can predict outcomes.They might came to be true , or not.

Since you clearly want to obfuscate by yanking my words out of context, let me clarify. The destruction of the Temple by the Romans is not something that someone with normal intuition would have been able to foresee. Since precognition doesn't really exist, the only explanation of a reference to the Temple's destruction would have to be that it is written after the event.

I write what i want , when i want,whenever i want.
You can do the same.
If that drives you nuts , you should chill a little bit.

Absolutely, you can absolutely write anything you want. And if another finds your lack of logic too frustrating, the can stop talking to you. So basically, if you want a good rational discussion with others, you need to make a better effort. Of course, if you don't care for those discussions, no harm done. There are quite a few people in this forum who only post to hear themselves talk.

You don't present historical facts based on consensus , you present theories and evidence regarding the issue.

The consensus of scholars is based on evidence. You have created a false dichotomy.

And then the bias comes to miracles , since miracles do happen.

I'm fine if we disagree on this, but simply wish my own view to be understood.

I do not think God went through the trouble to design the laws of nature only to turn around and break them. Therefore regarding miracles there only remains three possibilities.

1. That a miracle is simply something that is rare and astounding and for which we have no scientific explanation YET. It doesn't mean that in the future we won't have such as scientific explanation.
2. That the person claiming a miracle is lying, or at least embellishing.
3. That the person is truthfully relaying what they believe to be a miracle but who either does not know or simply dismisses known natural explanations of the same event.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Ok , so we see direct responce to Christian belief , can we agree on that?

In only those two instances? Yes, we can agree on that.

They are different beliefs system.Just because mainstream Judaism rejects them , does not make them to be of same value.

I thought the discussion was those things that were significant to Judaism.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Can we say that there are Jews that believe in Jesus?

"Escape from Jesus: One Man's Search for a Meaningful Judaism " by Shlomoh Sherman

https://www.amazon.com/Escape-Jesus-Search-Meaningful-Judaism/dp/0915474034

 

[muhammad_isa]

Those are apostates.

Just as well G-d is the judge, and not you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Those are apostates.

But you said that reform and conservative Jews are apostates also, didn't you?

 

[Dimi95]

No offense, but this is not what I was asking for.
It is quite common for Christians to say there are hundreds of prophecies (you guys can't even agree on how many)
, most of which are not considered prophecies at all by Jews.

Micah 5 talks about prohecy.

It really is not productive for you to link me with one of these long lists, and for me to simply say that most of these are not prophecies. It just doesn't advance the conversation.

After reading all of your answers do i need to say now to you that you should not care what is and what is not productive here,especially not for me - since you took to discuss it like i was trying to boss you in some way , which is not true.Everything that i share is just a suggestion.

What I would like instead, is for you to give me two or three of your BEST examples, so that we can home in on those two or three.

Micah 5:2,start from there.

For example, when I remark that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies, I usually quote one as an example (such as Isaiah 2:4), and that can then be discussed.

I understand , start from Micah 5

History and textual analysis today are guided by scientific principles.

Not completly true , but i will prove this to be true while we are discussing.
You just have to take a wors in faith , can you do that?

The doctrine of the Atonement absolutely is mainstream, ordinary, traditional, orthodox Christianity.

Whz don't you let me tell what is what in Christianity and stick to Judaism.
I did not interfere within your belief and dogma and what you said it is, i accept your answers on the basis that you want them to be accepted.But i don't have to agree within belief , you understand that do you? Just as you do , i have the same right.

This includes Eastern Orthodoxy. While Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't include the substitutionary models that we find in the western church, it absolutely does teach that Jesus' for our sins.

Yes because we are born with the ability to sin.That's not much of a choice , it's like selection in nature.We don't know what we will posses and become.Maybe we will sin , maybe not , we don't know.
Because we are not guilty of it , we were given a gift.

I certainly have not studied EO in the same depth that I've studied Catholicism or Protestantism, but I'm not exactly ignorant either. Indeed, it is pretty unusual for a Jew such as myself to have studied these things at all.

Yes , i understand that it is pretty unusual.That is why i am carefull about the amount of evidence that i bring.

I've probably spent more time studying the various world religions that my own religion, but this is because it has been a driving force in my life to pin down just what I believe and why, as well as to simply understand others better. I live in a Christian culture, so I view it as necessary to understand those Christians all around me.

I see that.
I never said that you were not educated.
But i think that you lack knowledge when you speak about the NT.

Stop bossing me around. If I've told you no; you need to accept that.
1. I have a limited amount of time during the day that I can devote to these forums, so reading long links or watching long videos is absolutely out.
2. I'm here for discussion. If I want to browse the web, I can do that some other time. So if you want me to respond to a point, you will need to say it yourself, or if you are using a website, you will need to quote exactly that part you wish to draw my attention to.

Ok , np.
I am not here to continue in conflict , that was a suggestion.I apologize if you taught of it like that.

You can teach it all you want. It doesn't make it true.

It's not about what we want , it is about what it represents in our culture.If it isn't true to you , fine.
Jewish culture itself does not make something to be true just because its Jewish,same for Christian.

I don't think it was ever Jesus' intent for a new religion to form. He preached only to Jews, telling us to keep the commandments, and how best to do that. That's Judaism.

Well not so.
But i will ask you again - just paying atention since this is not everyday talk for you.
What of the Christian NT have you read untill now?

You are going off on a tangent.

You are simply refusing to acknowledge the fact that a Jewish canon already existed at the time of Jesus and Paul: Moses (Torah), the Prophets, and some would say the Psalms.That an additional section was added at a later date is irrelevant.

No i am saying the oposite.
Jewish canon already existed , they were religious group of people.I acknowledge that.
The Jewish belief was established in a canonical order named as TaNaKh , and that happend sometime after Josephus writings.So every event before that matters.

TaNaKh was not planned , it was defined as it is now at certain point in history.

Because the earlier manuscripts don't have it and later manuscripts do. This is not rocket science.

That's not an argument itself.

Define what do you mean by earlier manuscripts , define what is later.
Why are thr earlier more reliable then the later ones?

Scholars. Take it up with them.

Are the basis of your opinions , limited to Scholars?

Okay, so a scientific approach is out for you.

There is nothinh scientific to talk about.
What should we talk about , miracles and how they happen? Do you think it is appropriate to communicate on such level?

That's fine. I just need to remember that you are anti-science, so that I no longer bring up scientific evidence.

So Miracles don't happen in Jewish culture or what?

I'm talking about the consensus of scholars, not sime teeny tiny group. If you don't like what they are saying, take it up with them, not me.

Ok , that's fair.

Seriously? Scholars that have spent the time to develop an expertise in Koine Greek don't know how to translate it properly? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

They make errors sometimes.
Just like people do with Hebrew sometimes.
The language that i speak and the alphabet i use is derrived from Koine , i don't know what to say.
I can recognize their misinterpretations when they translate words.

Huh? The Talmud never mentions any trial of Jesus by Pilate. The few places he's mentioned is only in the context of Roman governance.

Yes , but he is mentioned in the Epistiles of Ignatius of Antioch

I did? Well, I don't remember what I said, but when the topic of Jesus in the Genesis story of Adam and Eve comes up, I pretty much give the standard Jewish response: that the serpent is never identified as Satan, and that seed (meaning an uncountable plural) refers to all humanity, not the messiah.

I don't know much about what you wrote last.
How do you mean refers to all humanity and not the messiah?
Can you help me understand where dkes it refer to all humanity.

Because not every Jew or Rabbi who engaged the the Hillel/Shammai debate is relevant. Most simply repeat the ideas of others, or advance ideas that were never taken seriously. If Jesus' arguments with bet Shammai were relevant, they would be mentioned in the Talmud, and they are not.

How would Jesus ideas would be mentioned if he was considered as apostate?

 

[Dimi95]

Huh? Jews were punished by the Romans because:
1. We would not accept Roman polytheism.
2. We had a whole bunch of Jews claiming to be the messiah pushing back on Roman rule.
3. We started two wars for independence from Rome.

Yes that is between 66–74 CE
But that was not so 30 years earlier.
This is the line of emperors:
Augustus (27 BCE–14 CE)
Tiberius (14–37 CE)
Caligula (37–41 CE)
Claudius (41–54 CE)
Nero (54–68 CE)
Galba (68–69 CE)
Otho (January–April 69 CE)
Aulus Vitellius (July–December 69 CE)
Vespasian (69–79 CE)
Titus (79–81 CE)
Domitian (81–96 CE)
Nerva (96–98 CE)

Tiberius is judged as competent and overall, and good in some sense.At least that's what most of Historians get right.
So in his time there was no bigger reasons for revolt.
There are only minor issues , but nothing significant.What is significant is in the 60s and 70s.

I mention this because we speak about Jesus.

Christians.

Before he was crucified?

It is a discussion in which you routinely bring up irrelevancies.

When you say they are irrelevant you need to explain why.

This sort of thing makes it very frustrating to try to have a rational discussion, and has the potential to send the discussion off on tangent.

But i will not adjust myself and speak about things that necessitate me to adopt to your set of beliefs.
I will bring facts , even if they don't fit in my or your world view.
You need to get over that if you want to discuss this sort of things with me.

All translations are woefully inadequate, including those translated by Jews fluent in both Hebrew and English (or Greek).

But if you know Hebrew you would know why these translations are inadequate , and where is the issue?

Irrelevant.

They were relevant in the time of the Prophets , but they are not of importance when they surround the NT events.

The point, which you have yet to acknowledge, is that the mention of an event in a text in no way means the text was contemporary with that event.

Correct.
But you have ways of knowing how it might be contemporary.
That is what you need to accept.

Philip Freeman discusses Julius Caesar in his book by that name. Does this mean that Freeman wrote it back in the days of Julius Caesar? Or did he write it 2000 years later?

You are Begging the Question.

IOW you cannot use the fact that Acts discusses the journeys of Paul to prove it was written contemporary to those journeys.

Fine

It can be written any time after those events, including, as scholars suggest, sometime from 80-90 BCE.

But he existed , and he was an important Christian missionery , and every rational thinker will ask themself why is his death not mentioned if he was so important.That's what comes as a burden of knowledge when you are so well-informed about certain area of study.

If you still can't understand this point, I don't know what to say at this point. I have very clearly lined out the logic. If you don't get it, that's on you.

You have to prove a point firsy , and we might check everything that is written or ask a third person to see what is stated.

The intent of a letter is very different from a story. A letter is designed to touch base with someone, telling them how things are going in one's life or giving advice.

You speculate too much on irrelevant rhings and much less on important things as matter od discussion.

They were letters that had religiois purpose.

Define it how you wish , it's all the same.

If I wrote a text composed entirely of a lengthy summary of the War of the Roses and mailed it to you, that would be more rightly classified as a historical brief than a letter.

This has to do with Fallacies of irrelevance

 

[Dimi95]

We not discussing a Koine Greek word, but the English word book.

We don't need to discuss English , it's irrelevant , won't you agree?
I don't disagree with you on the translations , i disagree with you on other issues.

Because the deaths of Peter and Paul, just like the destruction of the Temple, were irrelevant to the theologies Acts is designed to teach.

Acts was not designed to be anything.
It is account of History as a whole.

Since you clearly want to obfuscate by yanking my words out of context, let me clarify. The destruction of the Temple by the Romans is not something that someone with normal intuition would have been able to foresee.

That's what this is about
You don't have to have some intuition to predict such things.It may be predicted only on the basis od belief.

Since precognition doesn't really exist, the only explanation of a reference to the Temple's destruction would have to be that it is written after the event.

The author could have predicted based on belief and me and you can't do nothing about it.

Absolutely, you can absolutely write anything you want. And if another finds your lack of logic too frustrating, the can stop talking to you. So basically, if you want a good rational discussion with others, you need to make a better effort. Of course, if you don't care for those discussions, no harm done. There are quite a few people in this forum who only post to hear themselves talk.

You can not make me to adjust to certain criteria just because they don't satisfy your line of reasoning.
These are not just written up theories.Thez have been studied.

I am just carefull about the amount of data i say , because i know this is not everyday talk to you.

To me it is , that's why i answer pretty quickly when i am focused.

The difference between us is probably me knowing more of data sureounding the NT.

The consensus of scholars is based on evidence. You have created a false dichotomy.

False
The consensus of Historians is based on evidence,but not every NT scholar is a Historian.
To be able to think outside of religion , the best way proven to be adequate is to think like a Historian.
Not all Scholars understand evidence as Historians do.
Just by being a scholar on the NT does not make you a Historian.You have to satiafy certain criteria and be consistent with other Historical accounts.
You don't get this title on piece of paper , you earn it.

I'm fine if we disagree on this, but simply wish my own view to be understood.

I do not think God went through the trouble to design the laws of nature only to turn around and break them.

Therefore regarding miracles there only remains three possibilities.

1. That a miracle is simply something that is rare and astounding and for which we have no scientific explanation YET. It doesn't mean that in the future we won't have such as scientific explanation.
2. That the person claiming a miracle is lying, or at least embellishing.
3. That the person is truthfully relaying what they believe to be a miracle but who either does not know or simply dismisses known natural explanations of the same event.

I hear you
Just I am surpised on what you said when i look up Deuteronomy 10:21

 

[Eliana]

Just as well G-d is the judge, and not you.

I'm not interested in the opinion of a Muslim, or any non-Jew, on Jewish law.

 

[Eliana]

But you said that reform and conservative Jews are apostates also, didn't you?

How many times are people in this thread going to keep asking some version of this question, which I have already answered?

 

[GoodAttention]

How many times are people in this thread going to keep asking some version of this question, which I have already answered?

Apostate is a word with very strong connotations, and the way you weild it like a flamethrower makes people nervous..

 

[Kenny]

Those are apostates.

No… they are Jews believing in the Jewish Yeshua Hamashiach. All I am saying is there is not a few who believe in Jesus. I wonder if, as this next one suggest, there are manh ore but they are afraid of the repercussions like this next one...

All in the statement that there are Jews that do believe contrary to your statement...

 

[IndigoChild5559]

We don't need to discuss English , it's irrelevant , won't you agree?

No, we don't agree. We are discussing the meaning of the word "book." It's an English word. Greek is irrelevant to the discussion.

Acts was not designed to be anything.

Every book in the New Testament is designed to teach Christianity.

You don't have to have some intuition to predict such things.It may be predicted only on the basis od belief.

All predictions of the future are based on intuition. Sometimes it is informed intuition, as with someone who has gathered a great deal of facts, and then projects based on those. Sometimes not. Some people have a better sense of intuition than others. But in all cases, intuition is notoriously unreliable. Nor do they allow us to intuit past a certain degree -- there are many things that happen that were inconceivable to people in the past.

Intuition should not be confused with imagination, though they are related. I can imagine a pink lunar elephant with green polka dots, but that is not an intuition, nor something I think likely.

Beliefs don't come out of nowhere. They are either based on one's own intuition, or by one's acceptance of another's intuition.

The author could have predicted based on belief and me and you can't do nothing about it.

Belief in WHAT? No one in 33 CE could have envisioned the destruction of the Temple, just as no one in 1900 could have predicted the use of 3D printing to make guns.

The difference between us is probably me knowing more of data sureounding the NT.

It is really a bad idea for you to make this assumption. You don't know me. The fact that I disagree with you is no reason for you to conclude that I am less educated.

False
The consensus of Historians is based on evidence,but not every NT scholar is a Historian.
To be able to think outside of religion , the best way proven to be adequate is to think like a Historian.
Not all Scholars understand evidence as Historians do.
Just by being a scholar on the NT does not make you a Historian.You have to satiafy certain criteria and be consistent with other Historical accounts.
You don't get this title on piece of paper , you earn it.

I think we both hold scholars in esteem. I often get into trouble with others for saying that a person has no right to claim expertise if they haven't put in the time and effort to get an advanced degree. We get all sorts of armchair "experts" who are offended by that.

What we are discussing here is how to date the book of Acts. That requires experts of historical criticism and textual criticism. I think we both agree we are not talking about theological experts who go to seminary and study the Christian teachings in the Bible. For example, someone with a PhD in Paleography gets to have a say in this matter. Someone with a DD (doctorate of divinity) does not. Are we on the same page here?

I hear you
Just I am surpised on what you said when i look up Deuteronomy 10:21

Oy vey. Enough with the irrelevancies. I looked up Deut 10:21 and it has no relationship to our discussion.

 

[YoursTrue]

How many times are people in this thread going to keep asking some version of this question, which I have already answered?

So allow me to reiterate your belief to firmly establish what your group of Jews believe and teach. You believe that reform and conservative Jews as some are here, are apostate Jews. That does not include Jews for Jesus or atheists born and possibly raised as Jews.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

No… they are Jews believing in the Jewish Yeshua Hamashiach. All I am saying is there is not a few who believe in Jesus. I wonder if, as this next one suggest, there are manh ore but they are afraid of the repercussions like this next one...

All in the statement that there are Jews that do believe contrary to your statement...

The OP has her own personal beliefs and opinions about Jews for Jesus, just as you do, but I doubt you will ever agree on this matter.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not interested in the opinion of a Muslim, or any non-Jew, on Jewish law.

So which Jewish teacher do you agree with? As has been noted here, take two Jews and you get three opinions, right? I live near a large Orthodox Jewish community and on Saturdays, if the weather is nice you see men and women walking with their children. There is a big picture of M. Schneerson. You probably know who he is. Do you think he could be the Messiah?

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not interested in the opinion of a Muslim, or any non-Jew, on Jewish law.

How about Maimonides? Interested in his opinion? I really appreciate his belief that God is going to resurrect the dead. I hope you do, too