Wikipedia
It is written about you on Wikipedia that you believe you are considered an Epicurus according to the Sages and that you have some not-so-simple objections to the written Torah. Is this true, and if so, I would love to know why.
I don't think that's true. I'm making claims mainly about our day, and the sages didn't talk about our day. But even if I were considered such, it wouldn't make any difference to me, because I've explained several times that there is no authority regarding facts (and beliefs are facts). What a person thinks is what he thinks – whether the sages like it or not.
I have no appeals beyond the usual appeals. I'm just saying that even if the appeals are correct, I'm not afraid to say that there are later additions and edits.
What are the accepted appeals? And an unrelated question, do you have a rabbi?
Biblical criticism of various kinds. No.
In the article 'What is Chalot' in note 3, the Rabbi expresses himself towards Rabbi Moshe Reichenberg as 'Mor'.
Wonderful knowledge 🙂
I learned most of my Torah from him (the ones I didn't learn from books). But it's hard to define him as a rabbi in the conventional sense, certainly today (I assume he was also a protestant).
Please do not forget that the greatest unbeliever of all generations is none other than our forefather Abraham, who renounced idolatry (God forbid).
Maimonides ruled that the great men of his time who believed that God had a body were heretics. The Rabbi doubted at the time, but today no one disagrees.
The wisest of men, Mr. Albert Einstein, has already said that a new system is not accepted by those who disagree with it, but only when they gradually die, and the words are true to those who said them.
And DAFAH.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer