American Christian couple pretend to be Haredi Jews, immigrate to Israel, get caught

[Longbowman]

Here's a weird but not unique story for you all: an American Christian couple faked being Jewish (ie, faked documents proving their Jewish origins) including being the children of Holocaust survivors and immigrated to Israel for the purpose of converting ultra-Orthodox Jews to Christianity. The Jews apparently accepted them and even raised $50,000 for the family when the mother died of cancer. But, the ruse was discovered when the children - whom the father was sending to an ultra-Orthodox school - started talking about Christianity. The father, who called himself 'Rabbi Michael,' even went on Christian TV shows and made vaguely pro-Christian points.

They're trying to get him deported now.

Christianity, man. Not even once.

https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/1967621/shock-in-jerusalem-american-chareidi-resident-of-french-hill-is-a-christian-missionary-was-cohen-and-sofer-stam.html?fbclid=IwAR2B8AixTQoSFa9KojPxudLCszCwOPG 6b51X1S7MrbRZi31vqknK1WMG_TQ

[Mont]

It seems that for them it was not enough to rewrite our religion to fit their heretical views and expell our people from their lands using, for example, false accusations of blood libel, now they also want to divide and conquer until there's not a single one that rejects their Jebus fake god.

[happycow]

Interesting.

[Mark76]

Weren't the majority of deportations of the Jews carried out by the then pagan Romans? Or are you referring to the expulsions from Western Europe?

[Longbowman]

Weren't the majority of deportations of the Jews carried out by the then pagan Romans? Or are you referring to the expulsions from Western Europe?

I don't think you read the article or the post or even the title. Try a bit hard, come back to me.

[Mark76]

I was responding to Mont who seems to think that the Romans around the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt (which I believe is when the majority of deportations took place) were Christian (fun fact... They weren't). I'm curious as to how Christians, who didn't even have any political or ecumenical power at the time, could be responsible for the expulsion of the Jews from Syria-Palastea.

[Hoosierboy]

"Hey Minister whatcha doing?"

Looks like someones going to get deported.

[Longbowman]

I was responding to Mont who seems to think that the Romans around the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt (which I believe is when the majority of deportations took place) were Christian (fun fact... They weren't). I'm curious as to how Christians, who didn't even have any political or ecumenical power at the time, could be responsible for the expulsion of the Jews from Syria-Palastea.

Ah, fair enough, carry on.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

It seems that for them it was not enough to rewrite our religion to fit their heretical views and expell our people from their lands using, for example, false accusations of blood libel, now they also want to divide and conquer until there's not a single one that rejects their Jebus fake god.

My imaginary gawd can beat up your imaginary gawd.

[Hektor12]

Given a dose of your own medicine.
Mad?

[Longbowman]

Given a dose of your own medicine.
Mad?

Yes, of course, we will withdraw all the rabbis pretending to be imams and converting turkroaches to Judaism at once.

Ultimately the pastor's efforts bore no fruit. I am not 'mad,' just shocked that anyone would go to this length of effort - but he is not alone. American Evangelicals are insane.

[Hektor12]

just shocked that anyone would go to this length of effort

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10146435/British-radio-presenter-seduced-online-duped-decade-man-female-cousin.html

[Longbowman]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10146435/British-radio-presenter-seduced-online-duped-decade-man-female-cousin.html

Some people are just mentally ill my mans.

[Laly]

It seems that for them it was not enough to rewrite our religion to fit their heretical views and expell our people from their lands using, for example, false accusations of blood libel, now they also want to divide and conquer until there's not a single one that rejects their Jebus fake god.

I don't think it's fair to say Christians "rewrote your religion". I think Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, which appeared at the same time, are both equally legitimate in their filiation from ancient sectarian Judaism (Sadducees, Pharisees, etc.), with distinct interpretations.

[Longbowman]

I don't think it's fair to say Christians "rewrote your religion". I think Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, which appeared at the same time, are both equally legitimate in their filiation from ancient sectarian Judaism (Sadducees, Pharisees, etc.), with distinct interpretations.

This is tbf an argument that non-Christians do not make, although it's understandable Christians make it. Ofc Christians tend to believe they're equally legitimate but Christianity (obviously!) deviated entirely from the Torah.

Rabbinic Judaism predates Christ by several centuries, btw, call them 'Pharisees' if you want. The first major treatise was codified in the 2nd century AD but to pretend that's when Rabbinic Judaism started is like pretending Christianity didn't start during Jesus' sermons/Paul's revelations, but when the Bible was codified in the 4th century.

Modern Christianity is a serious deviation from Judaism in a way Rabbinic Judaism is not - it's empirical. It's the basis of your whole religion. You took the TaNaKH (or [Protestant] Hebrew Bible) and added canon. The Jews did not add canon.

[Hoosierboy]

It seems that for them it was not enough to rewrite our religion to fit their heretical views and expell our people from their lands.

Jews did the same thing. The tale of Genesis comes from the ancient Sumerians.

[Longbowman]

Jews did the same thing. The tale of Genesis comes from the ancient Sumerians.

It comes from someone's imagination, I'm happy to blame the Sumerians.

A lot of Jewish stuff is loaned. The story of Moses, even circumcision - all predates Judaism.

[Laly]

This is tbf an argument that non-Christians do not make, although it's understandable Christians make it. Ofc Christians tend to believe they're equally legitimate but Christianity (obviously!) deviated entirely from the Torah.

Rabbinic Judaism predates Christ by several centuries, btw, call them 'Pharisees' if you want. The first major treatise was codified in the 2nd century AD but to pretend that's when Rabbinic Judaism started is like pretending Christianity didn't start during Jesus' sermons/Paul's revelations, but when the Bible was codified in the 4th century.

Modern Christianity is a serious deviation from Judaism in a way Rabbinic Judaism is not - it's empirical. It's the basis of your whole religion. You took the TaNaKH (or [Protestant] Hebrew Bible) and added canon. The Jews did not add canon.


There is indeed a certain continuity between the Pharisees and Rabbinic Judaism. But it was, before, at the time of “ancient Judaism”, just one form of Judaism among others. And many important Jewish historians consider that there’s a real distinction between the Pharisees and Rabbinic Judaism, which would be the result of a Judaism whom the religious structures were totally rethought under the governance of the Pharisees. So yes, I consider both Rabbinic Judaism and (Judeo-)Christianity are legitimate heirs of ancient sectarian Jusaism.

After the fall of the Second Temple, the Pharisaic movement became the only legitimate Judaism, rejecting other sects, especially the Judeo-Christianism (cf. the birkat haMinim).

And actually, the composition of the Christian Bible wasn’t “codified”/invented in the IVth century. It was then confirmed that there are only the four gospels we know. There are several authors of authority from the very beginning of Christianity who wrote about the authentic Gospels that were transmitted, mentioning only four Gospels and they are, invariably, the canonical ones: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Among these authors, there are: Clement of Alexandria, Church Father (Stromata, book III, chapter XIII), Origen (Homiliae in Lucam, chapter one), Irenaeus of Lyon, Church Father (Adversus Haereses, book III, preliminary).

We could also say that the New Testament offers an interpretation of the Jewish Bible, the ultimate interpretation. And many Jewish historians, like Joseph Klausner in the XIXth century or Mireille Hadas-Lebel and Armand Abécassis recently, consider that Jesus didn’t do anything that is not Jewish, that he never betrayed the law.

[Mark76]

Erm, sorry to bother you. Did I thumb up or down your post? Meant to thumb up.

[Mark76]

I have a book in which an Orthodox Rabbi looked at the New Testament in depth and found it to be a far more Jewish document than has traditionally been assumed. Strip away the deification of Jesus and the concept of the Trinity and it's basically Judaism for people who like bacon and cheeseburgers; and who aren't keen on circumcision.

[Mark76]

Yes, of course, we will withdraw all the rabbis pretending to be imams and converting turkroaches to Judaism at once.

Ultimately the pastor's efforts bore no fruit. I am not 'mad,' just shocked that anyone would go to this length of effort - but he is not alone. American Evangelicals are insane.

I have a feeling British missionaries would never have stooped to such low tactics. I could be wrong, of course.

BTW, is it true that the CofE and the Hebrew Congregations of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth have a mutual "No conversions" agreement?

[Longbowman]

There is indeed a certain continuity between the Pharisees and Rabbinic Judaism. But it was, before, at the time of “ancient Judaism”, just one form of Judaism among others. And many important Jewish historians consider that there’s a real distinction between the Pharisees and Rabbinic Judaism, which would be the result of a Judaism whom the religious structures were totally rethought under the governance of the Pharisees. So yes, I consider both Rabbinic Judaism and (Judeo-)Christianity are legitimate heirs of ancient sectarian Jusaism.

After the fall of the Second Temple, the Pharisaic movement because the only legitimate Judaism, rejecting other sects, especially the Judeo-Christianism (cf. the birkat haMinim).

And actually, the composition of the Christian Bible wasn’t “codified”/invented in the IVth century. It was then confirmed that there are only the four gospels we know. There are several authors of authority from the very beginning of Christianity who wrote about the authentic Gospels that were transmitted, mentioning only four Gospels and they are, invariably, the canonical ones: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Among these authors, there are: Clement of Alexandria, Father of the Church (Stromata, book III, chapter XIII), Origen, Father of the Church (Homiliae in Lucam, chapter one), Irenaeus of Lyon, Father of the Church (Adversus Haereses, book III, preliminary).

We could also say that the New Testament offers an interpretation of the Jewish Bible, the ultimate interpretation. And many Jewish historians, like Joseph Klausner in the XIXth century or Mireille Hadas-Lebel and Armand Abécassis recently, consider that Jesus didn’t do anything that is not Jewish, that he never betrayed the law.

This is a disingenuous Christian argument, dating Judaism to codification (compilation) of the first Talmud, which is not canonical, but Christianity to the writing of the first gospels, which are. Excuse me, but many of the writings in the Talmud go back to 500BC (although some of them are of course much later). Compare like for like.

Regardless of what some historians think Jesus did, his followers are universally considered to have 'betrayed the law.' And those historians only think Jesus didn't 'betray the law' because they don't agree/believe he claimed to be the son of God, which you do. So effectively they are talking about different Jesuses.

As for comparing the Talmud and the NT: no. You have your own writings - Catechisms, etc. These are analogous to the Talmud, perhaps. The NT is your canon. It is literally part of your bible.

As you say, Rabbinic Judaism has continuity from traditions going back to at least Ezra. Christianity lacks this. Yes, there were 2-3 competing sects at the time - none of them evolved into Christianity. You think you're Saduccees? Essenes?

Just stop. It's cringe.

[Longbowman]

I have a feeling British missionaries would never have stooped to such low tactics. I could be wrong, of course.

I have never heard of them doing it. It seems to be an Evangelical American thing.


BTW, is it true that the CofE and the Hebrew Congregations of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth have a mutual "No conversions" agreement?

No, this is not true. But neither of them actively proselytises the other.

[Laly]

This is a disingenuous Christian argument, dating Judaism to codification (compilation) of the first Talmud, which is not canonical, but Christianity to the writing of the first gospels, which are. Excuse me, but many of the writings in the Talmud go back to 500BC (although some of them are of course much later). Compare like for like.

Regardless of what some historians think Jesus did, his followers are universally considered to have 'betrayed the law.' And those historians only think Jesus didn't 'betray the law' because they don't agree/believe he claimed to be the son of God, which you do. So effectively they are talking about different Jesuses.

As for comparing the Talmud and the NT: no. You have your own writings - Catechisms, etc. These are analogous to the Talmud, perhaps. The NT is your canon. It is literally part of your bible.

As you say, Rabbinic Judaism has continuity from traditions going back to at least Ezra. Christianity lacks this. Yes, there were 2-3 competing sects at the time - none of them evolved into Christianity. You think you're Saduccees? Essenes?

Just stop. It's cringe.

My point is not really about “codification”. Ancient Judaism was plurivocal and the Pharisees (initiators of Rabbinic Judaism) as wells as the (Judeo-)Christians are the two (main) groups that survived the fall of the Second Temple. (Judeo-)Christianity was born within Judaism and it is a worthy heir of ancient Jewish traditions, but at the same time, and of course I claim it, it is radically new. The same way, Jesus was totally Jewish, but at the same time, his teachings brought Judaism to a totally new dimension. I find that totally fascinating. For many renowned Jewish historians, it is totally normal to say there’s a continuity between ancient Judaism and (Judeo-)Christianity (I’m thinking about authors I’ve read, such as Simon Claude Mimouni and Dan Jaffé). And yes, certainly, they don’t consider Jesus claimed to be God, because of their Jewish perspective, but nevertheless, they see a continuity. And the Old Testament doesn’t forbid from conceiving Jesus as God, although it is very original and surprising. Also, we certainly, as Christians, don’t consider Christianity betrays the Law, but that it accomplishes the Law. And by the way, Christianity kept ancient Jewish traditions that were later rejected from Judaism, for ex. the deuterocanonical books.

And I don’t agree with you when you say the Talmud is not “canonical”. It is the Oral Torah. Maybe for some, unlike the Written Torah, it is not considered to be verbatim the word of God, but the Christian Bible isn’t either considered to be verbatim the word of God. The language of the Talmud could be then compared to the Christian concept of divine inspiration. Let’s not forget that revelation of an Oral Torah was considered to be a heresy by the Sadducees and some Jewish movements nowadays think that too.

Anyway, if there is a religion that rewrote history and other religions’ holy scriptures, it is not Christianity, but Islam, which claims the Jews and the Christians falsified their Scriptures.

[Longbowman]

My point is not really about “codification”. Ancient Judaism was plurivocal and the Pharisees (initiators of Rabbinic Judaism) as wells as the (Judeo-)Christians are the two (main) groups that survived the fall of the Second Temple. (Judeo-)Christianity was born within Judaism and it is a worthy heir of ancient Jewish traditions, but at the same time, and of course I claim it, it is radically new. The same way, Jesus was totally Jewish, but at the same time, his teachings brought Judaism to a totally new dimension. I find that totally fascinating. For many renowned Jewish historians, it is totally normal to say there’s a continuity between ancient Judaism and (Judeo-)Christianity (I’m thinking about authors I’ve read, such as Simon Claude Mimouni and Dan Jaffé). And yes, certainly, they don’t consider Jesus claimed to be God, because of their Jewish perspective, but nevertheless, they see a continuity. And the Old Testament doesn’t forbid from conceiving Jesus as God, although it is very original and surprising. Also, we certainly, as Christians, don’t consider Christianity betrays the Law, but that it accomplishes the Law. And by the way, Christianity kept ancient Jewish traditions that were later rejected from Judaism, for ex. the deuterocanonical books.

And I don’t agree with you when you say the Talmud is not “canonical”. It is the Oral Torah. Maybe for some, unlike the Written Torah, it is not considered to be verbatim the word of God, but the Christian Bible isn’t either considered to be verbatim the word of God. The language of the Talmud could be then compared to the Christian concept of divine inspiration. Let’s not forget that revelation of an Oral Torah was considered to be a heresy by the Sadducees and some Jewish movements nowadays think that too.

Anyway, if there is a religion that rewrote history and other religions’ holy scriptures, it is not Christianity, but Islam, which claims the Jews and the Christians falsified their Scriptures.

Most groups are plurivocal in that respect. This is essentially the Protestant argument. 'We were born in 1500 but we were also born in 1500 BC because we have roots going back there.' So does everyone, but Christianity is much more evolutionary and has adopted far more non-Judaic practises. You, a Catholic, would not accept that Protestants are equally valid heirs to Christ and we do not accept that you are equally valid heirs to the Torah. You, and all other imitators, do not accept this, but also do not accept the other imitators. You lack self-awareness.

Of course there is continuity, just as there is continuity between the Roman empire and the countries that currently exist on its territory. However, if Londoners and Romans both claimed to be equally connected to the Romans of old, we would laugh at the former.

The sometimes so-called 'oral' Torah is not canonical at all. It's not the word of God at all. It is the interpretations of rabbis and the Talmud contains conflicting opinions, with differing communities selecting differing opinions on many issues. Catechism is also 'canonical' in that it is 'what the Church actually believes' but it is not the word of God. No Jewish movements consider the Talmud 'heresy' because they, unlike you, understand this - they simply believe it can be ignored, whereas Orthodox Judaism considers it a valid legal codex that we do not currently have the instruments of state to change or reinterpret.

Yes, you see Islam the way we see you, irony that you can't see that.

[Laly]

Most groups are plurivocal in that respect. This is essentially the Protestant argument. 'We were born in 1500 but we were also born in 1500 BC because we have roots going back there.' So does everyone, but Christianity is much more evolutionary and has adopted far more non-Judaic practises. You, a Catholic, would not accept that Protestants are equally valid heirs to Christ and we do not accept that you are equally valid heirs to the Torah. You, and all other imitators, do not accept this, but also do not accept the other imitators. You lack self-awareness.

Of course there is continuity, just as there is continuity between the Roman empire and the countries that currently exist on its territory. However, if Londoners and Romans both claimed to be equally connected to the Romans of old, we would laugh at the former.

The sometimes so-called 'oral' Torah is not canonical at all. It's not the word of God at all. It is the interpretations of rabbis and the Talmud contains conflicting opinions, with differing communities selecting differing opinions on many issues. Catechism is also 'canonical' in that it is 'what the Church actually believes' but it is not the word of God. No Jewish movements consider the Talmud 'heresy' because they, unlike you, understand this - they simply believe it can be ignored, whereas Orthodox Judaism considers it a valid legal codex that we do not currently have the instruments of state to change or reinterpret.

Yes, you see Islam the way we see you, irony that you can't see that.

I think, as Paul says, that “the gifts and the callings of God are irrevocable”.

36. From the Christian confession that there can be only one path to salvation, however, it does not in any way follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God. Such a claim would find no support in the soteriological understanding of Saint Paul, who in the Letter to the Romans not only gives expression to his conviction that there can be no breach in the history of salvation, but that salvation comes from the Jews (cf. also Jn 4:22). God entrusted Israel with a unique mission, and He does not bring his mysterious plan of salvation for all peoples (cf. 1 Tim 2:4) to fulfilment without drawing into it his "first-born son" (Ex 4:22). From this it is self-evident that Paul in the Letter to the Romans definitively negates the question he himself has posed, whether God has repudiated his own people. Just as decisively he asserts: "For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable" (Rom 11:29). That the Jews are participants in God’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery.
http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/fr/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/fr/en.html

The Sadducees, for ex., consider the idea of an Oral Torah/Law, authoritative, beside the Written Torah, heretic. They could be compared to the Protestants and their sola Scriptura.

According to the classical Jewish view, the Oral Torah is of divine origin and it was given at Mount Sinai to Moses. Also, transmission chains going back to him have been established.

This is what a professor Uwe Kischel writes in Comparative Law:
https://i.imgur.com/4fRO0O2.png
https://books.google.be/books?id=HBGIDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA857&dq=oral+torah+divine+inspiration&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibierOorL1AhX3iv0HHXuZCewQ6AF6BAgFEAI#v =onepage&q=oral%20torah%20divine%20inspiration&f=false

The Church’s Tradition, which is canonical and divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, includes the Catechism, which is only one bit of it. And like the canonical Jewish Oral Torah, the Tradition contains conflicting ideas.

Christianity doesn’t rewrite Jewish holy scriptures; it takes the texts as they are and understands them differently, and the Revelation is said to be progressive. On the other hand, the Quran pretends the Jewish and Christian Bibles are falsified and rewrites Biblical pericopes, giving a different consistence to Biblical characters, who are said to have preached Islam.

[Mont]

My imaginary gawd can beat up your imaginary gawd.
Yes.

[Mont]

Weren't the majority of deportations of the Jews carried out by the then pagan Romans? Or are you referring to the expulsions from Western Europe?
The pagans indeed expelled a lot of jews, but christians too.

[Longbowman]

Yes, of course Jews believe the Oral Torah was given at Sinai, that's why the authors are humans born between 500BC and 1500AD.

Your argument is ultimately disingenuous, using a couple of author's views of a non-Christian Jesus as proof that the version you believe in has legitimate connections and trying to elevate non-canonical works (no, the Talmud is not canonical, which you well know) to the status of the NT to try to equivocate.

Piteous.

[Laly]

Yes, of course Jews believe the Oral Torah was given at Sinai, that's why the authors are humans born between 500BC and 1500AD.

Your argument is ultimately disingenuous, using a couple of author's views of a non-Christian Jesus as proof that the version you believe in has legitimate connections and trying to elevate non-canonical works (no, the Talmud is not canonical, which you well know) to the status of the NT to try to equivocate.

Piteous.

“Cringe”, “piteous”, “disingenuous”, etc. -> what do believe I think about you? But yeah, you’ll say you don’t care…

Jewish historians such as Simon Claude Mimouni clearly evoke a continuity between Judaism and Christianity, not just with a “non-Christian Jesus”.

Anyway, to me it is huge that Jews, such as the scholars I mentioned, recuperate, reclaim Jesus, in a way or another. This tendency is relatively new in the historiography (in that, Joseph Klausner was a pioneer).

And because I want to, even if you don’t want to hear it, I will mention some Jews who clearly saw a continuity between Judaism and Christianity.

Saint Edith Stein, a Carmelite nun who died in Auschwitz, said that Judaism contains the possibility of Catholicism. She said that Catholicism is not a passive, mechanical, logical, mathematical continuity of Judaism, but Catholicism is not either a brutal, violent separation from Judaism. Catholicism is not a subsection of Judaism, but it isn’t either a way out of Judaism. Catholicism is not included in Judaism, but not excluded from it either. She considered she realised her Judaism through Christianity.

https://books.google.be/books?id=dQNh3vqcOqEC&pg=PT71&dq=edith+stein+continuit%C3%A9+judaisme+christiani sme&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiArtu8ir71AhVihP0HHe_ACokQ6AF6BAgFEAI#v =onepage&q=edith%20stein%20continuit%C3%A9%20judaisme%20chr istianisme&f=false

Another Jew, the Archbishop of Paris the Cardinal Lustigier, considered Christianity to be the accomplishment of Judaism. The mystic Etty Hillesum, who died in Auschwitz, included Christianity in her faith.

Also, the philosopher Henri Bergson, a Jew who became really close to Catholicism considered, before WW2, that Catholicism is the complete achievement of Judaism. He said he didn’t convert to Christianity out of solidarity with the Jews, so persecuted at that time.

https://books.google.be/books?id=P3jPCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT8&dq=henri+bergson+continuit%C3%A9+judaisme+christia nisme&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5x_zNqsD1AhXRDOwKHeYWA8kQuwV6BAgLEAc#v =onepage&q=henri%20bergson%20continuit%C3%A9%20judaisme%20c hristianisme&f=false

And according to Judaism, the Oral Torah was given to Moses at the Sinai, and then rendered by the Sages of the Talmud.

https://i.imgur.com/NtotPMb.png
https://i.imgur.com/zshTHsE.png
https://www.jtsa.edu/torah/what-did-we-receive-at-sinai/

https://i.imgur.com/02Fc1Rx.png
https://books.google.be/books?id=LZHUDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA170&dq=talmud+canonical&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjgwLj3gL71AhVCsKQKHcuYAJEQ6AF6BAgCEAI#v =onepage&q=talmud%20canonical&f=false

https://i.imgur.com/XIPPpIG.png
https://books.google.be/books?id=CARssOPlDOEC&pg=PA229&dq=talmud+divinely+inspired&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPxpnRgb71AhUosaQKHQXmA6kQ6AF6BAgFEAI#v =onepage&q=talmud%20divinely%20inspired&f=false

https://i.imgur.com/54yafKo.png
https://books.google.be/books?id=P7pmnnQmfLgC&pg=PA5&dq=oral+torah+sinai+rendered+sages&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj39uDFisD1AhW-gv0HHb2eCMcQ6AF6BAgLEAI#v=onepage&q=oral%20torah%20sinai%20rendered%20sages&f=false

I could go on and on..