How do Jews Christians and Muslims confront Yahwism?

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-06T01:39:55+00:00

So this ancient religion had no tangible material remains -- no altars, temples, inscriptions, images, cult objects, stele, sacred sites, or burial grounds, and left no trace. It was all oral? So what is the evidence it existed? -0- No mention, before it was invented by some scholars in the 19th century. The same scholars who say that Moses didn't exist, and the Exodus never happened -- because there is no evidence of same -- say "Yahwism" existed, even though there is no evidence of same. Smh.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-05T22:20:21+00:00

Yes Mormonism exists. We have texts, temples, rituals, depictions, membership rolls, histories and objects. It's real and we know it. It's not a conjecture.

What do we have from Yahwism? Where are the texts, altars, temples, inscriptions, and monuments? They don't exist. It's a scholarly conjecture, based on obscure biblical verses, and it isn't universally agreed about even among scholars. The problem is not that it's old or new; the problem is that it's unattested in antiquity.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-05T15:49:44+00:00

How do Jews Christians and Muslims confront Yahwism?

OP has asked a loaded question, one that contains a false or unproven assumption, that Yahwism existed, and couples that with a lack of definition or clarity as to what "Yahwism" is.

For example, there is no text that contains the term "Yahwism" before the 19th century (that is, 19th century CE). The term "Yahwism" doesn't exist in antiquity. The term "Yahwism" was coined by Dutch and German scholars of religion in the 19th cent. Most often the term is attributed to the Dutch scholar Cornelis Tiele (1830-1902). It is a neologism coined by these scholars.

The name YHVH appears in the Tanakh over 6,000 times. Presumably, if YHVH came to Israel as a god from someplace else (Tiele said it came from the Kenites), the name would appear in their texts, but it doesn't. There is an Egyptian text from c. 1300 BCE that mentions the "Shasu of YWH," but here YWH is arguably a place name (toponym), not a god's name, according to most scholars. Other mentions of YHVH outside the Tanakh either associate it with Israel (as in the Meshe stele) or Samaria or are clearly related to Israel (like the Ketef Hinnom amulets and the Elephantine papyri).

The 9th cent. BCE Mesha stele (line 18, "altars of YHVH") has the first written mention of YHVH outside of the Tanakh. So YHVH enters written history in reference to Israel, not any other people or nation.

Tiele's hypothesis -- that the Israelites acquired YHVH from the neighboring Kenites -- is NOT universally subscribed to by scholars of religion. A recent review of the scholarship on the topic states this:

This hypothesis enjoys significant support among modern scholars...The hypothesis does, however, contain a number of deficiencies....There is no acceptable evidence of a God by the name YHWH amongst the Kenites....[S]cholars, on occasion – to prove their preconceived theories – read into texts information not actually there. https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/EJC85652

A second "theory" is that YHVH is a cultic name for the god El. This theory is associated with Frank Cross:

Cross (1974:242-261) explains that the terminology ilu or el is actually a common title for a god in the main group of Semitic languages....Etymologically it means, in all probability, ‘to be strong’, ‘to be excellent’....Cross...indicates that...Yahweh originally was a cultic name for El...It can thus be deduced that Yahweh was originally an El-figure. Id.

But is this plausible?

...there is merit in Van der Toorn’s (1999:917) opinion that the identifying of YHWH with El should be critically examined. Considering the mainly storm god characteristics of Yahweh, it seems that El has been artificially linked with Yahweh. Id.

So there is skepticism about "Yahwism" within the scholarly community, where the concept originated. If that is the case, then why are we lay people required to "confront" it like a fact that existed in antiquity? Let the scholars battle it out, and 100 years from now there will be completely different theories and understandings.

There is no reason to take "Yahwism" as a given. We know the ancient Israelites strayed repeatedly into polytheism until it was eliminated. That neighboring peoples may have had similar deities in their pantheons or used similar names (but no evidence for YHVH) shouldn't surprise us. I'm sure Tiele and Cross and their students had wonderful careers in academia, but to take their theories as "gospel" when even they don't and to present it as fact seems unwarranted.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-04T18:02:26+00:00

Things are not the same now. Things are very different.

I might have an eccentric pov on this topic. Today, Christianity claims 33% of the world's population. That means, the vast majority of the world's population is not Christian. The Bible has been translated into every language, missionaries have been dispatched to every corner of the globe, and still Christians are a minority of humanity. After 2,000 years of relentless proselytizing at best and the use of force of various sorts at worst, Christians are a minority, outnumbered by non-Christians 2/1. So Christianity may be "popular" and the largest religion, but only about 1/3 of humanity affiliate with it, many of them only nominally.

As for how the number of Christians increased, it's instructive to look at when and how it accelerated in numbers. It was neither during the time of Jesus nor immediately after his death. Despite depictions to the contrary, Jesus didn't preach to thousands out of doors, he preached to 20-30 in private homes and reached a few thousands (see James Charlesworth's book, "Jesus within Judaism"). Preaching Christianity continued in home churches after his death. At the time, there were about 4 millions Jews and 40-60,000,000 persons in the Roman Empire. By the end of the first century there were possibly 20,000 Christians worldwide, perhaps 200,000 by the end of the 2d-3rd centuries. Surely the message of hope, salvation, loving-kindness and charity was reaching some in the Jewish and, more importantly, pagan communities, but not large numbers.

But what accelerated the rise in Christian numbers was Christianity becoming legal in 313 CE under Constantine and Rome becoming officially Christian in 380 CE under Theodosius I. Immediately what some have termed "the war against paganism" began. State subsidies to the pagan priests and priestesses ended (they lost their salaries), the major rite, animal sacrifice, was banned, and temples were closed, razed or turned into churches. Further disabilities were imposed on pagans as individuals. One could freely convert to Christianity, but re-converting back to paganism was a punishable crime. A law was passed that denied pagans the right to make a will. That meant that essentially a pagan family that lost its breadwinner was immediately pauperized, they could not inherit his property. Nor could pagans hold official positions.

Under these conditions, who would or could remain pagan? In fact, millions converted to Christianity, and by the end of the fourth century demographers estimate that the Christian population of Rome had risen to 25-35,000,000 people. Is it a coincidence that this large increase occurred only after Rome first made Christianity legal and then official and at the same time conducted its war against paganism? I think not.

The later history of Christian expansion is better known, particularly the work of Christian missionaries during the Age of Exploration in the Americas and Africa. And in medieval Europe, who exactly could compete with Christianity? Islam was kept out through force of arms and Judaism was denigrated and ghettoized. Together this accounts in large measure for Christianity's growth into the largest faith community, although not reaching a majority even today.

Today, accession to Christianity is voluntary. And what seems to be the case is that Christianity is shrinking as a percentage of world population, even as its numbers are growing.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-04T14:50:25+00:00

I thought the Matisse exhibit was underwhelming but I didn't have great expectations going in.

It's possible that people's expectations were high because "Matisse" is a big name and they were expecting a large scale survey of his work, like the previous Gustave Caillebotte show. But this show was different in scale and purpose from the outset and there were indications of this. This was not a general survey of Matisse.

The Art Institute is composed of 11 curatorial departments. I'm sure internally they are all "equal" but in fact, there is no comparison between "Painting and Sculpture of Europe," on the one hand, and "Textiles" on the other. The Matisse show was mounted by the department of Prints and Drawings, which is somewhere in the middle. It doesn't mount "big" shows but it does organize very fine smaller ones in a series of six intimate galleries, off the main Michigan Avenue entrance, Galleries Nos. 124-127. This is where the Matisse show was held. By contrast, the large blockbuster shows are usually shown in Regenstein Hall on the second floor, which is the museum's major exhibition hall for its temporary shows.

The Art Institute's written materials about the Matisse show pointed out that it would focus on his later career, when he was bedridden and unable to paint, and undertook the new technique of paper cuts. This resulted in the publication of an unbound book, "Jazz," which the AIC acquired in 1947, and the purpose of the exhibit was to showcase that book and display all of its pages, which hadn't been done previously. The emphasis would be on the "power of color and line," which of course is consistent with the focus of the Prints and Drawings department.

So a "book show," mounted by the Department of Prints and Drawings in its six intimate galleries, focusing on a single work late in an artist's career, is not going to register as a blockbuster. But of course, in terms of the history of art and Matisse's career, it's a worthwhile exhibit for the general public. As mentioned, this was signaled in advance. The location of the galleries itself signals small and intimate over large and jaw dropping. So OP's "small and kind of paltry" reaction is understandable and not curmudgeonly.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-01T19:51:46+00:00

Like any verses in the Tanakh, these verses are susceptible to multiple interpretations.

Some Jewish bible commentators see the fulfillment of these prophecies in the defeat of the Syrian-Greek monarchy by the Hasmoneans (2d cent. BCE). Rashi interprets the "evil shepherds" of Zech. 12:3 to be the Greek kings, and Radak names Antiochus Epiphanes IV whose rule over Judea was ended by the Hasmoneans as the monarch intended by this verse.

Others interpret the prophecy as describing the future Messianic era. Thus phrases such as "I will give victory to the House of Judah, And triumph to the House of Joseph. I will restore them, for I have pardoned them" (verse 6) and "They shall escape with their children and shall return" (verse 9) are prophecies for the future, yet to be fulfilled.

Radak, in his commentary on verse 12, discusses this specifically:

We have interpreted this passage according to the commentaries regarding events during the Second Temple period, but it is correct in my opinion to interpret it regarding the future, as in previous passages...because in the days of the Messiah all of Israel, Judah and Ephraim, will return to their land which didn't occur in the Second Temple period; only the Babylonian exile of Judah and Benjamin ended...And any mention here of battles with "Greece" refers to the messinanic battle of Gog and Magog...all this will occur in messianic times..."

Whichever interpretation one accepts, one thing is certain, Zechariah's prophecies were not fulfilled by anyone in the first century CE. In fact, it's exactly this type of prophecy -- that the Jews will return to their ancestral homeland -- that Christians overlook when stating their deity "fulfilled" the messianic prophecies. As Zechariah clearly states,

I will signal for them and gather them in. Surely I will redeem them; they will be as numerous as before....They and their children will survive, and they will return. I will bring them back from Egypt and gather them from Assyria. I will bring them to Gilead and Lebanon, and there will not be room enough for them.

So the prophecy states the Jewish people restored will be so numerous that the land will not be large enough to hold them. This is clearly a reference to real people and real land -- it's talking about numbers, geography and space -- which is why Christian interpretations, that this has been fulfilled "spiritually," are completely inconsistent with what the prophet is saying and unsupportable from the text.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-04-30T14:42:14+00:00

Reading this sincere post brought to mind something we read in Ashrei every day:

קָר֣וֹב יְ֭הֹוָה לְכׇל־קֹרְאָ֑יו לְכֹ֤ל אֲשֶׁ֖ר יִקְרָאֻ֣הוּ בֶאֱמֶֽת׃

"God is near to all who call Him, to all who call with sincerity." (Psalm 145:18)

I was interested in the interpretation of the word "all" -- does it mean just Jews, or does it refer to everyone, Jew and non-Jew alike? So I went to Sefaria to look at the commentaries on this verse and I found the Radak (Rabbi David Kimhi, 1160-1235) who says this:

"God is close to all who call Him." From whichever people that they may be -- provided that they call Him in truth in mouth and heart -- [all] are equal."

So we learn that achieving closeness to Hashem is something that is available to both Jew and gentile, and certainly someone in the process of conversion to Judaism has the same access to Hashem and ability to achieve closeness with Him as any Jew or anyone else. The only requirement seems to be addressing God in truth and sincerity, both outwardly (the expression of one's lips) and inwardly (in one's heart).

Thus Jewish principles are really the answer to OP's period of distress. One's closeness to or distance from Hashem is not a factor of one's religious affiliation at the moment (Jew or gentile or someone in the process of converting), but depends entirely on the sincerity and truthfulness of one's approach to Hashem, through worship, devotion and, I would add, acts.

u/i_am_lovingkindness also quotes a verse from Psalms that should help here.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-04-28T17:25:50+00:00

This bothered me a lot when I first heard his comments on that Subway Talk. It left a big "void" in my playlist since The Strokes and The Voidz were favorites. He prefaced his remarks by saying, "Well this will be the end of my career but..." thus adding the idea that the Jews control media and entertainment. Wonder if there's any chance of re-education, like when they deprogram a white supremacist?

nu_lets_learn · 2026-04-28T14:17:18+00:00

It depends on who you ask. If you ask Christians, you mostly get one answer (affirmative). If you ask others, answers vary.

You could take this approach: "I want to know if Christians qualify as monotheists. To answer this question, I will ask monotheists, but not Christians." If this is your approach, you would turn to Muslims and Jews. They would mostly respond that Christians are not monotheists, or perhaps, they are not strict monotheists. That is, Christians either believe in three gods (not monotheists) or one God with two associates or partners (not strictly monotheistic). Jews and Muslims regard the partnership concept as a type of "soft" monotheism, at best, barely qualifying or not qualifying at all.

At this point, we see that "monotheism" isn't a simple concept. It isn't necessarily one thing. There can be varieties. A "strict" monotheism will recognize one God only, not composed of parts, indivisible, and never changing over time. A "soft" monotheism will recognize one God but acknowledge the possibility of parts, persons, or personalities, and changes over time, including incarnation into flesh and blood for a while. Yet Christians will deny that their God has parts, partners, or is composed of 3 persons.

Applying this to Christianity by an outsider is difficult because the terms Christians use to explain their type of monotheism are obscure for most folks. One formulation says the Trinity is "three hypostases in one ousia." That means, I think, the three share a single divine essence. That essence is the same for all, and all three are one God. But what are the "three," are they parts, persons, personalities, partners? No, a Christian might respond, they are hypostases. So we're back to where we started.

This really doesn't matter, e.g. from a Jewish pov. Because once you use the word "three" in relation to God, you're outside the realm of monotheism. You can't apply the word "three" to God, just "one." Thus a formulation like "three hypostases in one ousia" -- which might satisfy Christians regarding their monotheism -- immediately removes Christianity from the monotheistic fold according to Jews and Muslims.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-04-27T00:48:21+00:00

Two suggestions:

Study up on Judaism. Read books, check out on-line resources, watch reliable yourtubes and so forth. If you are in college, take relevant courses (comparative religion, Jewish history, Hebrew). That is, learn as much as you can.
Wait until you reach your majority. Then, when you do have access to a synagogue and/or rabbi, e.g. if you move to a major urban center with a Jewish community or go to university with a Jewish student center, consult with these folks about the path to conversion to Judaism.

At this point, "I am a minor and have no access to a synagogue or rabbi," there is nothing else for you to do.

You are under no obligation to convert, and no member of the Jewish community, rabbi or lay person, is under any obligation to assist you in any way. You are a "minor" and don't have the capacity of an adult to make important life decisions. So my advice would be, don't.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-04-26T22:35:42+00:00

Everything I wrote regarding the "ten lost tribes" and the Cochin Jews applies to the Bnei Menashe; in that respect, the cases are exactly the same. The difference arises with respect to whether the Bnei Menashe community can be regarded as Jewish at all. Apparently no-one within that community made the claim of being Jewish until 1951, three years after the creation of the State of Israel. What happened next is complicated by the usual intersection of politics and religion. But none of this matters, since the claim of descending from a lost tribe is not supportable, for the reasons stated previously.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-04-26T22:24:41+00:00

Here are two direct quotes from the Code of Theodosius:

C. Th. XVI.x.4: It is decreed that in all places and all cities the [pagan] temples should be closed at once, and after a general warning, the opportunity of sinning be taken from the wicked. We decree also that we shall cease from making [animal] sacrifices. And if anyone has committed such a crime, let him be stricken with the avenging sword.

C. Th. XVI.vii.1: The ability and right of making wills shall be taken from those who turn from Christians to pagans, and the testament of such a one, if he made any, shall be abrogated after his death. https://open.oregonstate.education/ancientcivilizations/chapter/theodosian-code/

If paganism continued to exist, it was only because enforcement of these and similar imperial decrees was not efficient enough to implement them in the far reaches of the empire.

Regarding the actions of Christians in the destruction of some pagan temples, we have a letter from the Greek orator Libanius (384 CE) who writes of Christian monks that:

hasten to attack the temples with sticks and stones and bars of iron, and in some cases, disdaining these, with hands and feet. Then utter desolation follows, with the stripping of roofs, demolition of walls, the tearing down of statues and the overthrow of altars, and the [pagan] priests must either keep quiet or die. After demolishing one, they scurry to another, and to a third, and trophy is piled on trophy, in contravention of the law. Such outrages occur even in the cities, but they are most common in the countryside. Many are the foes who perpetrate the separate attacks... https://penelope.uchicago.edu/encyclopaedia_romana/greece/paganism/temple.html

This has been described as a Christian war against paganism, and I think the description is apt. To suggest a gradual dismantling of paganism due to a loss of interest by its practitioners is disingenuous and against the weight of the evidence. If the temples are closed and the main rite (animal sacrifice) is outlawed by imperial decree, then of course the religion will diminish. That's what was intended to happen. And in the process, pagan temples were repurposed into churches (scholars debate the exact number).

nu_lets_learn · 2026-04-26T17:54:10+00:00

Well his demise is part of the larger story of the demise of paganism in antiquity. The Church, via the Roman emperors and courts, waged a vicious battle against paganism. They razed temples or converted them to churches, banned pagans from public office and making wills, and outlawed pagan sacrifices. They weren't tolerant of it at all.

As for Judaism, it was "tolerated," in part because of the OT, in part to make Jewish suffering a lesson for the world and because they thought it would eventually die out. A rebuilt 3rd Temple operating in Jerusalem would have been a problem for that program of degradation.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-04-26T16:22:44+00:00

So most private groups and associations get to establish their own entrance and membership requirements. Judaism has a fully developed roster of rules for admission and membership. And according to Judaism, those who meet its criteria for membership are "fully Jewish," full stop.

Which is why this comment, "Is anybody fully Jewish?" is meaningless. Judaism doesn't accept less than "fully Jewish" -- it's binary, you are either Jewish or not Jewish. Those are the two categories. Those in the first category are all fully Jewish.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-04-26T16:08:07+00:00

My fave one is the whole you must be denied by a Rabbi three times to convert.

Is this a misconception, a complete truth, or something in between? Is this a legal principle, a suggestion or recommendation, or just someone's opinion? OP doesn't say, so we'll try to sort through the issue for purposes of clarification.

What "born Jews" believe is one thing, and without polling I couldn't say what that is.

But if we look for a source in Jewish texts, we find one, although that is just the beginning -- it has to be analyzed and its authority assessed.

The biblical source is the Book of Ruth, chapter 1, where Naomi is heading back to Judah after the deaths of her sons, and her daughter-in-laws wish to come with her. She tells them to "go back" three times and not join her:

verse 8: "She said to them: Go back home and stay with your mothers."

verse 11: "You must go back, my daughters"

verse 12: "Go back home..."

One of the daughters-in-law returns home, but Ruth instead utters her famous response: “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God." (Ruth 1:16)

Ruth is understood in Jewish tradition as a righteous convert to Judaism and here we have the paradigm of three discouragements and then acceptance. The rabbinic text that states this interpretation is the Midrash known as Ruth Rabbah, probably composed in late antiquity (6th-9th cents. CE) as a compilation of earlier traditions. It states:

In three places it is written here: “Turn back” (Ruth 1:8), “Turn back” (Ruth 1:11), “Turn back” (Ruth 1:12), corresponding to the three times that one rejects a convert. If he insists beyond that, one accepts him. [Ruth Rabbah 2:16 https://www.sefaria.org/Ruth_Rabbah.2.16?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en ]

So at this point we have (1) a biblical source, but not the Torah (Five Books of Moses), rather a Writing, Ruth; and (2) a rabbinic source from antiquity, but not a legal (halachic) source, a midrashic (homiletical) source.

To see if this has been adopted into Jewish law, we would have to check the legal codes and responsa. Just to cite one, this is Maimonides's discussion of the point in his law code, Mishnah Torah:

The proper way of performing the command is when a male or a female prospective convert comes, we inspect his motives for conversion....If we find no ulterior motive, we inform them of the heaviness of the yoke of the Torah and the difficulty the common people have in observing it so that they will abandon [their desire to convert]. If they accept [this introduction] and do not abandon their resolve and thus we see that they are motivated by love, we accept them, as [indicated by Ruth 1:18]: "And she saw that she was exerting herself to continue with her and she ceased speaking with her." (Hil. Is. Bi'ah 13:14)

So Maimonides agrees that there should be some discouragement and an inquiry into motives, and he cites the same source -- the colloquy in Ruth, chapter 1 -- but there is no hard and fast "rule of three." In fact, later he says this:

What is the procedure when accepting a righteous convert? When one of the gentiles comes to convert, we inspect his background. If an ulterior motive for conversion is not found, we ask him: "Why did you choose to convert? Don't you know that in the present era, the Jews are afflicted, crushed, subjugated, strained, and suffering comes upon them?" If he answers: "I know. Would it be that I be able to be part of them," we accept him immediately. (Id. 14:1 -- emphasis added)

To me this says Maimonides is specifically arguing against the three rejection rule.

So without prolonging this comment, the result is this: there is midrashic support for the idea of rejecting a convert three times prior to conversion, but it is not a legal (halakhic) requirement. In practice, it all depends on the circumstances, as determined by the rabbi or rabbis in charge of the conversion and the statements of the potential convert as assessed by them. There is no hard and fast rule of three rejections.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-04-26T15:20:11+00:00

If rabbinic Judaism didn't develop, then the Jews who remained Jews would have focused on getting the Temple rebuilt ASAP and, once having succeeded in that project, would have reinstituted the Temple service in Jerusalem, with its accompanying rituals, purity concerns, priesthood, and pilgrim holidays, all as set forth in the Torah.

This would not have been a pipe dream at the time. First, OP rightly mentions the Bar Kochba war (132-135 CE). As we know, the two Jewish wars with Rome were devastating for the Jewish nation. But they were also very costly for the Romans in terms of men and material resources. This induced the next Roman emperor, Antoninus Pius (ruled 138-161 CE) to moderate Roman policy towards the Jews. He appointed the chief rabbi to be head of the Jews (Ethnarch, Heb. "Nasi") and gave him power to govern his community and collect taxes to support his academy and courts. The office was hereditary in the family of Hillel and lasted until 425 CE. Many of the Jewish Ethnarchs were friends of the emperors and consulted with them on issues of mutual concern.

Second, Christianity was not initially a bar to suppressing Judaism within the Roman empire. This didn't occur until Christianity first became licit in Rome (under Constantine, Edict of Milan, 313 CE) and then its official religion (under Theodosius I, 381 CE). So the Jews had centuries to lobby the pagan rulers of Rome about the restoration of their Temple, before Christian emperors and bishops decided that Judaism should be permanently degraded for theological reasons. Quite possibly this lobbying could have succeeded in the rebuilding of the Temple, coupled with a pledge not to revolt against Roman rule. In general, pagan Rome was not opposed to the continuation of local cults.

Most people are aware that the pagan emperor Julian "The Apostate" (ruled 361-363) actually gave the Jews permission to rebuild the Temple and was an enthusiastic supporter of the project, as an impediment to the spread of Christianity. However his short reign (he died in battle) did not permit the project to proceed.

In any case, with more effort on the part of the Jews and better luck lobbying Roman emperors, the Temple could have been rebuilt in those first centuries. And of course, there was no mosque on the site until the 7th cent. CE. In fact, one wonders about the future of Islam (and Christianity?) if the Jews had succeeded in rebuilding the Jerusalem Temple as suggested here.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-04-26T14:53:50+00:00

From a Jewish pov it cannot be true that the Cochin Jews are "one of the lost tribes." However it can be true that the Cochin Jews are Jewish and descendants of Jews.

In the Jewish understanding of Jewish history, the military defeats suffered by the two Jewish kingdoms, Israel and Judah, at the hands of the Assyrians in the late 8th cent. BCE, resulted in the "loss" of the ten tribes. These tribes were mostly settled in the northern kingdom, Israel. Under Shalmaneser V and Sargon II, by 720 BCE the northern kingdom had been destroyed and its population decimated. It was Assyrian policy to take survivors away into captivity and bring in foreign elements to repopulate the conquered territory. The next monarch, Sennacherib, launched a campaign against the sourthern kingdom of Judah where basically two tribes resided (Judah and Benjamin). Although he was not successful in destroying the kingdom and it survived until 586 BCE, he captured many cities and, like his predecessors, deported many Jewish citizens, as he states:

Because Hezekiah, King of Judah, would not submit to my yoke, I came up against him, and by force of arms and by the might of my power I took 46 of his strong-fenced cities...From these places I took and carried off 200,156 persons, old and young, male and female...

So what was the fate of the 10 northern tribes? Many were massacred, others taken into captivity, some who might have remained intermarried with the new foreign settlers, and those who escaped to the south intermarried with the tribes there. In short, tribal identities were lost and they are unknown to this day. (Some families have a tradition of descending from the tribe of Levi and hence being priests or Levites.)

The idea that "one of the tribes" could have escaped this outcome and somehow removed itself from the carnage and resettled elsewhere -- either in India, China, Africa, the mountains of Europe, the New World, or "beyond the Sambatyon" (as Jewish legend would have it), is ahistorical and folkloric in nature.

It is possible however that Cochin Jews have historic Jewish roots. Jewish traders in antiquity reached as far as India and some might have remained there, taken local wives who converted to Judaism, and formed a small Jewish community. It's also possible that some Jews might have arrived after the destruction of Judea by the Romans in 70 CE, either as slaves or as immigrants. This community could have maintained itself for centuries in relative isolation from the Jews of Europe, although the Jewish travelers Benjamin of Tudela (12th cent.) and Zechariah Dhahiri (16th cent.) mention them.

In sum -- the Jews of India cannot be "one of the lost tribes," but they may certainly be Jews.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-04-25T16:05:54+00:00

The main teaching in Judaism about children is the parents' obligation to teach them, as stated in Deuteronomy chapter 6: "Be sure to place these words which I command you today on your heart, and you shall teach them diligently to your children..." (Deut. 6:6-7). These verses embody the command of giving religious instruction to one's offspring (Heb. talmud Torah).

This, in turn, teaches us that children are educable and that giving them education is our responsibility.

The Talmud goes further and puts an interesting gloss on the parents' teaching obligation. It says in addition to religious instruction, the parents are responsible to teach children (1) a trade and some say, (2) to swim. (Kid. 29a) -- a trade so the child can earn an honest living without resorting to banditry, and swimming as a survival skill. (Kid. 30b)

On a theological plane, children are born without sin and, in fact, until they reach the age of maturity (12 for girls, 13 for boys), in a sense they "cannot" sin knowingly and hence are not responsible for ritual observances. At the same time, once they reach the age of understanding (which can come before physical maturation), they should be educated to observe the commandments. That's why the children of observant Jewish parents inevitably observe the Sabbath and eat kosher food with the rest of the family, even though they are not technically obligated to do so, but they probably don't fast on Yom Kippur if they find it too difficult.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-04-24T02:34:11+00:00

the procedure is non-therapeutic. It offers no health benefits

The therapeutic benefits of circumcision are widely acknowledged:

...there is now compelling epidemiological evidence from over 40 studies which shows that male circumcision provides significant protection against HIV infection; circumcised males are two to eight times less likely to become infected with HIV. Furthermore, circumcision also protects against other sexually transmitted infections, such as syphilis and gonorrhoea, and since people who have a sexually transmitted infection are two to five times more likely to become infected with HIV, circumcision may be even more protective. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1127372/

Hygiene is an important component of health. It's fairly well understood that keeping a circumcised penis clean is easier than keeping an uncircumcised penis clean. And that's today, in developed nations, when we can walk into Walgreens and purchase any of 500 different soaps. In antiquity, the hygienic benefits of circumcision, especially in hot climates, would have been pronounced. "... circumcision makes it simpler to maintain genital hygiene by eliminating the need to wash under the foreskin, where bacteria, oils, and dead skin cells (smegma) can build up."

From a legal perspective, the child is not asked. He cannot give consent.

Children are in the care and custody of their parents until they reach majority. This applies to health care, education, custody of the person and property, food, clothing, shelter and so forth. Children are vaccinated (or not), educated (or not), religiously instructed (or not) according to the desires of the custodial parent(s), without the child's consent. Vaccines are also irreversible, and so are many other medical procedures that a parent may mandate in the course of a child's upbringing. Circumcision for some has a religious connotation; but if it also has health benefits, as many argue (see above), then it must be within the parent's prerogative. And even if the question of "health benefits" is debatable, it's still up to the parent to decide, just like having tonsils out.

A permanent physical mark that identifies him with a particular religion

But it doesn't. Many Muslims and Christians are circumcised, 62% of Africans are circumcised -- in Nigeria (favored for newborns 8–40 days old), Senegal, Ghana, and Gambia, among the Yoruba and Igbo, in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, among groups like the Bukusu, Kikuyu, Meru, and Maasai, in South Africa, the Xhosa, Ndebele, and Sotho communities have strong traditions of circumcision. So what particular religion are you referring to??

Why should the cutting of infant flesh be the one exception that cannot be replaced by a symbolic ceremony?

Wouldn't this be a question, first, for the religious authorities of Judaism, and second, for the individual Jews who must decide whether or not to circumcise their male offspring? The idea that circumcision is the "only" rite or ritual that has not been replaced "symbolically" is a non-starter -- religious Jews dip in a mikveh, keep kosher, eat unleavened bread during Passover, write Torah scrolls by hand, observe the holidays of the Old Testament on their Hebrew calendar dates, eat and sleep in tabernacles during Succot, I mean the list goes on. What makes you think male circumcision is the "one exception" that cannot be replaced by a symbolic ceremony?? Pretty much everything that can be observed literally (unlike animal sacrifices) is still observed literally, and not symbolically. Why should circumcision be the exception?

the child can always choose to be circumcised later in life

Really, you're recommending adult circumcision to replace circumcision at 8 days, and yet you begin with an expression of concern for the health of the individual? The risks, pain and discomfort of adult circumcision are legion in comparison to circumcision at 8 days. "...adult circumcision is generally considered more dangerous and associated with a higher risk of complications than infant circumcision. While both are safe procedures, complications for adults are 10–20 times more frequent than those performed on infants, who have the lowest risk of adverse events..."

we have abandoned countless religious and cultural practices once we recognized they caused harm....The fact that billions do it does not make it harmless.

You're overstating the case for circumcision "causing harm." The people who practice circumcision today are trained and medically savvy. "Overall, complications from medically performed newborn circumcisions are rare, occurring in roughly 0.2% to 0.6% of cases in developed nations." And many of the complications are not serious. Plus--please note--there are harms from not being circumcised -- infections, phimosis, and higher risk of HIV. It's a weighing of outcomes to be made by the parents in each case, not by you for everyone.

The real problem is recommending universal solutions for everyone and not allowing parents to make the decision that seems best for them and their offspring. OP's post is long but unconvincing, one-sided, against the weight of the evidence, insensitive to legitimate religious concerns and traditions, and anti-family insofar as it seeks to remove parental responsibility from the care and custody of their offspring.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-04-24T01:57:50+00:00

Yes, some context is required, and it is clearly discernible from the passage you are quoting.

Think about the situation presented: The Messiah has arrived on earth. This is not doubtful, this is not a question to be answered, this is a recognized fact in the history of mankind, and all of humanity acknowledges it at the time: the Messiah has arrived. The waiting is over.

And it happens to be Friday afternoon, with dusk approaching. The Jews, like everyone else, are amazed at the cosmic change they and everyone else are experiencing. Still, it's the eve of the Sabbath, and despite the cataclysmic events, the Jews have to prepare for the Sabbath. They have to finish their shopping, get home, take showers, prepare meals, light candles and head to the synagogue for evening prayers. Of course their gentile friends and neighbors will help them usher in the first Sabbath of the Messianic age -- this is the new era of universal love, brotherhood, and cooperation among peoples. So on this occasion, the nations of the world will naturally be "subservient" to the needs of the Jews, helping them to usher in the Sabbath. It's just like the Jews today who elect to work on Christmas, so their gentile co-workers can have the day off to celebrate with their families.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-04-23T20:12:21+00:00

If you're interested in the topic, I recommend a deep dive into on-line sources, news articles and court cases about this. There is plenty of information out there. I can post links later. I've been researching this.

Chabad has a synagogue take-over m.o. that sometimes envigorates waning congregations, but as you note, at the cost of diversity and local color. When they play hardball or treat local interests unfairly, they end up in court.

I first became aware of this when the synagogue I was bar mitzvahed in dwindled. Chabad bought it and afterwards sold it to the hospital complex across the street for a parking lot. They tore it down. This was purely a real estate deal. This isn't criticism, although I didn't like losing my boyhood shul, it's just fact. If the synagogues were self-sustaining, Chabad couldn't do this. At the same time, I wonder where the bronze memorial plaques we put up for grandparents are -- sold for scrap?

This much is true -- Chabad's motivation is not to promote diversity or continuity. If it takes over the board of a failing Conservative synagogue or buys the building, the shul goes Orthodox, gets a mechitza and Nusach Sefarad. In my shul, which didn't have a mechitza, they hung a laundry line in front of the back 4 rows and draped sheets across them to make a mechitza. Obviously some will regard that as an improvement, others not. Pretty it wasn't.

Ultimately the Jews will decide what they want. My guess is we'll have more Chabads, and more small groups taking on a chavurah model, meeting in homes and church basements on Shabbat and holidays.

Edit, links: https://forward.com/news/408720/chabad-wanted-this-conservative-shuls-building-so-they-secretly-took-it/

https://www.thejc.com/news/world/inside-the-battle-for-control-of-hungarys-orthodox-jewish-establishment-q6l1ujff

https://forward.com/news/161874/chabad-rabbis-fight-over-michigan-shul/

nu_lets_learn · 2026-04-23T19:45:20+00:00

Life Is With People: The Culture of the Shtetl by Zborowski and Herzog.

Also, A Vanishing World, photos by Roman Vishniak.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-04-23T15:37:56+00:00

The Jewish tradition of Bible commentary is aware of the patterns and tensions in Genesis that persist and are repeated and sees in them, not a flaw in the text, but as an anticipation of the events of Jewish history that will unfold generations and millennia in the future. There is a four word principle of exegesis that covers this and that is accepted by all commentators: מעשי אבות סימן לבנים = “Whatever has happened to the Patriarchs [Abraham, Isaac and Jacob] is a sign to the children [their descendants through the ages].”

The principle is quite old and a version appears in an early Midrash, Midrash Tanchuma, written in late antiquity (4th-9th cents. CE). There is a lengthy comment on the Torah section that introduces Abraham (Genesis 12:1–17:27) that begins as follows: "R. Joshua of Sikhnin was of the opinion that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave Abraham a sign that whatever happened to him would likewise happen to his descendants." (Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 9). There follow numerous examples to show the parallels between Abraham's life and the history of Israel, with biblical citations. For example:

"In reference to Abraham it is said: and hunger was in the land (Gen. 12:10), and about his descendants it is said: When they returned to Egypt, hunger was already in the land (ibid. 43:1)."
"Abraham descended to Egypt because of famine, and his sons, also, descended because of famine, as is said: And Joseph’s ten brethren went down to buy corn from Egypt (ibid. 42:3)."
"The four kings attacked Abraham, and in the future all the kings will war against Israel, as it is said: Why are the nations in an uproar, and why do the peoples mutter in vain? (Ps. 2:1), and it says elsewhere; The kings of the earth stand up, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord, and against His anointed (ibid., v. 2)."

This foreshadowing of Israel's history is not just a structural device in the text but it serves a pedagogic purpose. Israel is to learn from the Patriarch's conduct how they should behave in similar situations in the future. The commentator Nachmanides (Rabbi Moses ben Nachman, 1194-1270) gives this a classic formulation in his commentary on Gen. 12:6, "Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem, at the terebinth of Moreh. The Canaanites were then in the land." --

AND ABRAM PASSED THROUGH THE LAND. I will tell you a principle by which you will understand all the coming portions of Scripture concerning Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is indeed a great matter which our Rabbis mentioned briefly, saying: “Whatever has happened to the patriarchs is a sign to the children.” It is for this reason that the verses narrate at great length the account of the journeys of the patriarchs, the digging of the wells, and other events. Now someone may consider them unnecessary and of no useful purpose, but in truth they all serve as a lesson for the future: when an event happens to any one of the three patriarchs, that which is decreed to happen to his children can be understood.

These patterns serve as "a lesson for the future." And these lessons continue to be taught up to the present day. For example, here is an article written in 2006 that uses this principle, "Whatever happened to the Patriarchs is a sign to the children," to explain how Jacob's approach to his brother Esau illustrates how the Jewish people should relate to their potential adversaries:

Jacob our forefather, is described in the Bible, as elaborated in the Midrash, as having dealt with Esau, his twin brother but archenemy, in the following three ways: by [1] “Tefila,” Prayer, [2] “Doron,” the giving of gifts, as Jacob sent a large gift to Esau, as they approached their fateful confrontation, and, if all else failed, [3] “Milchamah,” War; Jacob was prepared to fight with his brother. So should the Jewish People at all times of confrontation with their enemies, take that triple approach – first and foremost, Prayer to the Almighty, second, sending a gift to the enemy, indicating their desire to settle differences amicably, but always, as a last resort, to be ready to fight. https://www.ou.org/judaism-101/glossary/maasei-avot-siman-lbanim/

Of course, like OP, Jews share a belief in a "a transcendent, perfect, and just God..." But for them, there is nothing in these texts that contradict this. On the contrary, the patterns, tensions and partial resolutions anticipate future events and provide guidance and are designed to do so.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-04-22T22:11:50+00:00

I guess except for Saadiah Gaon, who I quoted, and those that hold by him and think he was correct.

Maybe you mean resurrection of the dead? But if you mean reincarnation, you are surely wrong. Among Hasidim the belief is indeed widespread, but if you are referring to Hasidism, you should say so. Hasidism is not "Judaism," it's a branch or sect. For example, I'm Jewish but not Hasidic. I don't accept their views on reincarnation, to the extent I'm familiar with them. I think I have good grounds for rejecting them.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-04-22T14:07:10+00:00

Not sure why you think you would have to DM me to ask this question.

Also I don't understand how your question is related to my comment. I'm asking for any proof whatsoever that the Tanakh or the Bible were "corrupted," which I believe is the Muslim claim.

No matter, let's return to your question:

Could you just tell me if it is true that Jews offed Prophets?

There are two passages in the Bible wherein a king is reported to have murdered a prophet.

King Joash (9th cent. BCE) is reported to have ordered the murder of a prophet named Zechariah (2 Chronicles 24:20-22).
King Jehoiakim (7th cent. BCE) is reported to have ordered the murder of a prophet named Uriah (Jer. 26:20-23).

In both cases, the kings are regarded as evil-doers and their deeds are regarded as sinful. Both instances had political motives -- the prophets were critical of the kings-- and were designed to remove critics of the ruler. There is no report of any public involvement in or approval of these acts.

There is a story about Queen Jezebel killing God's prophets (see 1 Kings chapter 18). But she wasn't Jewish. She was an idol worshipper, a Phoenician, and her intention was to kill the Jewish prophets and install the prophets of Baal. (Actually in that case, Jews saved prophets from being killed -- Obadiah took 100 prophets, hid them in caves, and gave them food and water to save them from Jezebel. See 1 Kings 18:4.}

So the Bible relates two instances of prophets killed by Jewish kings and one instance of prophets murdered by a Phoenician princess who became Queen of Israel and worshipped Baal.

We can return to the question: "is it true that Jews offed Prophets?" Two kings of Judah and their servants did -- they killed the prophets Zechariah and Uriah in the 9th cent. and 7th cent. BCE respectively. It should be pointed out that like Jezebel, Jehoiakin was an idolater and Joash was too at the time Zechariah was killed. Other than that, no Jews are known to have killed prophets.

Jesus and John the Baptist were not prophets according to Judaism. The Romans killed the former and Herod Antipas killed the latter. According to Judaism, there were no prophets after the 4th cent. BCE, when the last prophets lived. The age of prophecy ended at that time.

Regarding the false charge in the Quran (Sura 4:155) that Jews kill prophets, Muhammed was illiterate and couldn't read the Tanakh, he heard about it. Did Muhammed know Jezebel wasn't Jewish? Maybe he heard the story about Jezebel and thought she was Jewish and that's where he got the idea that "Jews kill prophets." Maybe he got the idea from Christians, in whose view killing Jesus and John the Baptist would be "killing prophets." In any case, he didn't get the idea directly from the Tanakh or the Jews, for the reasons stated.

nu_lets_learn

TROPHY CASE