Chosen people

As a follow-up to Samuel's question.
Doesn't authentic Judaism (which you say is the Judaism of Halacha that relies on the Torah) attribute a unique essence (special nature) to the people of Israel? If you think not, how do you explain God's choice to have such a turbulent “romance” with this people beyond the pages of the Torah? In other words: if it were only a ”unique mission” why did God insist in the past (and present?) on imposing it on a chosen group? It seems a bit arbitrary to me.

But it is explicitly written, for example, in the eighteenth of Motzash “distinguishes between light and darkness, etc.” which implies that Israel is the Holy One and the Light.
Even if it is a matter of mission and not nature, there is still a matter of degree in relation to the level of the mission. Why would we have this important mission?
In addition, what does the Rabbi think about the amazing history of our people, whether it is survival, adherence to life, genius in relation to demography (Nobel Prizes), prophecy.
Is it rational to ignore these data, and not let them speak?

Doron, someone had to be chosen and God decided on Abraham's seed. Perhaps due to his own actions. This does not mean that we have a different built-in nature than other peoples. And in reality, I don't think there is one (beyond the difference between any two peoples or groups, of course).

Samuel, Israel are saints by virtue of fulfilling the mission and not by virtue of spiritual or physical genes.
I do not ignore these data, but I do not attribute them to genes but to our biography and culture (which stem, among other things, from the mission we received).

And what is our right to this mission? Who are we to accept this primary mission? Where do we come from?

I wrote that perhaps it was because of Abraham's actions that he was chosen with his descendants. Beyond that, even if there was no reason, someone had to be chosen anyway, right? As a kind of explanation by the Maimonides in the Book of Mormon on the details of the commandments (some of which are arbitrary only because the boundaries of the commandment need to be determined in some way).
But that really should be asked of the chooser himself. He will probably know how to give you the answer.

A. Does it make sense that for one person who is a great ancestor, an entire people for generations to come would be chosen? It seems a bit disproportionate.
B. I don't think the claim that someone should have been chosen justifies this arbitrary decision
For example, if there is a person X and a person Y and there is a prize. Is it moral to say I should have brought the prize I brought to X (even more so if it is the Creator of the world who seems to me to have absolute choice)
Why don't we divide?
What I don't understand is that whether it is a mission or nature, where does this arrogance come from?

I fail to see even the slightest hint of a problem here (especially since I'm not at all sure that the Gentiles want to be elected in our place, and many Jews aren't exactly happy about this choice either). But I've explained what I had to explain, and I see no point in continuing the discussion.

I completely agree with Samuel. Common sense dictates, in my opinion, that you don't assign such an important task to someone who is not qualified for it in advance (or at least perceived as such).

D”A Mikhi, note that if Samuel and your servant are right (and I think they are), then this ties in perfectly with our previous discussions, in which I argued that Judaism - especially as it relies on the myth of a “Torah from Heaven” - is “actualist” (or “analytic” in your language).
The heart of the actualist view is the apostasy in dualism, in the theological case this means apostasy in the separation of God from man.
The Jewish people are “holy” a priori and therefore only they are chosen to receive the holy factor (=the Torah) that mediates between God and man.
According to this argument, the Torah and the Jewish people are not contingent on each other but are necessarily dependent on each other. They cannot be separated.
As you recall, I argued that the actual history of the world (to which the Torah already refers at the time of its giving) is not truly separate from the text. And this is according to the text itself. The text does indeed send us to search for extra-textual evidence (outside the Torah) in order to establish its metaphysical uniqueness. However, this very act is based on the assumption that there is no possible “alternative history” in which any other people would be “holy” to the extent that it would be worthy of receiving a holy medium like the Torah.
The fate of history is decreed by the Torah in advance - the actual course of history is a priori necessary.
My conclusion: If the entire course of history (which is carried out by the Torah, which is necessarily attached to the Jewish people) is necessary, then even God himself could not escape this history.
Therefore, God is contingent on the Torah (and not vice versa).

The question is what is “right” in this sense. Here is the point of disagreement between us, and it is not new of course.
I will only add that in particular it surprises me to hear such strong opinions about Jewish essentialism from someone who announced that he is more inclined towards Christianity than Judaism. God missed the mark here. Or did this essentialism pass from Jews to Christians, and then the question is in what sense is it essentialism?

In the S”D

Samuel and Doron, what do you have with the “student”? Turn to that prophet of the chooser, the “rabbi”:

“…You are a holy people to the Lord your God, the Lord your God has chosen you to be his people, above all the peoples who are on the face of the earth:
The Lord did not set his love on you, nor chose you, because you were the fewest of all the peoples:
For because the Lord loved you and kept the oath which he swore to your fathers, the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt:” (Deuteronomy 7:6-8).
Here are the reasons for choosing the people of Israel explicitly (keeping the word and an inexplicable love [seemingly])

Regarding the comparison with “between light and darkness”, the source of the law in Pesachim (117:1):
“Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The one who distinguishes must mention the kind of distinctions mentioned in the Torah.”

And on the same matter, a baraita is cited, and the following:
“What is the order of distinctions? It says: ‘The one who distinguishes between the holy and the profane, between light and darkness, between Israel and the nations, and between the seventh day and the six days of work, between the unclean and the clean, (between the sea and the wasteland), between the upper waters and the lower waters, between priests and Levites and Israelites’.”

That is, there is no fundamental comparison between the selection of Israel from all the nations, or at least a comparison that is different from a comparison that could be made with the distinction of the waters of the earth from the waters above the firmament, or with the distinction of an unclean animal from a clean animal, which according to the words of Chazal, this verse is based on (“to distinguish between the unclean and the clean” [Leviticus 11:44]), its content:
“Between the unclean for you and the clean for you, between the slaughter of the majority of a ram and the slaughter of its half.” (Safra ibid.)
It seems more appropriate to state the places where the root b.d.l appears in the Torah, without a fundamental comparison.

(And for this reason, it is also worth reading the following passage on Leviticus 20:26, specifically at the end of his words, which are somewhat less famous: ‘Talmud says: “And I will increase you from among the nations to be a light” – found a man who renounces his transgression and accepts upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of heaven’, and this is the root and content of the distinction).

The best proof that Israel differs in nature from the other nations are the words of Reuel Bekuzari that all the prophets came from Israel and not even from the prophets (Mamar Rishon, Kettu), and about this the sages have already said “Obadiah was an Edomite” (Sanhedrin 33:2), and the excuses have been numerous.

As in “D.

Mikhi, regarding the comparison to Christianity and the issue of essentialism - I didn't understand your intention. Do you find my position essentialist? Why? Is it good? Bad?
Regarding the issue that Samuel raised: Well, as has already been said - the claim that God assigned a mission to an entire people for generations without thinking that there was any virtue that would set that people apart seems to me to be an arbitrary claim. God simply gambled on a certain people, just like that, and in the end it worked out for him. Your answer ("maybe because of Abraham" - I assume you meant our father and not Michael) also does not seem satisfactory to me.
Of course, I do not rule out in advance (and certainly do not require) that there is something special in Jewish history that shaped our collective soul. But this is no longer a theological or philosophical discussion but a "scientific" one.

Regarding what you said, our friend with the long name (please prove me wrong): It seems to me that if you rely on the words of Riel, you are deviating from our discussion. The discussion is based on the attempt to understand the fundamental text of Judaism (the Torah) and not on later interpretations of it.

In S”D

If I understood correctly, the Rabbi meant the essentialism that you and Samuel, and so did I, the little one, apply to the fact/claim that the people of Israel were separated from the other peoples. That is, for this fact/claim arbitrary reasons can be provided or those that do not concern the people themselves (as I and the Rabbi claim, and as I have also shown the Torah), and essential reasons can be provided (as you and Samuel insist on forcing in the name of “common sense”). The Rabbi made it difficult for a Christian approach to get entangled with such essentialist evidence, since according to it the ’ changed his choice during the first century CE, and if the choice from the beginning was based on some fundamental difference (“some virtue that would distinguish that people” [Doron]), it is difficult to see why it changed, unless, and this is what I think the rabbi meant, the peculiar qualities of that people suddenly passed to everyone who was baptized into Paul's religion.

What I brought from Maria” was really not a reference to my claim but rather the opposite, the first source in Jewish history (that I [really] found) that supports your and Samuel's path, and that said that the people of Israel did indeed carry “some virtue” or as he put it: “worthy for the sake of God”. In fact, if you didn't understand, I brought the main proof against Riel's main claim, according to which this virtue prevents Gentiles, and even Gentiles, from becoming prophets, and it is that its worshiper, at least according to the words of Chazal (which you obviously don't accept, but Riel does, and so it's important when discussing his claim), was an Edomite.

Total success.

.I am not here to claim that the Jewish people are special so there is no special divine essence (I have quite a few doubts about that too), I am simply saying that we have a special history from many aspects and when people think, I think it is important to ask about this phenomenon.
Regarding the Rabbi's claim ” I hang them on our biography and culture” I am a little skeptical. A”A to ask about A’ and answer because of A’ It is precisely our biography and culture that raise a question in me.

But my main question is about the issue of gradualism from a moral perspective.
And I think the question is very relevant because jealousy regarding this choice has been expressed throughout history…(contrary to what the rabbi claims is not so common among people

I understood your words about essentialism. But I think that Paul also understood them quite well and that is why he spoke (I think it was him) about the transition from ”Israel in the flesh” to ”Israel in the spirit”. I understand his words like this: There is a real “Israel” and there was one from the beginning, but if this Israel was realized in ancient times with the help of the Torah (=God's preferred channel of mediation), then over the course of history and with the training of hearts, Israel receives a new channel from the nylons (“the Son of God”).
In my opinion, there is no philosophical problem or contradiction here.
On the contrary, the rational (potentialist-synthetic) philosophical discourse is perfectly consistent with the distinction between the channel of mediation and the God who created it. The Torah is contingent on God (although I argue that it is implicit in itself that this is not the case) and at a later historical stage the Son of God appears (who is also contingent on God due to his semi-human nature). In any case, the model of the Son of God is philosophically more successful, in my opinion, than the Jewish model of the Torah.

Regardless of this question, it is still not clear to me why God would in the first place impose such a holy mission on a people chosen at random. As if we were to say that God thereby had the choice divided. In relation to this, I claimed that this was an arbitrary determination. At this point I still do not understand from you and me on what basis you save God from this arbitrariness.
??

I also forgot to write: the essential “Israeliness” is not an inherent part of history, although it of course has certain expressions in history. In fact, the more it becomes refined, the further it moves away (at least in important ways) from that history. The entire Christian model is on one foot, and this is what gives it the dualistic character that Shimi himself so cherishes (and rightly so).

In B”D

I admit that I did not understand, and it may be because I entered the discussion late, your claims, and therefore I am trying to respond now one last time, and I leave the rest to the rabbi who understood the discussion better than me.

What I did not understand is that if “Israel” is realized with the help of the Torah, and in any case can at a moment pass to be realized in anyone who takes upon himself this piece of flesh as God, Rachel, this means that the group of people I call Israel does not have any uniqueness beyond other people, since otherwise the realization of Israelity in them is not an essential factor found in themselves but depends on an external factor (the Torah / “Son of God”). You said it yourself very beautifully, that Israelity is not part of history, and if so, your wonderful question about the muscularity of the Almighty is repeated to you almost as it is repeated to me and the rabbi.

In other words: either Israel is the group of people because of their characteristic / virtue, or Israel is a status imposed on this group of people because of the Torah / “Son of God”. I didn't understand how you don't see the dichotomy between these two approaches.

In any case, this is where I will end my remarks for now.

“Please prove me wrong”, don't worry, this is already the third thread where no one understands Doron's strange (in my opinion) claims. It is very difficult to respond to such a long text with lots of insinuations and winks and excessive words (the potentialist model is more philosophical than Israel in the flesh blah blah blah blah)

And to Samuel, I'm not sure I understood what you were saying either. If you are discussing a virtue of the Jewish people that makes them worthy of receiving the mission (as you mentioned in some of your responses), then if you are not talking about a divine virtue (as you just wrote), but rather about cultural and biographical characteristics, then we are talking about things that happened to the Jewish people long, long after the giving of the Torah. There is only one way to connect the Nobel Prizes to the reason God chose Israel: seeing the cultural and biographical characteristics that led, according to the rabbi, to those Nobel Prizes as a "sign" that the Jewish people have always been more intelligent than other peoples, and therefore deserve to receive the Torah.

If you do believe so, I don't understand what problem you have with the culture and biography of the Jewish people, and if not, then you can, like the rabbi, believe that these are things that were acquired over the years, among other things because of the mission and not as a cause of accepting it.

The same is true regarding moral gradation: If the Jewish people are indeed more talented and intelligent than other peoples, and you for some reason believe that this gives them superiority over other peoples (this is a question of values and not so much of fact, in the spirit of the words of Maharil [our teacher Rabbi Yeshayahu Leibowitz]), then what is the question? If you believe that this is acquired, like the rabbi, then why would this give them superiority?

In short: culture and biography, according to you, raise the question. If the question is how the Jewish people have cultural and biographical superiority over other peoples, then either you assume that they are more talented (whether you call it a divine virtue or not is really unimportant terminology), and if the question is whether they grant the Jewish people superiority over other peoples, that is a moral question that you are invited to decide according to your understanding.

And here, God willing, my words to you will also end.

And as for the discussion itself, it is clear in the Torah that the people of Israel are simply the natural continuation of Abraham our father. If anything, we need to ask about Abraham's own choice (and in this it is very clear that it was not arbitrary. His righteousness is mentioned dozens and hundreds of times even after his death, and the Torah tells of the trials he tried).

A few points:
A. The book of the Quzari contradicts itself. It begins with a prophecy to a Gentile (an angel's dream) and claims that there are no prophecies to Gentiles…
B. Furthermore, according to the Quzari, the kernel of the divine matter is supposed to become a tree that will encompass the entire human race.
C. The requirement that a prophet be only Jewish is not the Quzari's. An explicit verse in Parashat Shofitim requires this: I will raise up for them a prophet from among their brothers like you (Deuteronomy 18:8). Gil will certainly argue that this requirement is late and that only after it appeared is there no place for a prophet of the Gentiles.
D. For Doron – Christianity assumes a division between the spiritual and the material. If we do not assume such a division as happened with secularism and materialism, all of Christianity falls. Judaism, on the other hand, does not fall because it does not assume that there is an Israel of the spirit separate from Israel of the flesh.

As I said at the beginning of the discussion, the question that concerns me here is whether Judaism (insofar as it is anchored in the idea of a Torah from heaven) assumes that the idea of a “special people” is essential or a “mission” (role).
I focused less on the question of whether the Jewish people “really” – not according to the Torah – has a real metaphysical uniqueness. Maybe so, maybe not.
My conclusion was that according to the internal logic of this myth, we must come to the conclusion that in its own way (of the myth) the concept of a “special people” does indeed indicate a unique metaphysical nature.

Now you are asking me about the truth (i.e., about the question: can we “buy” what the Torah assumes, namely that there is such a thing as the special people of Israel). Here my answer tends to be both.

The important part is indeed metaphysical in nature: the people of Israel were not chosen arbitrarily (I have not yet been able to understand why God would act so arbitrarily). Apparently there is truly something metaphysical about this people (and therefore it makes sense to me that the Torah would also say this).
But at the same time, there is a second level to the same question, according to which the Jewish people also received a role or destiny. Ultimately, it is reasonable to assume that God understands perfectly well that he is imposing a very heavy task on flesh and blood people. The metaphysical ”implant” that he implanted in them from the beginning may allow them to sometimes transcend their human limitations, but when these become too much, the “divine thing” is pushed aside.

Common sense - in my opinion, of course… - says that this is how everyday reality works. We assign tasks to a person or group that we believe has the appropriate qualities (teacher, driver, doctor, plumber…), but we also assign them a “role”. All this because we know that it is not enough for a person to have the skills in advance. From those people, commitment is also required, not just reliance on their innate abilities.

Therefore, in my opinion, contrary to what you said, there is no room for an exclusionary dichotomy regarding this question.

On this occasion, I would like to thank from the bottom of my heart D’ who is here to help a clumsy, confused, and pretentious writer like me improve his writing. We are blessed to have such generous support.

14,
a. The dream story is a frame story and not a factual description. Therefore, it should not be concluded from it that there is a prophecy for the Gentiles. Beyond that, there is such a prophecy in Balaam, Pharaoh, and Abimelech in the Torah.
b. Regarding the vision of the Khazari, perhaps in the future there will be a prophecy for everyone else as well. Tikkun Olam.
c. Regarding the verse, we can say that a prophet will be raised up “for them”from among their brothers. For them, the prophet must be a Jew, but it is possible for a non-Jewish prophet who is intended for the Gentiles (like Balaam).

If I were you, Doron (if I understand you, I claim not) I would formulate the answer to Rav Michy as follows:

“I do agree that there is an essential virtue for the people of Israel, but I argue that it is only a potential, and the task that this potential created was assigned to other people because the first ones did not live up to it.”

But here Rav Michy would ask, as he did ask: Why didn't G-d choose in advance the group of people with the better potential in advance? Why did he suddenly choose type B’ and then remember that type A is actually better? The only way out of this, wrote Rabbi Michi, is to say that this incredible potential passed over the course of history from the original group that carried it, to a new group, and in essence to claim that Christianity changed the reality of the capabilities of the people themselves who yesterday had enormous potential, superior to any human, and today they are like empty vessels made of clay and others have been granted this potential.

One claim is that the mission was granted through the Torah to group x and then granted through Jesus to group y, but a much more extreme claim, as Rabbi Michi argues, is that the metaphysical potential itself that you are talking about was granted to group x and then to group y, for if so, it is found that God Himself is the one who grants the potential to those groups, a fact that He can transfer it between them, and if so, it is found that from the beginning He granted the Torah to the group to which He chose to grant the potential, and then it is found that God again did not grant the Torah to that group for a metaphysical reason, because He Himself created it, but rather arbitrarily, and again you have nothing to rely on.

And on this matter of the prophecy of Gentiles according to the Khuzaris (and Maimonides), see Rabbi Shilat's article here: http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/maaliyot/sgulat-2.htm

I remember an article by Aryeh Stern in Bezhar on the virtue of Israel for Khozari and Maimonides, with polemics that followed:
http://www.tzohar.org.il/wp-content/uploads/25_16.pdf
For myself, it doesn't really matter to me what their positions were. The question is what is right, and in this regard I am about as qualified as they are.

By the way, according to the Khazari system, which states that the divine matter is passed from father to son and thus came from the first Adam to the people of Israel, the “divine matter” statistically trickled down to the Gentiles a long time ago. A gentile son with a Jewish father is a gentile with a “divine matter,” and a Jew with a gentile father (or a ger, of whom there have been hundreds of thousands throughout history) does not have it. Since Jews are a negligible minority, statistically the gentiles are currently the people with the main virtue.

As for the matter itself, it seems to me that the question lacks the Popperian test of refutation. Neither side presents an aspect of his claim that would allow it to be tested empirically. Rabbi Michi claims that empirically he sees no difference between us and the Gentiles. In my opinion, empirically there is a difference between us and the Gentiles. This does not prove much about the matter itself. One can believe that there is a difference essentially, but for various reasons today there is no difference, and conversely, that today there is a difference but it exists for historical reasons and not for a fundamental reason. It seems to me that even those who are perceived as holding a fundamentalist view, such as the Rihal and the Maharal, are susceptible to a somewhat more complex interpretation than the simplistic interpretation that is usually given to them.

Wine, I somewhat accept your rewording of my words.
As stated, my answer is that the potential (as you put it) of the chosen group is not the be-all and end-all. There is also the matter of the history of a people, its actual moral choices, etc. Both explanations are correct and do not contradict each other.
Michi himself believes only in the second explanation (that the principle of a "virtuous people" is a historical and moral mission) and thus he is forced to make a very problematic claim in my opinion, namely the claim that such a dramatic choice in the history of the cosmos and human history was made for arbitrary reasons.
I brought simple examples from everyday life to illustrate that none of us usually assumes such arbitrariness in reality. Especially when it comes to such a great cosmic drama.

Now there are several possible answers to the question: Why did God “get confused” and choose an unsuitable group of people?
One possible answer is that Jews still have a cosmic role in the divine plan. However, this role is very different from what Orthodox Judaism (and perhaps even some of its opponents: secular, Reform, etc.) claims. Such a solution leaves intact the metaphysical virtue that the Jews were endowed with, but it dialectically subjugates it to a broader process.
Another possible answer is, as you argued in the name of Michi, that God “expropriated” from the Jews the metaphysical virtue that he had implanted in them. Such an answer does not undermine the metaphysical consideration underlying the argument, as someone might say, but it merely subordinates a particular metaphysical attribute (the virtue of being chosen by a particular people) to the factor that caused it in the first place. If someone is already bold enough to believe in a divine being who granted a metaphysical status to a particular group, then the distance from this to the idea that the same factor can deny that same attribute is not great.

There may be other possible answers.

I close by returning to the methodological question that underlies this entire discussion. The most important point, in my opinion, is regarding the nature of the channel of mediation that God chose to address man. Since, according to the “Torah from Heaven” model, the linguistic platform is the channel of mediation that God chose to address man, the philosophical and theological problem that I discussed arises from the outset (that the chosen channel – in fact, the Torah – is trying to take the place of God). As I have tried to show, the “chosen people” model is bound by a necessary connection that cannot be separated from the Torah itself, and therefore this model is also associated with the same problematic.

On the 12th of Elul,

To Doron, Hello,

According to your argument that God's speech to humanity through His Torah is not an effective channel of mediation. According to this logic, even our responses on the site are not an effective channel of mediation, your responses do not adequately express your opinion and the responses of others do not adequately express their opinion and will. So what is the appropriate channel of mediation for a discourse that wishes to effectively convey opinions to people?

Best regards,, The Desert

DCH I'm not sure your question is related to the discussion taking place here.
Moreover, I argue that the channel of mediation that God chose (the linguistic platform - the Torah) is a very successful channel. History also supports this.
The problem with this channel begins in the context of our philosophical and theological discussion. When we try to claim that a text (and another specific text) is the main tool of mediation between us and God, and in the process we discover that this text itself does indeed testify to this, the text seems to be trying to “inherit” the one who wrote it.
It would not be a very big provocation to say about the Jews (the authentic ones, not fake secularists like me) that they believe in the Torah from heaven but reject heaven itself.

On the 13th of Elul 8th

To Doron, Greetings,

The text does not replace its author, but faithfully represents his mind and will, as the sages said, "Anaki" is an acronym for "Ana Nefshai Kevit Yahvit."

When we approach the Torah, with the understanding that it is not a "dead letter," but rather the revelation of the wisdom and will of the Creator, whose wisdom and will are one, the more we delve into the Torah and understand it, the more we understand the wisdom and will of the Creator, and thus draw closer to Him and cling to Him.

And for this I brought the parable of the conversation between people, that the more we deepen and try to understand each other what the other says or writes, the greater the understanding between us..

With greetings, Sh”z Levinger (= D”ch Hamidbar)

Dear DCH, as our host at his lovely hostel usually says: Your argument is based on the psychological level (as you say: “when we approach the Torah from the inside…”) and not on the philosophical or ethical level.
There is nothing to “internalize” here, but a rational philosophical discussion (at least we are trying to make it so) about basic facts that are known to all and are probably accepted by all of us.
The main (and perhaps the only) question I raise in this context is regarding the logical structure of the Torah model from heaven.
In this sense, your last argument does not seem relevant to me.

Beyond that, the problem with the Torah is not that it is a dead letter, but exactly the opposite. The Torah is a “Torah of Life”. Hence the secret of its great power, a power that I argue overflows from its dimensions.

Doron,
This is an old Hasidic argument. “What is the difference between a Hasid and a dissident? The Hasid will fear God, the dissident will fear the Shulchan Aruch” and other such departures. I don't know to what extent this reflects reality.
From my perspective, God cannot cross the boundary between Himself and the world without destroying the world, and therefore all that remains is to be content with His signifiers or representatives – the Torah and Israel. Without them, the connection to the Lord of the world is severed and the world slips into idolatry.

Y.D. I think your last response misses the point.

While we both probably agree that ”God cannot cross the boundary between himself and the world without destroying the world and therefore all that remains is to be content with his signifiers or representatives”.

We also both agree that therefore he needed a mediating channel.

But my argument was about the a priori conditions required of that channel.
The channel chosen according to Judaism (the Torah) is a great channel. The problem with it is that it is “strong” against God (in philosophical language: it is not contingent on God).
Therefore, if it somehow meets the conditions (it probably does), it is still possible to imagine more successful channels, that is, channels in which it is philosophically possible to defend belief in them in a better way.

Yes, if you follow what Michi writes in his various publications (and in Bahler) you see that he repeatedly emphasizes the solution of direct intellectual observation of "essences" that are beyond the empirical world.
This position - which I completely accept - is perfectly consistent with what I said above: although a limited creature like man will never be able to completely give up the means of mediation (for example, language, the senses, etc.), it does not follow that man is entirely captive within those means. He has a very successful way of going beyond them.
In my opinion, the Torah-from-heaven model swallows the opposite (and erroneous) thesis - since the Torah was given (and perhaps even before that), man will not be able to maintain this deviation.

Doron, do you really think that by “observing the essences” (=intuition) one can know the will of God? Maybe morality, yes, but let's say God wants to command the wearing of black square tefillin in such and such a way, etc. You can't know that without the Torah even if you observe the ideas all day.
In fact, without the Torah we wouldn't even know that God commands anything.

In the name of God, may He bless you in all your endeavors, 2017.

Contemplation of the essence of man, as a creature who has, on the one hand, intelligence, basic intuition, and the ability to develop it and understand one thing from another. On the other hand, he is limited in his ability to know and understand, and he sees only a small part of the infinite puzzle.

So there is no shame, after we have activated our human thinking ability, in seeking guidance from the Creator of the world, who alone knows the depth of the system He created and who alone knows exactly where it should lead.

Relying on the wisdom and will of God, embodied in the Torah given to us by our Creator, does not exempt us from the need to activate our thinking. On the contrary, we are commanded to observe the Torah with our minds in order to understand in depth its trends and ways. And from understanding the logic of the Torah that was handed down to us, we can understand “word by word” and deduce what God’s will is in new questions that are not explicitly addressed in the Torah that was handed down to us.

The Torah lays the foundations for us, and we use our thinking to develop them

With Shabbat Shalom greetings, Sh”tz Levinger

D’, you are right. It is impossible to know God’s will in detail (what kind of tefillin He wants, etc.) through intuition.
How does this relate to our discussion? I didn’t talk about the details at all.

Sh”l, the same thing… How do your things (which all seem correct to me) relate to our specific discussion?
The starting point for our philosophical discussion is not the Torah or the Son of God or Shiva or the Spaghetti Monster. The starting point is to clarify the a priori conditions for the existence of a channel of mediation between us and God. We are trying to formulate for ourselves what can serve as a rational explanatory model for revelation.

In effect, we are preparing for ourselves a kind of tool.
Only after the working tool is ready do we use it to examine specific models that have appeared in history (Judaism, Christianity, Spinoza's model, etc.) and then decide whether they are reasonable or not.

I probably didn't understand what you were saying. In your previous response, you wrote that the Torah prevents us from going beyond the means of mediation and using the contemplation of ideas (essences).
To this I said that even if this were true (in my opinion, it is not), it doesn't matter because the Torah contains much more commandments and information than contemplation of essences would give us.

I didn't understand why you think the Torah is a medium that is a priori not good to use?

Additionally, Doron, if we return to the original discussion, I think you have not really resolved the dichotomy.
Your first answer referred to a broad dialectical course intended to replace a narrow one-dimensional course. You have still not resolved the fact that God chose the narrow course at the beginning and not the straight and comprehensive and broad course. If He did so, then He, as Rabbi Michi said, simply screwed up. This is not a much different argument than the argument that God chose people x and was forced to regret his choice and choose group y, since it essentially claims that God chose course x and was forced to regret his choice and choose course y.
Regarding your second answer, I do not see how you solved the problem of arbitrariness in it. If the justification for the choice, which is not arbitrary, is a metaphysical virtue that the chooser himself grants, then it stems from the reason why the chooser granted that virtue to the chosen one. If you have no good reason why the virtue was given to us and not to the Indians or the French or the Uruguayans, then you have again fallen into the trap of arbitrary choice. This is a departure from the arbitrary decision of only one logical step, especially if the metaphysical virtue is, as you put it, “deprived” of the one that was initially granted to it.

Regarding your discussion, I can only wonder what kind of mediation you are looking for, and indeed the Torah may not provide it. It is not clear to me how you expect it to proceed and what its goals are.

Wine, Doron has already written (not here) that in his opinion the medium that Christianity offers (Jesus, the Son of God) is better “a priori” (I have no idea what that means) than the Torah

Doron,
Paul himself probably understood the problem with your model, which seems to have a tendency to examine all Messianic sects such as Breslau Chabad Christianity, etc., and so he writes:

The first is Christ; then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then at the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when he has abolished all rule and all authority and power; For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet, for God has put all things under his feet. And when he says that all things are put under him, it is clear that putting all things under him is not in this sense. And when all things are put under him, then the Son also himself will be subject to him who put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (Romans 15)

“All in all” originally also means: God will be all for all (as opposed to the sharing of God plus all, Rebbe and Doc).

Copenhagen, I didn't understand your argument. What in the quote you cited makes my argument difficult in your opinion?

Yin, I posed two questions for myself: The first is why did God choose a "short process" and not from the beginning fulfill the entire process to its completion (i.e. why did He not choose in advance the set of qualities He desired)?
My answer: The difficulty you point out is indeed a real difficulty, but it is only a particular case of a much larger question that we have not dealt with.
The big question is something like this: Why did God need this headache of creating the world in the first place? Why was He not content with His own perfection (similar to the Aristotelian God)?
Do you want us to deal with this question? I don't know if I have good answers to it myself, but in Judaism there are certainly attempts to deal with this (for example, the Cuckoo discussion of perfection and completion).
In any case, if you accept the answer that God's perfection will be greater precisely with the creation of the world and time (history), then you also accept that the world is developing and progressing towards a kind of “happy end”. Obviously, in this development, different forces rise and fall on the stage of history.
If so, it only makes sense that in God's eyes, one “quality group” (people with a virtue) will replace another “quality group”.
Your second question is about the arbitrariness of choosing that quality group.
But here, in my opinion, you are again deviating from our discussion: Our discussion did not deal with the question of which people were granted the virtue (for the sake of the discussion, we have already agreed that it is the Jewish people). Therefore, our discussion did not deal with the question you are raising now, which is why God decided to equip a certain people with such a virtue.
But: the discussion was about only one question: Is it required from the Torah model from heaven that the chosen people have such a virtue that was granted to them by God? I argued yes, you and Micah (and perhaps others) argued no.

D, I repeat what I said about the a priori conditions under which a mediator must meet (in order for us to be able to choose him rationally):
Such a mediator must be contingent on the God who created him (take care of the main thing).
The main medium (channel) available to man for obtaining metaphysical "information" is intellectual observation (intuition). It is true that in principle direct revelation to man can occur and is preferable to intellectual observation, but then the requirement for it to occur for us in a real, direct way. Since this has not happened yet (at least for me), we are left with intellectual observation only.

The Torah model from heaven offers us a priori another central medium - language or text. In this respect, this model claims to inherit the place of intellectual observation. I argued that this is philosophically impossible.

As an example of a more successful model (philosophically), think of the medium offered by Christianity (“the image of man” - the Son of God).
The image of man is a symbol (=medium) whose direct observation (thinking about him, believing in him, etc.) makes it easier for us to make the leap of faith that bridges us to the infinite God above us. And according to this model, Jesus stands exactly “halfway” between heaven and earth. In contrast to the text in the Jewish version, which was supposed to bridge us to God but in reality is actually a divider between the two, the “Son of God” Predestined (a priori) as contingent to God. Just like a child in reality is contingent to his father.

In other words, the centrality of Jesus' death in Christian theology also reinforces this direction. Jesus is a mediator created in advance to bridge the gap between man and God and then disappears (dies) for the sake of this connection between the two parties. In other words: a mediator who is careful in advance not to become a barrier that will cut off God and man.

On the 17th of Elul 8th

The election of the people of Israel did not bring them any privileges, but rather additional duties. While all humans are required only to have faith and basic morality, to follow the seven commandments of the children of Noah, not to worship idols, not to murder, steal, and commit adultery. To maintain the correction of the world.

Much more is required of the people of Israel. Not only to be ‘in order’, but to be ‘a kingdom of priests and a holy nation’ to live with a constant feeling of connection with God. A Jew encounters his God at every step of life where he is accompanied by his God's individual instructions. The constant standing ‘before the face of God’ Creates a person whose aspiration is not only to be ‘in order’, but to be ‘loving the place and loving the people’

We were chosen as the successors of Abraham whose destiny was to establish a nation in which ‘and in you all the nations of the earth shall be blessed and in your seed’ will exist, a nation that will sanctify its life by adhering to it’ and its good ways, will set an example for other nations and bring them closer to the values of the Torah. The chosen ones of the nations will join as an inseparable part of the people of Israel, and the rest of humanity will truly embrace the fundamental values of the Seven Commandments of the Children of Noah.

This process began about 1500 years ago, when a significant part of the civilized world partially accepted some of the values of the Torah, such as monotheism and the Sabbath and the vision of world unity of the prophets of Israel. But instead of recognizing the favor of Judaism that brought them the gospel – The disciples denied their teachers, persecuted and humiliated them, and filled the world with wars and cruelty. The evil that Christianity did was that in the name of monotheism it began to worship an idol, and in the name of ‘love and grace’ it increased its persecution and cruelty, until it brought religion to the world. Now Islam is also distorting its path and increasing its violence and terror.

The ray of hope in this process is that people from all over the world are slowly discovering that instead of adopting imitations that have become corrupt, it is better to connect with original Judaism and learn from its leader and observe the Seven Commandments of the Children of Noah, without the distortions of imitations.

With best wishes, Sh”z Levinger

Doron, I see that you understand that I have deviated from the discussion. I will explain why I did not deviate.

A. The question is not why the Lord is not directly interested in the outcome of the process (as you seem to have understood from my words, which is indeed a very big question and I also have no desire or ability to discuss it), but why he chose a group that ultimately does not advance the process, and only later a group that does advance it, if he is aware in advance of the capabilities of the first group.

B. Regarding the discussion concerning the granting of virtue, the “new” discussion is closely related to the “old” discussion, because in the “old” discussion you based your claim on the fact that common sense does not allow for an arbitrary choice of any people, but rather forces a reason for choosing one. I commented on this, to which you are in fact claiming that the He chose a people with virtue, and in any case did not choose an apparently arbitrary choice, but since he himself bestowed the virtue, the choice is indeed arbitrary. It is true that the discussions do not overlap, but your argument based on the denial of arbitrary choice is related to the second argument.
Unless what you have argued so far is that the arbitrarily chosen one needs tools to meet the task, and hence God bestowed them on him. But I do not see how you base this argument on any logical tool: If the choice is indeed arbitrary (and so His Honor assumes, since you believe that God bestowed the virtue in an apparently arbitrary manner!), why assume that the chosen group received more tools than another group?
One argument is to argue that the chosen group must necessarily have the tools to meet the task relative to other groups, otherwise it would not have been chosen. This is indeed not a bad argument. But if arbitrary choice is assumed in advance, why assume that the chosen group is more capable of the task than another group? It makes perfect sense that she is indeed just as worthy of the task as everyone else, but was chosen for a reason that is independent of talent or virtue (and so your faithful servant believes)!
Therefore, your argument is correct, but I did not mean that the discussions are the same, but that they project one on the other.

Doron, I understood your argument about the medium, but I don't understand why you decided that it is philosophically impossible to use the text. It seems that you are simply limiting God. He wants to give us a text with instructions. What is philosophically impossible about that?

On the 1st of Elul

L’Yain’ – Shalom Rav,

The second choice that ‘Doron’ offers is Christianity. The ’promotion’ he offers is replacing the Torah with a ’symbol’ that represents God, and in simple words: an idol. But Christianity distorted paganism much more than the &#8217original’. When ancient paganism chose as its &#8217symbol’ For gods who have figures through whom abundance and blessing come to the world, such as the sun or rain (Baal) or the tree (Asherah), Christianity chose to worship horror, to reach a religious experience from contemplating the figure of a person tortured to death.

The Christian worship of sadomasochism came against the background of Roman culture, in which it was necessary to provide the multitude with bread and entertainment of public crucifixions and gladiatorial battles, in which the murdered and devoured man was shown to entertain the audience. When the tribes of the barbarians, the Teutons, the Huns and the Vandals also joined the celebration, the worship of cruelty found an excellent background, and the religion of love and kindness provided the audience with an abundance of sadistic pleasures – Crusades, riots, and hotbeds of ‘eto-de-pe’, in which the audience enjoyed and reveled in the offerings. For such a crazy perversion, is the Creator supposed to exchange his Torah and his people?

‘The first chosen’, the people of Israel, proved themselves excellent. It took us about a thousand years to finally free ourselves from idolatry, and then we began to fulfill our destiny to influence the world with faith and values. The fact that all over the world there were communities scattered that worked for an abstract God, that lived an intense spiritual life and maintained a society of solidarity and mutual aid, thanks to the Torah, the community and the Sabbath – They charmed their surroundings and led to a movement of those approaching Judaism on various levels to the point that Roman historians testify that there was no house in Rome that did not have a Jew in it, in the sense of ‘approaching Judaism’.

Christianity came against the backdrop of Judaism's success, and it started by offering a ‘cheap substitute’, you will not be obligated to any commandments, you can even turn the God of Israel into an ’idol’. Enough with the empty talk about ‘love and kindness’, and you can pat yourself on the back and declare yourself the ’true chosen people’. They nailed God to the cross, and did whatever they wanted in his name.

Another thousand years passed before the world got tired of the cheap imitation. And in the meantime, the ’first chosen’ who seemed to be in a state of dying began to awaken. First, she began to free herself from the physical bondage and curse of the ’eternal wanderer’ that Christianity had imposed on her. And later, she gradually freed herself from the lowliness of her stature toward the Gentile world. She would take from modernity the good and the beautiful. The aspiration to think and understand and the freedom to think, and from intellectual independence she would discover the great treasure that righteous and wise prophets had stored for her. She would open it and from it she would find solace, and she would teach the entire people how to approach the Creator and truly walk in His ways.

With blessings, Sh”z Levinger

Paragraph 4, line 1:
… and succeeded by offering a ‘substitute…

Paragraph 5, line 6:
… and taught everyone the whole…

To Doron,
It seems to me that Abraham chose the Almighty no less than the Lord of the World chose Abraham. And the important parameter was the future and not some virtue in the present or some matter in the past. Like a Haredi couple on a date who is not interested in the past but in what they will do in the future. So too, Abraham and the Lord of the World were not interested in some virtue or anything like that. Their main concern was the future. And if you ask what they found in each other, then the Scriptures say so explicitly. Abraham found in the Lord of the World the judge of all the earth. And the Lord of the World found in Abraham an old man sitting in the yeshiva who would command his sons to do law and justice. Even today, there are sons of Abraham our father from the nations of the world who find their way toward Judaism and convert, and on the other hand, unfortunately, there are Jews who, despite their connection to the Lord of the World, alienate themselves from the way of Abraham our father and choose to assimilate among the Gentiles. There is nothing mystical here or some spiritual virtue that is bestowed upon one and then passed on to another. What there is is a mutual understanding of the matter on the basis of which it is possible to talk about the future - to create a people who will be a light to the nations, what will happen in exile, will this people have a place under the sun, and so on.

Christianity, as Schützl commented, cannot see itself as a continuation of Abraham our father because it has no law and justice. The religion of grace has given up on law and is therefore not a continuation of Abraham our father.

Secular people often complain about religious and ultra-Orthodox people, saying how they can get married without living together and testing their compatibility (including sexual relations) before the wedding. Their mistake is that they focus on the past (sexual experience) and the present (life as a childless couple and commitment) instead of the future of building a home. In the moment of truth, when it comes to making a commitment, having children, and sticking to the relationship, it turns out that ultra-Orthodox relationships are much stronger than secular relationships. Religious people are similar to ultra-Orthodox people only in the difference that as a result of the internalization of the idea of autonomy socially, the couple must establish themselves as a couple, and this is not done by the parents (and here we can draw an axis between extreme ultra-Orthodox people, where only the parents organize the relationship and the husband sees his wife 5 minutes before the wedding, and Lithuanians, where it is in the middle, for national religious people, where the couple creates the relationship).

Wine (good name, good for you)

A. As I argued earlier, there is a possible philosophical interpretation according to which the first chosen group (the people of Israel) does “promote” the cosmic and historical process that God wants to bring about. According to this interpretation (which even has a solid basis in certain Christian theologies - although my discussion does not deal with them) the Jewish people will be relevant to history forever. Even today. However, as I have already explained, its role needs to be interpreted in a slightly more dialectical way than the authentic Jewish tradition will allow itself to do.

B. If you want to say that God's decisions are “arbitrary” regarding us because we do not truly understand him, then you are right. According to this, from our perspective (only) God's choice to grant a certain metaphysical virtue to the people of Israel is truly “arbitrary”. And yet the subject of the discussion from the beginning was none other than the question of whether the people of Israel - according to the model of the Torah from heaven alone - have such a virtue or not? I argue that the model swallows up “logically” since
To this I of course add what I said before: There is also a historical and psychological element of human choice. This element is parallel to the metaphysical element and does not replace it.

I admit that the length of this discussion is exhausting me, so I will only hint at a response that will not be silence as consent and I will abandon it (Innkeeper, Samuel, Copenhagen and the guy with the long name have not appeared here for a long time and only Sch”l, I, Y.D. and D continue to deal with it).

A. The question is why not start with a process in which the people of Israel takes the part it is taking now, if it is truly taking advantage of its metaphysical virtue even today, but rather create a false image that it is destined for the mission and then transfer its virtue to another group?

B. You claim that the model swallows the virtue because the choice is not arbitrary, therefore it is very important whether the granting of the virtue is arbitrary or not! You paint a picture of a deviation from the discussion when there is only a link between different discussions here, as I have already taken the trouble to explain above.

And thanks for the compliment about the name... the idea is very similar to Shetzl, it's simply an acronym for my full name.

On the 9th of Elul

Indeed, Christian theology assigned an important role to the Jews who were rejected by God.

Augustine, one of the Fathers of the Church, determined that the role of the Jews was to suffer and be humiliated, so that they would constitute a "criterion group" that would prove, through its maturity and suffering, the truth of the "religion of love and grace."

In the Middle Ages, statues of two women were placed at the entrances of cathedrals. One, miserable, bowed and blindfolded, is the defeated "Synoga," and next to her is the "Ekklesia." The triumphant church, proud and upright

Therefore, the revival of the Jewish people in their land poses a difficult theological problem for Christians who have doomed the Jews to eternal wandering and suffering. Therefore, when Herzl turned to the Pope with a request to help the Jewish people establish a national home in the Land of Israel, the Pope refused to help, and said to Herzl: Even if you succeed in establishing a state, we will flood it with missionaries who will save the Jews returning to their land.

Blessed be G-d that we did not give them prey!

With greetings,, The Jew who returned to Zion in Brina

Y.D. I have already agreed several times that this is not just a metaphysical choice of God in man, but at the same time also a moral task that he must choose anew every time. It comes from both directions and in this respect there is no problem here (not even for the Jewish tradition, which believes in both God and His providence and in man's freedom of choice).

I agree with your claim that Christianity has no law and justice (at least it has too little of it). This is already one of its problems, but it is less relevant to our discussion. Our discussion focuses first of all on the basic logical and ontological conditions of a plausible theology (philosophical knowledge).

Doron, the only problem with your ”reasonable theology” is that you haven't explained in a single word why the Torah cannot be a good medium for communication with God.

This is what you wrote earlier:
“D, I repeat what I said about the a priori conditions that a medium must meet (even if we can choose it rationally):
Such a medium must be contingent on the God who created it (take care of the essentials).
The main medium (channel) available to man to obtain metaphysical “information” is intellectual observation (intuition). It is true that in principle direct revelation to man can occur and is preferable to intellectual observation, but then the requirement for it to occur for us in a real, direct way. Since this has not happened yet (at least for me), we are left with intellectual observation only.
The Torah model from heaven offers us a priori another central intermediary - language or text. In this respect, this model claims to inherit the place of intellectual observation. I argued that this is philosophically impossible.

As an example of a more successful model (philosophically), think of the intermediary offered by Christianity (“the image of man” - the Son of God).
The image of man is a symbol (=intermediary) whose direct observation (thinking about him, believing in him, etc.) makes it easier for us to make the leap of faith that bridges us to the infinite God above us. And after all, Jesus stands according to this model exactly “halfway” between heaven and earth. In contrast to the text in the Jewish version, which was supposed to bridge us to God but in reality is actually a divider between the two, the “Son of God” is predetermined (a priori) as contingent to God. Just like a child in reality is contingent to his father.

That’s it.
Apart from praising Christianity, the only thing you said was (in my words) that you think the Torah blocks us from God and forces us to worship it and not him, and therefore it does not meet the ”philosophical requirements” (which of course you set for God. Nice of you). But these are just word games. The Torah commands us to worship God, and Jesus probably did too. The only difference is that the Torah forces us to worship God only through it and commands us to continue listening to it and not to believe false prophets (the Torah actually commands prophets who truly come from God to listen and even allows them to cancel commandments from the Torah at least temporarily – I think you are ignoring this).
I do not see this as a problem. God is not supposed to change his mind every second and if he gave us a text with his commandments there is no philosophical problem with this. You describe God as a weak-willed being who wants to give Torah but then regrets it because the Torah will take over him and everyone will stop listening to him when he suddenly changes his mind and no longer loves the Torah, and therefore it is much more beneficial for him to send his "son" to restore order.

He does praise Christianity, but it must be remembered that Christianity is not a religion of actual revelation, but a far-fetched construction built by politicians together with a few bishops who thought they were in a position to tell God who He chooses or whether to abrogate a commandment. Believing that there is a connection between intelligence and the giver of the Torah is no less far-fetched than believing that Jesus, who ordered the scribes to be meticulous in their commandments (Matthew 23:23), would have bought the invention that the Sabbath had been transferred to the Sunday, or that Paul, who would surely have torn his clothes if he had heard of the Trinity or the deification of Jesus as he did in Acts 14:14, was actually a heretic.

D. I think you went a bit too far when you claim that I did not justify my arguments.
You can claim that I write unclearly at times (I am the first to admit this) or that my reasoning is flawed (but then you must show why). But from here to here your argument is..? I don't know…

Another attempt at reasoning:
I offer a loose analogy between the Torah's course and Wittgenstein's position in his ”Logico-philosophical essay”. For Wittgenstein there is an a priori assumption: language is the appearance of everything and in any case we have no way to break through it and supposedly reach an abstract metaphysical world that lies beyond it (it is doubtful whether, according to his method, we can even reach atomic empirical facts through language). For him we are “imprisoned in language” and there is no place for the idea of representation (“Timon” in his language). In Bechler's language: What exists is only what is actual to man (language itself) and not what it supposedly represents.
Wittgenstein's conclusion from this assumption is logical and obvious - philosophy (and metaphysics) have no meaning. Therefore, it is also necessary to say that his claims themselves are devoid of any meaning.
This is the (justified) criticism of Wittgenstein.

The Torah model from heaven shares one central principle with this position - language is a “holy” medium, since it is a common medium for God and man.
Therefore, from the perspective of the Torah, it is not possible to break through its own text. And after all, according to the Torah method, we do not have such “high” channels of cognition as it is. Therefore, even if it acknowledges the existence of intellectual or mystical intuitions, they are all subject to the actual text that appears in it itself, subject to the words that are all written in square Assyrian script (in the Pentateuch).

Note that I am not saying that metaphysical truths cannot be deduced from the Torah. It is possible. What I am saying is that if we do so, it is only if we ignore the basic structure of the Torah's model. In other words: the Torah may be trying to go against metaphysics (in effect, against God), but it does not succeed in doing so.

Wine, I think we're back to stamping on our heels.

Sh”l, I again find myself agreeing with a large part of your diagnoses and again claiming that they are not that relevant to our discussion. You are dealing with psychology, anthropology, etc., not philosophy. For example, your claim that Christianity offered a “cheap alternative” to Judaism. What is relevant if it is cheap or expensive? Our question is whether it is rational.
For example, my name is Doron and not ‘Doron’. Like ‘Lewinger’ (only without the quotation marks).

Copenhagen, I am not so much concerned with historical Christianity, that is, with its textual, ritual manifestations, etc., but with the abstract model that I am trying to extract from it. This is the nature of a philosophical discussion.
My main claim is that Christianity provides us with a more philosophically “clean” model. As a believer myself, I see this as of considerable importance.
The historical perversion of religions (Judaism, Christianity, etc.) is indeed an interesting phenomenon, but it is relevant only to the margins of our discussion.

The Returned Jew,
The return of the people of Israel to their land is indeed a theological problem for part of the Christian world. For others within this world it is exactly the opposite - proof of the righteousness of Christianity.
That is why I propose a principled philosophical discussion and less listening to “official” theologies (of Jews, Christians, Buddhists, etc.).
In other words, the phenomenal success of Christianity is a theological problem for Judaism as well. A thinking person should ask himself why God allowed a false religion like Christianity - a religion that believes in the foundations of Judaism itself (=Torah from heaven) - to flourish and prosper so much. Why did God want the “evil” to take precedence in history?

I don't have a definitive (or ambiguous) answer to this question, but it's certainly interesting.

This will probably be my last response because I'm fed up.
(Be careful, this will probably be a long and arrogant speech)
You do justify your claims, but I feel that things are always based on puzzling assumptions. I will illustrate with your last response:

“The Torah model from heaven shares one central principle with this position - language is a “holy” medium, since it is a common medium for God and man.
Therefore, from the perspective of the Torah, its own text cannot be hacked. And after all, the Torah system does not have such “high” channels of cognition as it does. Therefore, even if it recognizes the existence of intellectual or mystical intuitions, they are all subject to the actual text that appears in it itself, subject to the words that are all written in square Assyrian script (in the Pentateuch).

You concluded from the fact that the intermediary between God and man is textual that from the perspective of the Torah, its own text cannot be penetrated. I did not understand how this arises from the above fact, but it is not terrible, because I accept the conclusion (that the Torah system cannot be disputed/cancelled. If that is what you meant).
And here comes a completely dogmatic premise: “And after all, the Torah system does not have such high channels of cognition as it does”. Where do you know this “Torah system”? (By the way, I have already written that this is not true and that the Torah does command to listen to the prophets and even temporarily cancel commandments from the Torah)

“Therefore even if it recognizes intuitions, etc.’.” I agree. The Torah does indeed place itself above our intuitions. But this does not really lead to the conclusions you brought in your next paragraph:

“Note that I am not saying that metaphysical truths cannot be deduced from the Torah. It is also possible. What I am saying is that if we do so, it is only if we ignore the basic structure of the Torah's model. In other words: the Torah may be trying to go against metaphysics (in fact, against God), but it does not succeed in doing so.”

Earlier you wrote that the Torah places itself above our intuitions and I completely agree with that. In this paragraph you presented a much more extreme view, according to which the Torah opposes any kind of metaphysics and the use of Intuition denies the basic model of the Torah. This is (forgive me) nonsense. It is true that they may be based in some way loosely on your assumption in the previous paragraph (“According to the Torah method, we do not have higher channels of cognition”), but I have already noted that this assumption is not at all reasoned and is not correct.

In conclusion, your words do not contain reasoned arguments but sketches of arguments. All that remains for you is to justify the assumptions and show exactly how they lead to the conclusions.

Doron,
“Our discussion focuses first of all on the logical and ontological basic conditions of a theology that is acceptable to the mind (philosophical knowledge).” I will settle for a more modest discussion.

Jesus is a faith for the weak. People who are unable to accept the commandments look for substitutes. And the claim of a leap of faith is also ridiculous. If there is fear of God, there is also faith in God and there is no need for a leap of faith.

If you want to know how Judaism relates to Christianity and Islam, read the book of the Khozari, the Laws of Kings in the Mishnah Torah of the Ramban, and the Ramban debate (in which he won and won a thousand ducats). Judaism is not thrilled with the success of Christianity, especially since secularism is currently killing Christianity and exposing the falsehoods in it.

Regarding the ”virtue” Abraham Avinu I look at things empirically. People who receive justice and righteousness connect to Judaism and those who do not, less so. Here is a link to a blog I found that gives some perspective on the matter:
https://nirstern.wordpress.com/2018/05/31/%d7%91%d7%a0%d7%99-%d7%a0%d7%97-%d7%95%d7%a2%d7%9d-%d7%99%d7%a9%d7%a8%d7%90%d7%9c/