The "Nicole Factor" Is Online

Welcome to the Nicole Factor at blogspot.com.

Google+ Badge

Stage 32

My LinkedIn Profile

About Me

My Photo
My blog is "The Nicole Factor" on Blogspot, my Facebook page "Nicole Czarnecki aka Nickidewbear", and YouTube and Twitter accounts "Nickidewbear."

Nickidewbear on YouTube

Loading...

TwitThis

TwitThis

Twitter

Messianic Bible (As If the Bible Isn't)

Views

Facebook and Google Page

Reach Me On Facebook!

There was an error in this gadget

Search This Blog

Talk To Me on Fold3!

Showing posts with label Union_for_Reform_Judaism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Union_for_Reform_Judaism. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

A Recent Point At Which I Had To Say "Never Again" Once Again

The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism’s work on these issues is supported by a generous contribution from the Open Society Institute.

Once I read that, I knew that I had made a mistake and that Masada2000 wasn't too harsh on or chauvinist against Anat Hoffman after all. While I'll continue to support Women of the Wall, I will never again support Anat Hoffman or any branch of the Religious Action Center. While I do not know Ms. Hoffman's motives—whether or not they are malicious—I do know George Soros' motives, and he has made them clear to anyone who cares to research and read, listen to, and otherwise know about and know what he has said. I also know that while he had "fun" as a kapo, he put the blood of Levais, Nagys, and other relatives on his hands.

Meanwhile, I thought that I was just helping stop the further Haredization of Ha'Eretz v'Medinat Yisra'el. George Soros tricked me (and while I certainly don't agree with the URJ or RAC on everything, I thought that I could walk with them where I agreed with them); George Soros may be tricking Anat Hoffman (and "may be" is the key phrase—I certainly hope that Anat Hoffman is not malicious), and I hope that George Soros will not trick anyone else—at least ever again! If he does, though, he may want to keep fellow Jew George Wilson's words in mind:

God knows what you've been doing, everything you've been doing. You may fool me, but you can’t fool God!

By the way, Anti-Semitism alert: Baz Luhrmann put words into F. Scott Fitzgerald's pen and, thus, Tom Buchanan's mouth—Tom Buchanan never called Meyer Wolfsheim what Mrs. McKee called George Wilson. 

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Talk About "Mak[ing]...Jews Pee In Their Pants!"

Anti-Semitic Malik Zulu Shabbaz and Khalid Mohammad, first of all, don't scare this Jew enough to make her pee herself--they're just kvetching Kushim who are part of the Kushim noted in Ezekiel 38 (In other words, they're not of the remnant of Kushim.). Besides, we Yehudim--at least sometimes--do enough to make ourselves and each other "pee...[our] pants". For example, take "Rabbi" Jason Rosenberg: Jason Rosenberg, as a Jew, wants to lose First Amendment freedoms? He wants the Amendment construed to make obedience to Tanakh a crime?! "We will, in short, look back at Amendment 1 and its ilk in precisely the same way that we now look back at Jim Crow." Scary thinking! And that's not the only scary part--though it may be one of the scariest parts, or the scariest part.

"To be a Jew is remember how terrible it feels to be weak and oppressed, and therefore to act..." He of course forgot to add to obey Tanakh. Of course, his view is to disregard and disobey Tanakh:

If you’re part of a religious tradition that believes your revelation came directly, and perfectly, from God, then you probably won’t see the world the same way I do. But, as part of religious movement that embraces the fact that our texts, practices and traditions all have human origins, I have no choice but to also admit that those human origins have influenced those texts, practices and traditions. In other words, they don’t only reflect God’s will, but human biases and prejudices as well. They reflect the society from which they came.

This "rabbi" is pretty revisionist as well--besides in stating that "the fact that our texts, practices and traditions all have human origins". For example, Galileo was trying to interpret the Bible correctly to the chagrin of the Roman Catholic Church. Another example: "Religious leaders who refused to see the world changing were the ones who tried to justify slavery...and so on." Unbelievable lies.


Many religious leaders, in fact, pushed for freedom & womens' rights precisely because of religion--mainly true Christianity & true Judaism (especially Messianic--Complete--Judaism). By the way,"Rabbi" Jason Rosenberg reflects much of what is wrong with URJ Judaism, including that it is revisionist! Also, I've blogged enough about URJ (Reform) Judaism in the past, so just read my blog entries about it--I don't need to link you to everything.



Monday, March 5, 2012

To Correct pboisei And Others About Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism

Reform Judaism does believe in Israel as the chosen people in the privilege-and-responsibility sense. Reconstructionist Judaism believes in responsibility chosenness. Mordekhai HaKohen (Moredechai Kaplan) specifically founded Reconstructionist Judaism on that principle and other principles: "Kaplan rejected several traditional Jewish categories, most notably Chosenness. He felt that the term was misunderstood and too often taken as a sign of Jewish superiority, when instead it was conceived as an expression of Jewish obligation to God and humanity. So, too, Kaplan rejected the idea of a personal messiah (that is, that God will send a messiah in the form of a human being). He wrote the "Sabbath Prayer Book" in which he expunged both notions from the prayers. Some Reconstructionist synagogues employ a different version of the Torah blessings to this day, avoiding the phrase "...asher bachar banu mi-kol ha-amim..." (...Who chose us from all the peoples...)."


Reform Judaism "views the idea of the Chosen People as a metaphor for the choices we make in our lives. All Jews are Jews-by-Choice in that every person must make a decision, at some point in their lives, whether or not they want to live Jewishly. Just as God chose to give the Torah to the Israelites, modern Jews must decide whether they want to be in a relationship with God."

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Repost: Constitutional and Biblical Scholarship: "Like the Bible..."


"Like the Bible, it ought to be read again and again". (FDR via Epstein and Walker 1) In my personal opinion, no wonder FDR was an Anti Semite: that is, he treated the Constitution-- a living document-- and the Bible-- a fixed document-- as on the same par: that is, he thought that each was a document into which could read his own interpretation and thus implement said interpretation with the supposed support of said document. As FDR read Anti Semitism into the Bible, many have read their own interpretations into the Constitution.
The late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall correctly stated that "the framers 'could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed be a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman the descendant of an African slave.'" (ibid. 6) The Constitution was inherently "'defective from the start'" (ibid.) because of its status as a living, amendable document and scarily framed by WASP Supremacist, Unitarian, and Deist misogynists who treated the Bible in the same way that FDR later would-- and by treating the Bible as such, they framed the Constitution based on their inherently UnJewish and UnChristian concept of (for a lack of a better term) Judeo Christianity (or at least Judeo-Christian priniciples).
As in the awful perversion of Biblical study known as modern Biblical scholarship, Constitutional scholarship has produced schools of original intent, textualism, and original meaning-- all three of which (in the case of Constitutional scholarship) harken back to what the framers (often chauvinistically, WASPishly, Unitarianistically, and Deistically wanted); and stare decisis, polling jurisdictionism, and pragmatism-- all three of which seek to interpret and implement the Constitution within the context of changing times and other factors.
For example and for comparison:
  1. A Reform Jew may treat kashrut as no longer or even not ever really valid under modern Biblical scholarship's forms of original intent, original meaning, and pragmatism: "[Reform and Orthodox] differences in perspective can be seen in every aspect of life: how holy days and festivals are celebrated, how kashrut (the laws of keeping kosher) are kept, how the prayer service is organized and conducted, etc. But it is not accurate to generalize and say All Orthodox Jews do this...' or 'All Reform Jews do that...'"; and " For Reform, the Torah is the God-inspired attempt by Hebrews/Israelites/ Jews to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God. While it is a holy document, the Torah is rooted in the past, and we can even sometimes discern the circumstances under which certain sections were written down. Reform thus sees development in Judaism, not just through the biblical period but thereafter as well, so that we can continue the process of helping Judaism evolve by coming to our own understandings." ( Union For Reform Judaism)
  2. In the same way that Reform Jews in modern Biblical scholarship  see kashrut and other apparently-flawed and for-the-time institutions; many (including the late Justice Thurgood Marshall) in Constitutional scholarship use original intent, original meaning, and pragmatism to see the Constitution as the framers' " attempt... to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God" and government; and thus believe about the Constitution as Reform Jews believe about the Bible (including the New Testament; although to be fair, Orthodox Jews like Shmuely Boteach and Dr. Amy-Jill Levine believe the following more about the New Testament than do Reform Jews)-- that is, " While it is a [sacred] document, [the document] is rooted in the past, and we can even...discern [and study] the circumstances under which certain sections were written down. [We] thus sees development in [the underlying philosophy behind the document], not just through the [document's] period but thereafter as well, so that we can continue the process of helping [the document and philosophy underlying it] evolve by coming to our own understandings." In other words, Constitutional stare decisis, polling jurisdictionism, and textualism within the context of pragmatism and the other schools of Constitutional scholarship are born out of the idea that the Constitution is  the framers' " attempt... to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God" and government.
In conclusion, treating the Constitution as a living document and treating it as though it were the Bible (and vice versa) causes real problems. Firstly, one can pervert the Constitution into the always-good document that (as the late Justice Marshall rightly pointed out) it wasn't. Secondly, one can read his or her own interpretations into the Constitution and, to begin with, suggest that it was ever even based on Judeo-Christian principles to begin with when it was based on three main perversions of Christianity-- chauvinistic WASP Supremacism, Deism, and Unitarianism. Thirdly, one can (so to speak) turn the clock back on how the Constitution has become by using original intent, original meaning, and textualism if he or she so wishes to use those three as the ways to interpret the Constitution. 
In further conclusion; one can basically hold the supposedly-Judeo-Christian Constitution as sacred as the Bible and treat it as "[l]ike the Bible" instead of like the chauvinistic, WASP Supremacist, Deist, and Unitarian document that it would continue to be lest people like Justice Marshall continue to treat it like Reform Jews treat the Bible (and like some Orthodox Jews treat the New Testament as a part of the Bible).

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Constitutional and Biblical Scholarship: "Like the Bible..."

"Like the Bible, it ought to be read again and again". (FDR via Epstein and Walker 1) In my personal opinion, no wonder FDR was an Anti Semite: that is, he treated the Constitution-- a living document-- and the Bible-- a fixed document-- as on the same par: that is, he thought that each was a document into which could read his own interpretation and thus implement said interpretation with the supposed support of said document. As FDR read Anti Semitism into the Bible, many have read their own interpretations into the Constitution.
The late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall correctly stated that "the framers 'could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed be a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman the descendant of an African slave.'" (ibid. 6) The Constitution was inherently "'defective from the start'" (ibid.) because of its status as a living, amendable document and scarily framed by WASP Supremacist, Unitarian, and Deist misogynists who treated the Bible in the same way that FDR later would-- and by treating the Bible as such, they framed the Constitution based on their inherently UnJewish and UnChristian concept of (for a lack of a better term) Judeo Christianity (or at least Judeo-Christian priniciples).
As in the awful perversion of Biblical study known as modern Biblical scholarship, Constitutional scholarship has produced schools of original intent, textualism, and original meaning-- all three of which (in the case of Constitutional scholarship) harken back to what the framers (often chauvinistically, WASPishly, Unitarianistically, and Deistically wanted); and stare decisis, polling jurisdictionism, and pragmatism-- all three of which seek to interpret and implement the Constitution within the context of changing times and other factors.
For example and for comparison:
  1. A Reform Jew may treat kashrut as no longer or even not ever really valid under modern Biblical scholarship's forms of original intent, original meaning, and pragmatism: "[Reform and Orthodox] differences in perspective can be seen in every aspect of life: how holy days and festivals are celebrated, how kashrut (the laws of keeping kosher) are kept, how the prayer service is organized and conducted, etc. But it is not accurate to generalize and say All Orthodox Jews do this...' or 'All Reform Jews do that...'"; and " For Reform, the Torah is the God-inspired attempt by Hebrews/Israelites/ Jews to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God. While it is a holy document, the Torah is rooted in the past, and we can even sometimes discern the circumstances under which certain sections were written down. Reform thus sees development in Judaism, not just through the biblical period but thereafter as well, so that we can continue the process of helping Judaism evolve by coming to our own understandings." ( Union For Reform Judaism)
  2. In the same way that Reform Jews in modern Biblical scholarship  see kashrut and other apparently-flawed and for-the-time institutions; many (including the late Justice Thurgood Marshall) in Constitutional scholarship use original intent, original meaning, and pragmatism to see the Constitution as the framers' " attempt... to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God" and government; and thus believe about the Constitution as Reform Jews believe about the Bible (including the New Testament; although to be fair, Orthodox Jews like Shmuely Boteach and Dr. Amy-Jill Levine believe the following more about the New Testament than do Reform Jews)-- that is, " While it is a [sacred] document, [the document] is rooted in the past, and we can even...discern [and study] the circumstances under which certain sections were written down. [We] thus sees development in [the underlying philosophy behind the document], not just through the [document's] period but thereafter as well, so that we can continue the process of helping [the document and philosophy underlying it] evolve by coming to our own understandings." In other words, Constitutional stare decisis, polling jurisdictionism, and textualism within the context of pragmatism and the other schools of Constitutional scholarship are born out of the idea that the Constitution is  the framers' " attempt... to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God" and government.
In conclusion, treating the Constitution as a living document and treating it as though it were the Bible (and vice versa) causes real problems. Firstly, one can pervert the Constitution into the always-good document that (as the late Justice Marshall rightly pointed out) it wasn't. Secondly, one can read his or her own interpretations into the Constitution and, to begin with, suggest that it was ever even based on Judeo-Christian principles to begin with when it was based on three main perversions of Christianity-- chauvinistic WASP Supremacism, Deism, and Unitarianism. Thirdly, one can (so to speak) turn the clock back on how the Constitution has become by using original intent, original meaning, and textualism if he or she so wishes to use those three as the ways to interpret the Constitution. 
In further conclusion; one can basically hold the supposedly-Judeo-Christian Constitution as sacred as the Bible and treat it as "[l]ike the Bible" instead of like the chauvinistic, WASP Supremacist, Deist, and Unitarian document that it would continue to be lest people like Justice Marshall continue to treat it like Reform Jews treat the Bible (and like some Orthodox Jews treat the New Testament as a part of the Bible).

Sunday, January 8, 2012

In Case The Antimissonaries on Answers.com Keep Deleting the Correct Answers...

Why are Jews Jews?

Answer:
Jews are an ethno-religious group. Technically, a Jew is anyone either born of a Jewish mom or dad (as the first Jew was Isaac, thus making Jacob and Esau Patrilineal Jews, and their sons Patrilineal Jews; and the sons of Judah and Joseph Patrilineal Jews) or converted of his or her own free will and effort. A person's place of birth, or the level of their practice of Jewish law and tradition, are entirely irrelevant. 

Note: Most Reform communities will accept a child born to a non-Jewish mom and Jewish dad as Jewish if, and only if, the child is raised as a Jew. However, individuals raised in such a manner are not accepted as Jews by Conservative, Orthodox, and Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Jews. 


Note: Karaite Jews consider only Patrilineal Jews to be ethnic Jews. Karaite scholar Nehemia Gordon notes: 


Most Karaites believe in patrilineal descent, meaning that if your father is Jewish than you are Jewish. This is based primarily on the fact that all descent in the Bible goes according to the male line. Some Karaites believe that both parents must be Jewish. However, anyone who 1) is circumcised [males only], 2) accepts the God of Israel [YHWH] as their own God, and 3) accepts the People of Israel as their own people is a full-fledged Jew [Israelite], see Exodus 12,43-49 and Ruth 1,16.
Note: There are comments associated with this question. See the discussion page to add to the conversatio


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_Jews_Jews#ixzz1iuxnmxcP



Who or what are Anti- or Counter-Missionaries?

Answer:
Anti- or Counter-Missionaries are staunchly-Non-Messianic and ardently-intolerant Jews who believe that any Jew who believes in the New Testament (called the Brit Hadashah by Messianic Jews) has become a gentile or was never Jewish enough to be Jewish in the first place. Anti- or Counter-Missionaries zealously believe Christianity (including Messianic Judaism) to be kofer (apostate), and will even lie about Messianic Jews and Messianic Jewish organizations to push the Anti-Missionary cause and proselytize Judaism. 
Anti- and Counter-Missionary lies include but are not limited to:
  1. Jews for Jesus is a spinoff of the Southern Baptist Convention (whereas in reality, Jews for Jesus is a fully-independent, 501(c)3 Messianic Jewish organization founded by Martin "Moishe" Rosen, who happened to denominationally be a Southern Baptist at least at one point in his life. Moishe Rosen was also raised an Orthodox Jew in Denver, Colorado).
  2. Congregation Yeshuat Yisrael in Franklin, Tennessee is a spinoff of the same (whereas it is actually also independent and just Messianic Jewish by denomination).
  3. Messianic Jews are like Hitler, trying to wipe out the Jewish population.
  4. Messianic Jews are like the Crusaders, Pogromists, and Inquisitors.
  5. Once a Jew believes in the historical and Biblical Jesus of Nazareth, he or she is no longer a Jew.
  6. Most "Messianic Jews" are or were never even Jews (which takes and twists the fact that some number of self-identifying "Messianic Jews" are indeed gentiles who falsely-- whether unintentionally or maliciously-- label themselves as Messianic Jews once they become denominationally Messianically Jewish or part of the spinoff "Hebrew Roots" movement).


Anti- and Counter-Missionary organizations include Jews for Judaism and JewFAQ. Anti- and Counter-Missionary individuals include Traci Rich (JewFAQ), Skylar Curtis, and answer.com's own Divorah. 

Non-Anti-Missionary and tolerant Non-Messianic Jews include Michael Medved and Dennis Prager.


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_or_what_are_Anti-_or_Counter-Missionaries#ixzz1iuyCgvJo


Approximately how many Messianic Jews are there in the world?

Answer:
There is no exact or fair approximate count of how many Messianic Jews there are for several reasons. Among them: Many Messianic Jews do not know that they are Jewish and have Jewish heritage.Many Messianic Jews are not openly Jewish or openly Messianic Jewish.Many Messianic Jews are Patrilineally Jewish and otherwise"not Jewish enough" for the (for a lack of a better term) typical (Non-Messianic) Jewish person (even though Isaac was the first Jew, and Jacob and Esau were Patrilineal Jews; the sons of Jacob were one-fourth Patrilineally Jewish, and at least three of Jacob's sons had one-eighth Jewish, Patrilineally-Jewish children). 


Anti- and Counter-Missionary types of people do not consider Messianic Jews to be Jews. However, tolerant Non-Messianic Jews do consider Messianic Jews (even though they are in staunch disagreement with Messianic Jews) to be Jewish.

First answer by Divorah. Last edit by Nicole Czarnecki. Question popularity: 1 [recommend question]. 


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Approximately_how_many_Messianic_Jews_are_there_in_the_world#ixzz1iuyZo4Y7


Divorah is one of the notorious Antimissionaries.


What is judaism like today?

Answer:
For the most part, with few exceptions, Judaism is driven by one factor: anything but Jesus (Yeshua). Judaism increasingly has tended to be very Anti-Christian (Anti-Messianic, "Anti-Missionary") in nature. Otherwise, Judaism continues to be divided into divisions such as: 
  1. Haredi-- Following Torah and the Talmudim (Bavli and Yerushalaymi) zealously, even to the point of seclusion from the rest of society.
  2. Orthodox (including Modern Orthodox)-- Following Torah and the Talmudim (Bavli and Yerushalaymi) observantly to very zealously, but with little or no seclusion from the rest of society.
  3. Conservative (Masorti)-- Following Torah and the Talmudim (Bavli and Yerushalaymi) in a traditionalist but not zealous sense. Conservative Jews do not believe in the inerrancy or infallibility of Torah and the Talmudim.
  4. Reform (Liberal, Progressive)-- Following Torah and the Talmudim (Bavli and Yerushalaymi) as far as individual sanctity is concerned-- that is, following whatever they feel brings them closer to G-d. Reform Jews do not believe in the inerrancy or infallibility of Torah and the Talmudim.
  5. Reconstructionist-- Founded by Mordechai Kaplan (a kohein) in 1920. Reconstructionist Jews are even more lax than Reform Jews in their belief in the inerrancy and infallibility of Torah and the Talmudim.
  6. Humanistic Judaism-- Self explanatory and more liberal than Reconstructionist Judaism regarding belief in the inerrancy or infallibility of Torah and the Talmudim.
  7. Karaite-- Following only Torah and believing in the inerrancy or infallibility of Torah and the rest of Tanakh.


In terms of Anti-Missionary activity, for example: 

  1. Haredi-- Yad L'Achim
  2. Orthodox (including Modern Orthodox)-- JewFAQ and Jews For Judaism.
  3. Conservative (Masorti)-- From the USCJ website, one could read an article where Messianic Jews were compared to Hitler in trying to wipe out the Jewish people.
  4. Reform (Liberal, Progressive)-- The CCAR and their resolutions.
  5. Reconstructionist-- No examples at this time.
  6. Humanistic Judaism-- Da'at Emet, which is more against religious Judaism and religion than it is specifically Anti-Missionary.
  7. Karaite-- No examples at this time.
First answer by Nicole Czarnecki. Last edit by Nicole Czarnecki. Question popularity: 0 [recommend question]. 


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_judaism_like_today#ixzz1iuyvEq24




Are traditional Jews offended by messianic Jews?

Answer:
"Yes, the majority of Jews are offended by Messianics who are Christians, not Jews"-- so says Divorah. 
In truth, however, not all traditional Jews are offended by Messianic Jews (who are Jews who believe in the historical and New Testament Jesus as the Jewish Messiah). There are some traditional (Non-Messianic) Jews who may be or are in staunch disagreement with Messianic Jews and may or do even take offense to Messianic Judaism, but who are not offended by Messianic Jews. On the other hand, many traditional and non-traditional (including Reform) Non-Messianic Jews do take offense at Messianic Jews (the offense often being unprovoked and mainly because of the Messianic Jew's beliefs). 


Two examples of tolerant Non-Messianic Jews are Michael Medved and Denis Prager.

First answer by Divorah. Last edit by Nicole Czarnecki. Question popularity: 1 [recommend question]. 




Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_traditional_Jews_offended_by_messianic_Jews#ixzz1iuzBUROr


Re Jewish Presidents:

There've been three- Thomas Jefferson (who I just learned was a patrilineal Jew. See JoeSettler's blog.), Gerald Ford (nee Leslie Lynch King, Jr.; also a patrilineal Jew), and Barack Obama, whose mom Ann Dunham Soetoro was a Jew.By the way, Alexander Hamilton was Jewish and apparently a Levite.... Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_of_the_past_US_presidents_have_been_Jewish._Would_Hillary_be_the_first#ixzz1iuzcIb23

Do the Jewish have sacred texts?

Answer:
There are several texts considered sacred in Judaism. They include the 24 books of Tanakh (Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim-- i.e., Law, Prophets, Writings). The 24 books of Tanakh are also the 39 books of the Christian (including Messianic Jewish) Old Testament.



Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_the_Jewish_have_sacred_texts#ixzz1iv06w2kD


What are the main sacred texts of judasim?

Answer:
They include, but are not limited to, Torah, Talmudim Bavli v'Yerushalayimi, and various P'rushi midrashim and gemerot.


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_main_sacred_texts_of_judasim#ixzz1iv0nIvfd


Should Jews marry Jews?

Answer:
That a Jew would marry a fellow Jew would make the marriage between the two partners work. Jews are even supposed to marry cousins per Numbers (B'midbar) 36: 
" 5 And Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of the LORD, saying: 'The tribe of the sons of Joseph speaketh right. 6 This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying: Let them be married to whom they think best; only into the family of the tribe of their father shall they be married. 7 So shall no inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe; for the children of Israel shall cleave every one to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. 8 And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may possess every man the inheritance of his fathers. 9 So shall no inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe; for the tribes of the children of Israel shall cleave each one to its own inheritance.' 10 Even as the LORD commanded Moses, so did the daughters of Zelophehad.11 For Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married unto their father's brothers' sons. 12 They were married into the families of the sons of Manasseh the son of Joseph, and their inheritance remained in the tribe of the family of their father. 13 These are the commandments and the ordinances, which the LORD commanded by the hand of Moses unto the children of Israel in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho. {P}"


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Should_Jews_marry_Jews#ixzz1iv0zIRas

Why don't Reform Jews keep kosher?

Answer:
According to the Union of Reform Judaism, " Reform Judaism affirms my right, our right, to make those kinds of choices." That is, choices relating to Torah and Talmud. Thus, " Each aspect worked for some Jews, once upon a time, somewhere in our history. Each, therefore, has the potential to open up holiness for people in our time as well, and for me personally. However, each does not have equal claim on us, on me. Some (the agricultural laws, for instance) are no longer possible to observe. Others (the sacrificial laws, for instance) come from a social context so foreign to our own that it would be impossible to conceive modern people finding holiness in their revival." Therefore, some Reform Jews do not keep kosher due to that they are not "finding holiness in their revival" in doing so.


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_don't_Reform_Jews_keep_kosher#ixzz1iv1Gh7sS


What might reform Jews do that orthodox Jews don't?

Answer:
According to FAQs.org, "Reform differs from the other major movements in that it views both the Oral and Written laws as a product of human hands (specifically, it views the Torah as Divinely inspired, but written in the language of the time in which it was given). The laws reflect their times, but contain many timeless truths. The Reform movement stresses retention of the key principles of Judaism (as it sees them; for details, consult the [5]Reform Reading List). As for practice, it strongly recommends individual study of the traditional practices; however, the adherent is free to follow only those practices that increase the sanctity of their relationship to G-d. Reform also stresses equality between the sexes." 
Thus, Reform Jews may be more lax in following Torah and Talmud-based halakhah whereas Orthodox Jews would not be as, if at all, lax in any way, shape, or form in following Torah and Talmud.


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_might_reform_Jews_do_that_orthodox_Jews_don't#ixzz1iv1QIKae

How many Messianic Jews are there in Israel?

Answer:
There are approximately 8,000 Messianic Jews known to be living throughout Israel. However, a true count is almost impossible for several reasons, INCLUDING THAT: 

  1. Many Messianic Jews are unrightly considered to be Non-Messianic Jews by the Israeli government. 
  2. Many Patrilineal and even Matrilineal Jews are already not considered Jewish enough to be counted as Jews. Couple that and their Messianic Jewishness, and they are left all the more uncounted as Jewish.


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Messianic_Jews_are_there_in_Israel#ixzz1iv28r05S


I hope that I got all of the answers that the Antimissionaries like Divorah keep trying to delete.