It’s not “making a claim!” It never was. It was always simply what we believed and knew to be true. We didn’t go around drawing up scientific experiments to convince people you have to believe that the Torah was written. We simply knew that was true. Thousands of years later German “scholars” and “theologians” started to question our beliefs, but we have no reason to question it. It’s simply the fact, if someone else doesn’t like it, it’s their own problem. But YOU (and those german philosophers) ARE making a claim. You are insisting on Jewish denial of our own history and belief. For what reason? For what compelling reason should we change from how we always understood that particular matter? It is you who needs to present proof or else we stick to the status quo (the historical way of understanding that particular notion).

If that’s true, then why bemoan the rabbis’ exclusion of sacrifices or limiting to only in the site of the Temple? In that case, the rabbis are promoting the abstract religion. As did King Josiah.

In most case is **IMPOSSIBLE** to prove the negative.

*
For example you would not be able to prove that you have never killed anyone.
Therefore it is the job of those who make a claim, to defend that claim. E.g. those who claim that Torah was written down at the time of Moses, to prove that claim.

As for my purported love of Hinduism and Buddhism, I will have to deny that. I don’t like them, as I don’t like any other “ism. Nor do I like any superstitions religious or otherwise.
I do like some of the scriptures of the Hindus and some of the texts attributed to Buddha, but this is besides the point. The only point practically all ancient tales were written down much after their origination. This is the case with Vedas, Iliad, Odyssey, Dharmapada, Torah and the Gosples.

Koran, was written down about 100-150 years about Mu-Ham-Mad’s death. This did not leave enough time for the development of Koran as oral tradition, and therefore Koran, and Islam stayed spiritually retarded.

I already mentioned this:
“BUT, it’s implicit Manoah was open to offer adoration to the “holy man” if they words were true.”
as meaning, Manoah could adore anyone “holy”, not taking much pain in check what was his origin..

13:17 –
Manoah said to the angel of the LORD, “What is your name, so that when your words come {to pass,} we may honor you?”

13:18 –
But the angel of the LORD said to him, “Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?”

13:19 –
So Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering and offered it on the rock to the LORD, and He performed wonders while Manoah and his wife looked on.

13:20
For it came about when the flame went up from the altar toward heaven, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar. When Manoah and his wife saw {this,} they fell on their faces to the ground.

13:21
Now the angel of the LORD did not appear to Manoah or his wife again. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD.

13:22 -
So Manoah said to his wife, “We will surely die, for we have seen God.”

It is claer here that they were in His presence all the time, sono way Manoah could do domething wrong. BUT, it’s implicit Manoah was open to offer adoration to the “holy man” if they words were true.
Once he offered sacrifice, and saw the wonders, then realized he was in his presence. But the angel clearly suggested him to bring the burnt offering.