The Histories of Jesus (and a Word of Comfort for the Holiday)

Mikhi, from your response, it is clear that you have not thought enough about what was said.
You have known my views on this subject for several years. To say that I am a missionary is very insulting not only to true missionaries but probably to most Christians as well.

But that is not the main problem with your response… I believe that if you went into the short crabs I attached, you would not be quick to link them to Oren Zarif or the Baal Shem Tov.
The argument in the video is relevant and even quite strong, although I am not sure that it stands up to all criticism (your ”criticism” does). You probably did not bother to watch it.
The subject really interests me not only from the perspective of my personal beliefs but mainly because it says something about the methodology behind historical research. I thought that at least it might interest you.

I invite someone with a little more integrity on this matter to find weak points in the argument. I am sure there are some.

As for the recipe, I will continue to work on it.

My experience with videos and propaganda materials like this is quite disappointing, so I decided there was no point in wasting time on them. I may be wrong, and there are some compelling and excellent arguments there. But the rule on the site is that if someone wants to ask a question, they should make an argument and not refer me to videos. The arguments you put forward here, which were supposed to raise the question, are Oren Zarif at his best (or worst). If you want to make a specific argument and discuss it, it will be possible to discuss it.

Well, this is a slightly more substantive response
First of all, my experience with various fans (including, of course, Christians) is also not successful. We are not talking about people in these leagues, but about claims made by very serious researchers and philosophers (I can provide you with references).
Regarding the argument – Read it again and you will see that it is there.

I will repeat it briefly:
There are a number of historical facts that are relatively easy to verify in conventional scientific research (i.e., that can be accepted even by an atheist historian).
The debate is about the reasonable and rational explanation for those facts.

For example, the claim that Jesus' tomb was empty. The claimants claim: In Jewish tradition (halakhah?) it is forbidden to move the body of the deceased (except to a family grave). So how and why did Jesus' body disappear from the tomb? And in any case, the tomb was guarded by the Romans because Jesus was a political provocateur and rebel, so if someone wanted to move/kidnap the body, how did they do it? In addition, the Sanhedrin or one of them claimed that Jesus' body was stolen from the tomb, thus strengthening the claim that the tomb was empty. In addition, the claim is that it is accepted in common historical research (i.e. also among non-Christian or religious historians) that there is some independent evidence regarding the empty tomb (cross-referencing sources). On the contrary, according to the claims I have encountered, the time of the evidence regarding the empty tomb is dated at most to a few years after the event (although these were put in writing and canonized later).

All of this is only about one fact. There are of course other serious arguments about the other facts, and all of these together form a complete set of explanations. When serious historians come and repeatedly consider the facts and the (competing) explanations for them, this cannot be dismissed with a shrug of the shoulders. It is amateurish.

All of this could be very interesting news for people like you and me who believe that there is a God and that the core of the Jewish tradition (the giving of the Torah, etc.) is perceived by them as a relatively solid fact.

And all of this does not touch on the even more interesting (and perhaps also more philosophically important) question of the strength of the basic Christian narrative. Even if it is essentially “fictitious”. Even if the historical Jesus was a charlatan or even a non-existent figure, the basic theological core is still very strong.
This is not the place to provide reasons for this claim.

Is the historical fact that it is known where he was buried and the tomb was empty? I highly doubt the historical factuality, and also its implications (so someone stole the body. The Romans broke guard). The halachic prohibition against moving the body in this context is a joke. It sounds so flimsy to me that it really doesn't justify going into the historical evidence, which is always debatable.

With a little bit of luck for the person in charge or the guard, it is possible to move a body from a guarded tomb. Presumably, his followers preferred that he be buried in a secret place that the Romans would not block access to. Moreover, it turns out that the Romans themselves removed the body from the tomb and threw it to the dogs so that the place would not become a place of pilgrimage, but they achieved the opposite 🙂

In Tractate Sanhedrin, it is mentioned that there was a special cemetery for those who were to be executed, and only after the flesh was digested were their sins atoned for and they were allowed to be transferred to their family graves. It was no great honor to be buried in the cemetery for the Nascales, and it is clear that his followers would do everything to get the body out of there.

According to the story, he was buried in his uncle's family plot. Not in the plot where they were stoned. He was also not stoned but crucified by the Romans. Despite what is told in John, many claim that some of what is told there was inserted by the church at a later time to blame the Jews. In the other gospels, it was the Romans who killed him because he threatened their rule.

Why is the Fatima apparition a weak argument? According to the story, it appeared to 70,000 people, during a period of record about a century ago, and brought 3 prophecies that were fully fulfilled and were known even before they were fulfilled, except for the last prophecy that was hidden by the church because of its content (the assassination of John Paul).
This is not like the arguments of some delusional people who claim that only they saw it. Nor is it a story that was later distorted, added to, or renovated after it happened for theological reasons. Although the description of Mary is very strange, which is why some associate it with the UFO phenomenon.

Mikhi,
What historical evidence makes you doubt the story of the empty tomb? If you have a concrete claim that can confront those of professional historians (if indeed most of them claim what has been put in their mouths), please be kind and bring it up. Until then, it is more appropriate to seriously consider their claim that the tomb was empty.
Also, the claim that the ”Romans broke guard” (which could have easily allowed the body to be buried) seems like a farce on your part. It may be what happened, but where is the evidence? Is it even likely that this will happen? The crucifixion of Jesus was probably not a trivial event and was intended to convey a clear message. Was it reasonable for the Romans to be negligent at this stage? Again, without the concrete historical context, such a hypothesis seems a bit weak (ad hoc).

Regarding the Jewish norm at that time to move or not to move bodies. Was there such a norm or not? Whether a halachic norm or another. On what occasions did they do this? And if there wasn't, is it likely that there was a special case that justified it? And why would someone from a small and persecuted Jewish sect (in the eyes of the Jewish majority and the Roman government) risk themselves for a spiritual leader who had lied, despised, and killed?
To the best of my recollection, the tomb was also sealed with a rolling stone, which made the task even more difficult.

All of this is only about the empty tomb. As mentioned, the Christian explanation relies on much more than that: on historical facts (as far as historians can get to the facts) and their linking together in a consistent and logical narrative. It is possible, of course, that the narrative is false, in part or in whole, but from the point of view of historical methodology, it seems, on the surface, at least much more successful. That is quite a bit.

I don't know the revelation at Fatima, but according to what you describe, the main point is missing from the book. A central point in the revelation of the Holy One to the people of Israel is that it is known to whom the revelation was and there is a tradition about it. Anyone can claim that there were 600,000 people who saw him bring down lightning from the sky, the question is where are they? In the revelation to the people of Israel, the revelation is to a specific people who testify to it, and that is no longer possible to trace. And this of course refutes Doron's claims 2-3 (some delusional people do not confirm anything, a large group yes because it is a quantity that is no longer possible to work with). Claim 4 is really weak - what does it prove? People believed that Shabtai Zvi was the Messiah and many people believe a lot of nonsense (not testifying to a specific case, but testifying to a specific nonsense) It does not prove anything. Claim 1 does not prove anything. Absolutely nothing. Although I find it hard to believe that these are things that are agreed upon by all historians, but mainly demagoguery by missionaries, to the best of my knowledge there is disagreement among scholars as to whether Jesus even existed. So claim 1 seems uncertain to me at all. Although even if claim 1 is true, it really doesn't prove anything.

Another interesting fact is the emergence of the very un-Jewish belief in the Son of God incarnate in the flesh as the Messiah. The claim is that there is no ancient Jewish source for such a figure, but only for the Messiah who will come in the end times (which is not the case). And certainly not as a figure who was defeated and humiliated in front of his enemies. Where did Jews from the beginning of the first century AD manage to conjure up such a bizarre idea? The Christian claim is, of course, that they would not have been able to invent such a belief if they had not believed in what was revealed to them.

There is a book by Bart Ehrman about the conceptual development of turning a Jew from Galilee into a god. I don't think it's that simple to claim that there are no roots in Judaism or the Greek world for a God who became flesh. From such a distance in time, it's hard to make such firm claims.

As far as I remember, the apparition at Fatima was to two children. Then the stories began. But I haven't checked now.

Doron, I'm really not particularly interested in this bitter argument to invest time in historical research. This is suspect to me, and I'm aware that perhaps if I had looked deeper, my opinion would have changed. Everyone chooses to divide the efforts and time they invest. On the surface, this seems like a bunch of nonsense.

Who said that Christian concepts don't have roots in Judaism? Of course they do. There are actually trinities in Kabbalah.

L.
I have a superficial acquaintance with Bart Herman and his work. He is certainly a respected researcher and it is petty to criticize him for what is within the matter he deals with.
But “outside” the matter, that is, a study of the methodological foundations of his work, gives a not so good impression.
According to him, historical assessment is bound in advance only to “naturalistic” scientific tools and in any case it would be irresponsible and meaningless for a serious historian to discuss the question of whether Jesus was the Son of God or not, whether he performed miracles, and so on.
This is a confused claim. The science of history necessarily rests – like any other science – on basic assumptions that have a logical and metaphysical status. In the case of the supposed (or not supposed) resurrection of Jesus, the historian's starting point should be very simple: Is there sufficient evidence, preferably independent, for the existence of the man Jesus before the crucifixion? Is there evidence of equal weight for the fact of his crucifixion? Is there sufficient such evidence for his appearance after his death? These are three simple matters that can be reported in simple and even “naturalistic” language. If you have received satisfactory answers to these questions, it is certainly possible and almost necessary to reach theological conclusions as well.

L

The response was cut off for me…
Regarding the lack of roots for the idea of the Son of God who is also the Messiah.
As far as I understand, in the Greek world at large there is no talk at all of a “monotheistic” god who is revealed in history and involved in it. In any case, such a god cannot be incarnated in the flesh (maybe gods of another kind can).
Regarding the Jewish world, I have never heard of any pretense in any Jewish source for such a radical idea. If anyone knows otherwise and wants to prove me wrong, I would be happy to hear it.
Perhaps Bart Herman is captive to that confused naturalism and therefore is likely to try to find elements in history that do not really exist in it.

In general, the Christian gospel is a revolution that is beyond pretentious. In any case, it is easier to examine it, to be a tribe or a god.

Thank you for the humorous content and the right to maintain this clowning.

In the year 13, Nisan 2, 2021

What is the big innovation? Every pagan belief claimed that every god should be embodied in something physical. The incarnation of a god in a human being was also acceptable, for example, in Rome they used to consider the emperor as a god. At first after death, as is told of the death of Caligula, who was dying and said: ‘I fear that I am becoming a god’ 🙂 And later, pagan worship of the emperors began even during their lives, from which only the Jews, as a &#8217known religion’ were exempt.

Greek mythology is also full of stories about pairings between gods and women, from which were born those with superhuman powers, such as Heracles. In stark contrast to Samson, the hero who was born of a man and a woman and whose great strength came from his observance of the monastic precepts,

Christians made a ‘mishmash of pagan monotheism.’ They took monotheism from Judaism along with the deification of man from paganism, when ‘the three are one, and one is three’, and whoever does not digest the strange composition – is charged with annihilation. Whether he is a Christian a heretic, or eternal humiliation as a ’wandering Jew’

On ”the ”wandering Jew’ returned to his land, for naught and their wrath, and for that too we must be grateful on the holiday of our freedom.

With blessings, Yiftach Lahad Argamon-Bakshi

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZikUYZyVgIuR0qAVu3p3yO1AZ73ne83J/view?usp=sharing

Yishai
Regarding point 1 (it is known where the gentleman was buried) I explained what the claim is and what the evidence is that supports it. Joseph Harmati, who was a member of the Sanhedrin, was probably the one who buried him (in a tomb he purchased for himself).

Regarding point 2 (the empty tomb): If you claim that the tomb was not “emptied”, you suddenly have to deal, among other things, with the documented claim of the Sanhedrin or someone from it that the body was stolen from the site by Jesus’ followers. So you have to ask yourself why first-century Jews living in a patriarchal and chauvinistic culture report to us that the first witnesses to the emptying of the tomb were women. If you are going to fabricate evidence, why not invent credible figures? Remember who the audience is that the producers of the false (or true) report is addressing.

Regarding point 3 (multiple testimonies of Jesus' appearance after his resurrection): I agree that this is the weakest point in the argument. And there are still many historians who claim that these are not typical testimonies for several reasons (I will only mention a few): Jesus appeared according to those testimonies in the form of a flesh-and-blood, "natural" person. This is an unusual phenomenon in the ancient world, where there are countless reports of visions of a "spirit" and apparitions of beings with a heavenly appearance, etc. In addition, the reports are about the same figure on different occasions and in different places. In some cases, the reports are cross-referenced (one source experiences Jesus' appearance and reports it, and another source who, according to the research, was not in contact with this reporter brings a similar report).

Regarding point 4 (conversion of faith out of nowhere): Here it seems that you did not understand the point at all.
The claim that people “invent” beliefs for themselves is anachronistic and not found in the intellectual and spiritual climate of the ancient world, in this case the Jewish world of the first century AD. The first followers of Jesus never dreamed of deviating from the Jewish tradition in which the Messiah (and not the Son of God! There is no such thing in Judaism, as far as I understand) suddenly arrives just like that in the middle of life and history. This move is reserved for the end of days. In addition, a Jewish Messiah is necessarily a man-man and not a loser who was humiliated, tortured and killed. Jesus who was put on the cross is, from their point of view, a story of failure and even deception. The ancient world sanctifies victory and heroism and not complicated and tormented “anti-heroes” This point also answers the Schützel claim that supposedly the pagan myth of Adam-God (Julius Caesar, etc.) is relevant to the explanation here. If at all those good Jews who were faithful to their religion - at least from their point of view - knew the pagan myths, they did not connect with them at all. The Bible on which they relied has no sympathy for this pagan nonsense and the whole idolatrous thing (all the gods of nature and their cycles that are suddenly thrown onto flesh and blood figures).
Moreover: those Jews who suddenly began to believe in the resurrection of Jesus (Jacob his brother, for example, grew up with him and did not believe in him, but only after the crucifixion) were willing to risk their lives and stick with him after his death in a world very hostile to that strange sect. Why? What did he see and hear as a Jew that caused him to change so much?

Bottom line: The model of the Son of God/Messiah is frighteningly bizarre for the world in which it was created (perhaps like the Torah given to the Jews at Sinai). How did it suddenly emerge like this?

The last and more comprehensive point is philosophical (and not directly related to my arguments): Let's assume that the historical Jesus did not exist at all. Still, the myth about the man-god who is the “son” of the God of the Bible and who was sent to save the world is an impressively effective myth. In my opinion, anyone who believes in God and to some extent also in his revelation at Sinai can easily feel that this story is really great and it sits perfectly on central parts of the Jewish tradition and human psychology. In other words: if the God of the Old Testament wanted to tell us a good and successful story about us and about him, he would do well to tell us this story. If I am right, then this point is also the key to the sympathy that can be developed when we approach asking the concrete historical questions (the life and character of Jesus).

What do you draw from your conclusion that the model of the Son of God is bizarre and rootless in the conceptual world of that time?

L
Your question distorts my conclusion a bit because it presents only one side of it.
The essence of the Christian gospel rests on two almost opposing legs: one conservative (Jewish-monotheistic-revelationary that has a firm foothold in human history and ”culture”) and the other radical and innovative (prophetic-apocalyptic that emphasizes the “future”).
It is my understanding of the fundamental historical contribution of Christianity and my conclusion from it that it is worth considering very seriously the traditional interpretation it offers. It is a very sexy interpretation in my opinion.
Sorry for all the blabbering.

Doron
Claim 1: You treat his tomb as if it were a fait accompli and not as if it were disputed archaeology. It can only convince a person who already thinks that Jesus existed and was buried. See here for more on the subject (I haven't read everything, but from what I understand, it reviews both sides). https://eds-p-ebscohost-com.elib.openu.ac.il/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=79f9ec6e-04be-4a46-9caf-a6a76d860aa2%40redis
Claim 2,3: I don't have to do the work and show why historically it's probably inaccurate because they've already done it for me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_and_origin_of_the_resurrection_of_Jesus
Claim 4: Have you heard of the phenomenon of Chabad followers who believe that the Rebbe is actually God? Do you know how Berland's followers treat him? (I once read a pamphlet by someone who left him, and if I remember correctly, there was partial idolatry there.) These people also never dreamed of deviating from Jewish tradition, and yet there are those who proudly do so with various and strange claims (as happened with Jesus). Berland is also supposedly humiliated, and surprisingly, his followers still admire him and do not see this humiliation as a weak point. In general, there is no shortage of people who believed in false messiahs and other false gods. It proves nothing. And what you tried to answer to Shtsel also does not hold water, even with the Bible does not support such religious work, they certainly know it and therefore will not see it as something so bizarre. Therefore, all kinds of myths that say things similar to Jesus can certainly constitute fertile ground for them to mentally prepare for such religious work. And of course, the gates of interpretation were not closed, so the Bible will not have a special effect on them.
Regarding the paragraph of Moreover: Here too, the argument with Berland is the same. And you will be surprised to hear, there is still an audience of Berland followers. (Check out the YouTube channel Breslav Netzach Netzahim). Once people admire a person so excessively (they probably really believed him to be God), he will not care what other people think of him.
Bottom line: There are many crazy people in the world, and some are even charismatic who offer convenient alternatives to Judaism, so they succeed.
And in general, let's assume that claims 1-3 are correct - this does not lead to the fact that Jesus is the son of God, just as Elijah (and Enoch?) never died and he is not the son of God anyway, and this certainly does not cancel the status of Mount Sinai.
Response to the philosophical claim: What does it mean, it's really cool? How is the incarnation of God in flesh and blood cool? It's crazy!!!! If you like stories of night and night, good for you, if you think it really continues the Bible, then I don't know what to tell you.

According to the Christian belief that the bread and wine eaten at Mass are the incarnation of the flesh and blood of Jesus who was the son of a Jewish mother, they are eating the flesh and blood of a Jew.

Best regards, Don Quixote de Sacramento

In line 2
… it is found that they eat…

In the 13th of Nisan 5222

The story of the dead god who comes back to life is an ancient pagan myth about the idol Tammuz or Adonis who died and was resurrected. In Egypt, there was also a myth about the idol Osiris who was murdered and his body was dismembered and thrown into the sea, from where he rose to life. So we have another pagan myth that the Christians adapted.

Regarding the tomb attributed to Uva, the matter seems absurd, since the law is that cemeteries are not made in Jerusalem because of impurity, and this is the law that was practiced during the days of the Temple, when light holy food was eaten throughout the city. The only exception was the ‘Tombs of the Kings of the House of David’ which had been there since the days of the First Temple, before the city was expanded. So if a tomb was found within the walls of Jerusalem – it was certainly from the period after the destruction.

The historical core of the story may be that the followers of Oha, who saw him as the Messiah, requested his burial in Jerusalem as one of the ’kings of the House of David. They may have done so secretly, and they may have deceived the Roman governor into thinking that burial in Jerusalem was acceptable. It appears that as soon as the Sanhedrin learned of the burial in Jerusalem – they immediately turned to the governor and made it clear to him that burying a dead person in Jerusalem was prohibited except for a king of the House of David. It does not seem that Pontius was interested in the crucified ’Messiah’ being recognized as a king of the House of David, and ordered the body to be moved outside the city.

Best regards, Yiftach Lahad Argamon-Bakshi

Yishai.
Claim 1: I did not claim that it is a fait accompli that they know where Jesus was buried, so don't put words in my mouth. I wrote that to the best of my knowledge, most professional historians (and not dubious scoundrels) think so. The source you sent on this matter was not opened.

Claim 2 and 3: In a discussion like ours, you cannot be satisfied with the claim that the historical work has already been done for you and refer me to a long source about the length of the exile. Have the honor and make an effort to formulate a claim that summarizes the difficulty in my claims and offers a better option. Incidentally, I looked at the second source (Wikipedia) and regarding the miraculous tomb, they quoted as the conclusion of this chapter (within the entire entry) a historian who states that most historians in the field hold the position I presented (in their name). Next time you let others do the work for you, maybe you will take another group of "others" Let them watch over the first ones who do the job well…

Claim 4: It is clear that you have not looked into this claim again and have not understood it… I spoke there about historical anachronism in which we project our knowledge from the present onto a world that operated according to completely different laws. This is what you did in the examples of Chabad and Berland. Do you now understand what I claimed and what is the flaw in your position regarding this section?

As you put it: Even if the first 3 points are correct, this does not indicate the divinity of Jesus. Not sure… To the best of my understanding and from what I have learned, most historians agree that Jesus attributed divine status to himself before the crucifixion and even spoke of his own killing (this text that appears, for example, in the parable of the vine in the New Testament is considered authentic, that is, from the mouth of the historical Jesus). If this is true and that same character took on so much pretension (as mentioned, unprecedented in history) this is a significant reinforcement of the Christian thesis. There is much more to add to this.

Regarding the philosophical claim that Christianity is an incomparably successful model (sexy, in my words): Well, I will let you think for yourself why it is the most popular religion in the world (which is evidence that it speaks at least to the hearts of people) and also perhaps think about what is special about this original channel of mediation between man and God (half man half god, the Son of God) that is so psychologically true. As I hinted before: a story so universal and touching must rely on deep philosophical and religious truths that the reader can intuitively identify (even if he cannot explain to himself what it is that he is touching). I can give you a more concrete example here as well (I wrote an entire book on this).

Sch”l
To the best of my knowledge, the attempt to read the myth of Jesus as a copy-paste of pagan myths is itself a dead body in the world of Christian research. The supporters of this approach were mainly atheistic Germans and probably a bit anti-Semitic who wanted to give a secular, scientific interpretation to the story on the one hand, but at the same time did not want to glorify Judaism's profound influence on Christianity and the West. As a result, they held an immediately “Christian” approach to understanding the story. Today we do not see it that way. Today we approach the matter first and foremost from Judaism and from the perspective of the Jewish supporters of Jesus who lived and acted above all because of their Jewish background. This is certainly an approach that seems more reasonable from a historical research perspective.

Regarding your comment about the tomb, I did not understand anything. Was it historically reasonable for believing Jews to exhume a body (and in doing so risk conflict with the authorities for a Messiah who deceived them, apparently an idolater in their eyes)?

A.
A God who is incarnated in man, a God who died and rose again, one who is three – are distinctly pagan’ concepts – that Christians imposed on Judaism in order to adapt it to the Gentiles.

B.
According to Jewish law, it is forbidden to bury a dead person within Jerusalem because part of the sacrifices are eaten within the city, and it is forbidden for there to be any impurity of a dead person within it. The only exception is the tombs of the kings of the House of David. The Romans did not interfere in Jewish religious matters, and therefore it is unlikely that the Romans allowed the burial of a dead person in Jerusalem. Therefore, if a tomb is found within the city, it must be assumed that it was made after the destruction.

If there is a ‘kernel of truth’ in the story, it can only be the opposite
that the followers of Jesus, who saw him as ‘Messiah’, buried him within the city in order to consider him their ‘Messiah’ As one of the kings of the House of David. Perhaps Pontius was misled into thinking that there was no problem with burying a dead person inside Jerusalem.

Once the burial in the city became known, this undoubtedly angered the Pharisees, who complained to the Roman authorities about the violation of the law. The last thing the Romans needed was the burial of the crucified Christ in the city according to the standards of the ‘kings of the House of David’. And it is clear that the Romans ordered the body to be removed from the city.

With greetings, Yal”b

Regarding point #1, you repeat your words like a parrot without justification. I explained why current research sees such an interpretation as a mistake and a misunderstanding of the society that surrounded Jesus. I repeat: Christianity in its beginnings is deeply rooted in the Jewish world (with a Jesus twist).
Regarding the prohibition of halachic burial in Jerusalem, this is certainly a good point that I do not have a proven answer to, but I am not sure that it is even relevant. Perhaps the burial norms in Jerusalem did not always comply with the halachic law in this regard? Perhaps when it comes to a blasphemer like Jesus, there was even less motivation? In any case, this is not a theoretical question in Hebrew law, but a historical and factual question that many have probably already considered. I think I will look into it myself (or perhaps I will ask our friend Jesus for a source).

Doron,
Claim 1: Indeed, there are historians who claim as you do, but presenting it as a fait accompli (you didn't say it explicitly but that's basically what you're claiming) is not logically accurate. I didn't send you to the library, I sent you to an academic article (not very long and written in ordinary language). Now that I looked at the article again, it talks about the tomb of Jesus' family and not just the tomb of Jesus. Is that what you meant? I'm not familiar with such topics...
If the article doesn't open for you, there's not much I can do about it because I don't have a way to send a pdf file in a forum like this. Basically, the title of the article is: The Jesus tomb controversy: an overview.
Try searching on Google. When I searched for this title on Google, I came across other sites that say it's a controversial topic, so I wouldn't take this as a proven fact.
Claims 2-3: The fact that one historian is on one side does not mean that this is really what everyone agrees on. Regarding the fact that I cannot send you to do long studies and I have to make the claim myself, in principle you are right. But time is short and the work is extensive, and since your claims are mainly “historians say” then I do not have the strength to enter into debates between historians because I am not an expert in the field, so I sent you to a place that will show that this is not an agreed-upon thing and a place where the claims of the opponents will also appear with references to longer and more serious sources.
Claim 4: I will explain my claim. You said that claiming that people would invent a faith like the belief in Jesus is an anachronistic claim because it contradicts the Jewish tradition from which they came. I came and claimed that his eyes see the faith of people who supposedly follow the Jewish tradition and arrive at the same delusions. I do not see the fallacy. Unless you claim that the past cannot be discussed at all and we must assume that no one will invent any belief, but it cannot be that you really believe in such a thing (after all, you are probably saying that pagan beliefs were invented). Therefore, the reason you say that it is necessary to assume that they will not invent such a belief is because it contradicts Jewish tradition and this is exactly the same case as Berland and the Lubavitcher Rebbe.
Regarding the response to the reply, even if we accept the first 3 facts. If I understand correctly, what you claim is as follows: A. Jesus testified that he is God. B. Jesus was resurrected. C. From B it follows that he necessarily had spiritual powers and there is a basic premise here that if he has spiritual powers he will not necessarily lie, therefore because of A it follows that he is truly God.
My response to the claim is that he will not necessarily lie or be delusional that he is God. From a Jewish faith perspective, it can be said that the He performed this miracle to test the people/so that the Christian faith would spread in the world (the words of Maimonides at the end of the Laws of Kings) and a host of other excuses that will explain to you why it is not necessarily that he would not lie and it is possible that God simply used him as a tool and therefore resurrected him. And why come to these excuses? Because the idea of God's incarnation in the flesh is delusional, the idea that the status of Mount Sinai would suddenly be canceled in front of the entire people is delusional and illogical. Therefore, explanations are needed as to how the resurrection works out, and in fact everything works out.
But of course, it is hard for me to believe that historians really say that this miracle happened in reality and it is appropriate to check their claims more carefully and not from YouTube videos.

My friend Yishai

You are trying to correct the methodological errors in your earlier responses, but with very little success, in my opinion. Again you are putting words in my mouth that I attributed to historians (even if you claim not explicitly). This is not serious and not honest. I am not a researcher or a historian either, but I probably know the opinions that oppose my position even better than you.
I see that you still do not understand what the historical anachronism I was talking about is, and therefore you are not really dealing with it. Let's start with the fact that you assume in advance that Jesus was not who or what Christianity says about him, and from this you conclude that if the first believers in him converted their religion and opinion from Judaism to him, then this is a lie. In your mind, this is the same lie that motivates psychos like the Chabadniks and the Berlandites. This is a methodological error (which, by the way, also recurs among atheistic and naturalistic biblical commentators).
.The necessary methodological assumption is to leave all options open: it is possible that the Christian narrative is true (in part or in full) and it is also possible that it is entirely false. With this assumption, the explanations must be compared to the known facts – to the extent that we have been able to get our hands on them – and choose the most plausible explanation.
Now, before talking about your anachronism, we should devote a few words to the differences between our world and the ancient world: by and large, the ancient world is stable and static, there is no social mobility, no “individualism” or “self-realization” outside of tradition and community, and people there usually don't get up in the morning, travel to India, experience a revelation, and change their ways so radically. If this happens (and it is very rare), there must be a really good reason for it. “Chabad” or “Berland” explanations are irrelevant to the matter. Or to put it more vulgarly: Contrary to what you say, there really aren't many psychics in the ancient world because ancient ”psychism” was much more tied to its physical and cultural environment.

Here Christianity is not only a radical departure from historical Judaism (expressed in the unprecedented innovation that God was incarnated in man) but at the same time also Jewish and biblical conservatism in that the God who was incarnated is explicitly the God of the Bible, not some Semitic Baal or a deified Greek Zeus, etc., as Schl claims. Christianity is a historical-revealed religion just like Judaism (and perhaps even more so, since God was actually “revealed” in it).

Regarding your statement that the idea that Christianity came to abolish the status of Mount Sinai is absurd – Well, my argument is that from the beginning, historical Judaism interpreted that status incorrectly. You don't need Jesus or Christianity to reach this conclusion. I have elaborated on this extensively on this site. I would have shortened my response if it weren't for the need to correct so many of your distortions of my position (and I didn't even correct everything, compassionate and generous as I am).

Doron
If there are any more distortions that you want to correct, please tell me, otherwise it is impossible to move forward. Indeed, if you deal with Christianity for a major part of your time, you probably know the opinions of the opponents better than I do. The first time I opened this topic was when I saw your question. It is a bit difficult to answer your claims when you speak in such generalities. I did not say that the first believers were liars (as I think that is what you meant by the word false), but that they were stupid.
“Let's start with the fact that you assume in advance that Jesus was not who and what Christianity says about him” - I think you mean my last claim, that even if the historical facts are correct, the last conclusion is not accepted. Indeed, this is a basic assumption that I ultimately have, for the very simple reason - divine incarnation in flesh and blood seems to me unlikely, bordering on the philosophically impossible. Therefore, to move me from my position, you need very, very strong evidence that I do not see in this case.
In any case, regarding historical anachronism. Your claims are very strange. It's a bit difficult to respond to such claims that are thrown into the air without any proof. Indeed, in the ancient world there were no self-realization workshops and the like. But I think you're not accurate. Even in the ancient world, there were transformations and changes between religions and cultures (the Greek conquest of the world, the beginning of philosophy and the beginning of Zoroastrianism are examples that come to mind). It is possible that these changes occurred more slowly than in our days, but there were still changes. What's more, you forget that this is a period in which the people of Israel were divided into sects, and there are many divisions in the people. In other words, a static situation is not exactly the correct description of the situation. Therefore, against the background of these struggles, it is easy to see a person who would not be bound to his family but would move to another sect within the people of Israel.
What's more, as you said they saw themselves as the true successors of Judaism, so they didn't see themselves as psychics, so it makes sense that they came to such conclusions (just like the Habavids and the Berlandites, but let's put that aside). Overall, your claim that if people come to a new and delusional conclusion in the ancient world, it requires that they are right doesn't hold water.
Well, I have no idea what you are claiming about the status of Mount Sinai, but I assume that Rabbi Michi answered you correctly.

I speak in generalities, although probably less than you… because this is the nature of our discussion, which is principled. You yourself admitted this when you explained why you presume that the Christian narrative is implausible. After all, you did not rely on any “facts” for this (because they really are not the basis of the discussion) but on a “general” premise. Again, I get the impression that you are unaware of the methodological problems underlying a discussion like ours. True, I, just like you, also came up with a premise (opposite to yours), a “philosophical principle”, but unlike you, I take into account that the entire Christian historical argument may be false. It may be false because my premise is confused or mistaken, or perhaps because the works will refute it.

As for the substance of your premise, that it is implausible that God will be incarnated in the flesh. Really? And to hold a concert of smoke and fire on a mountaintop and to give him a gift for the holiday, two pieces of stone with a few rules, does that sound more reasonable to you? The motif of a figure standing halfway between man and God, who is a direct descendant of God and was also sent here to die for us as a sacrifice and atone for our sins seems to me much more successful as a mediator than the artifact that God sent us in giving the Torah. It speaks much better to the human heart and therefore also to his intellect.

Regarding changes in the ancient world: Of course there were such changes, but not so dramatic, not so rapid, and they certainly did not celebrate their victory even from a distance of two thousand years. This is the first (and last) time in all of monotheistic history – certainly Jewish – That a man claimed to be the continuation of the biblical tradition, the son of God who brings redemption to the world, and ends up on the cross screaming like a pig before slaughter and shitting on himself to death in front of his entire congregation. Jesus is the ultimate loser: a traitor to his people and a rebel against Roman rule, the man with the most inflated pretensions in history who is revealed to be a liar and a blasphemer and is punished on the cross by men and the God who allows it. Here, amidst its shit and blood, this perverted and sick little sect should have ended its journey and flown into the dustbin of history along with other crazy sects of the time (Essenes, Bar Kokhba followers, etc.). It didn't happen. Something in the broken souls of the Hasidim at the crucifixion changed, apparently because of the events of the days after the crucifixion and the strange belief that arose in the minds of good and observant Jews that he was resurrected in his body (and not as a vision of a “spirit” which was actually common in the ancient world).

At the end of your words, you distorted my words again: I in no way categorically stated that every change of opinion in the ancient world proves that the new opinion is necessarily correct. I do not think so, not even about this sect. It is very difficult to argue like this when you repeatedly set up straw men for yourself in place of the real speaker in front of you.

There are many more testimonies of children who have seen monsters in the dark.

Response to the first paragraph: My argument was that the Christian claim that Jesus is God is false because of the premise that God does not incarnate in the flesh. The next step after this argument is that the resurrection does not affect my opinion in the slightest. Because even if the resurrection really happened, it can be explained that God used it for an experiment and other explanations. Therefore, I understood that the discussion of whether a historical resurrection really happened is not important. And in fact, I understand right now that everything you asked does not begin at all because these facts (it is true that facts can change this premise, but this fact does not) do not prove anything and do not invalidate the premise.
Response to the second paragraph: You use the word ‘concert’ to ridicule the status of Mount Sinai, which is not particularly convincing. The technical details that accompany the status of Mount Sinai (smoke, fire) for the answer are intended for the ignorant masses to understand that there is a status of God here. Therefore, if we accept that the revelation of God in the world is a reasonable thing (it is more accurate to say that it is likely that God will say what His expectations of humans are), the rest of the technical details are also reasonable. On the other hand, that God will be incarnated in a human being is not reasonable. But you are making a different claim here than I know from Christianity, and that is that Jesus is not God himself but some kind of creature between God and man. Although it is not clear to me what that means so much, if He is not God then why worship Him and why would His words nullify the status of Mount Sinai (I do not know what your interpretation of the status of Mount Sinai is, I am speaking from my understanding)? What does it mean to be a direct descendant of God? He was not born from the womb of a woman? He was not born with the help of the seed of a human being? Why does this fact change anything? The end of what you say is really delusional. Does the fact that someone would be sent into the world to die and atone for everyone's sins seem logical to you? So now it is permissible to do everything (after all, it has already been atoned for)? He also atoned for those who follow him? Indeed, it speaks more to the heart because it equips every creep and every sin that will ever cross your heart because everything has already been atoned for by Jesus, if you assume that God expects you to do a certain act that is desired, your words are delusional.
Again, the trolling of his followers proves nothing. Many people were swept away by a charismatic leader. If you ask me why his followers were able to sweep so many people after them in their delusional imaginations? To answer, the answer is because Christianity presents a practical (not theological!) alternative that is much more convenient to classical Judaism. There is no obligation to perform the commandments, one believes in God and receives a reward, and all of this is true because that is what Jesus and the apostles said.
“I in no way categorically stated that every change of opinion in the ancient world proves that the new opinion is necessarily correct”- I will correct my words. You claim that every change of opinion in the ancient world constitutes reinforcement of the second claim, which is correct.

First, you claim again that it is unlikely that God will be incarnated in the flesh, but you don't give any reasons... you just say that... God will be incarnated in man is unlikely... I tried to illustrate to you by your... sneer... at the Mount Sinai scene (which I myself tend to think has a kernel of truth in it) how similar your statement is to the statements of skeptics and atheists, in whose eyes not only is the description of the scene infantile, but also the very belief in God... From this they formulate a fundamental worldview that prevents them from coming from a clean place to clarify the historical facts of this matter. Like you, like them about Jesus.

And this is the second point, which is related to the first: In my opinion, you fail to understand the power of Jesus' narrative and do not understand that the very existence of such a power (which speaks to the human heart) has enormous religious weight. Of course, this power is only a necessary condition and not a sufficient condition – that is, it still does not prove the correctness of the narrative nor does it constitute proof of the historical facts (I hope you won't put words in my mouth here…). Turning a blind eye to such a popular narrative (even if it is false) is in itself a very fundamental failure. There are other reasons for the existence of such power in the Christian narrative, below.

A third point is your claim that I distort even the authentic Christian message regarding the status of Jesus. You are wrong. Basically, most streams of Christianity give Jesus a dual nature: human (physical, etc.) and divine. That is why I said that the model of the “Son of God” stands halfway between God and man and therefore facilitates the mediation between man and God. After all, God's goal is to bring man closer to Him (this is also true in Judaism and Islam). This goes back to the power of the model I mentioned above, which suggests that there is something very true about it. In any case, the believer does not work as a “man” but as a God incarnate in a man. It is not that God disappears and in his place appears a man (half human and half god), but that an additional person is added to God “the Father”.

A fourth point relates to your misunderstanding of the idea of the Christian atonement (and in my opinion, if you do not understand it, you will also have difficulty understanding the idea of the Jewish atonement). Don't worry, you are in good company here because I believe that many believing Christians hold the same wrong idea, that is, they do not understand their own religion. In short: Jesus is God's “gift” to man and he serves only as a conditional atonement. After all, God does not only give “gifts” But it requires man to respond, that is, to believe in him and to behave in a good and upright way (in Christianity, the life of Jesus serves as a model for life that every person should strive for). In any case, it is clear that the coming of Jesus does not categorically atone for man's actual sins. If man did not also strive to walk towards God, he has eaten it (according to their faith). I am sure you know that in my opinion, most streams of Christianity believe that a man can go to hell even though Jesus came to our world to save him. Again: this is not fundamentally different from Judaism and Islam.

A fifth and final point regarding your excuses for the resurrection of Jesus. You say: Even if Jesus really did rise from the dead, it means nothing because perhaps there is an educational message from God here or perhaps something else. This is not serious. First of all, your eyes see that these “didactic” means that you attribute to God did not work – Christianity is the most prosperous religion in the world. Secondly, I have already told you that as far as I know, the historical Jesus did indeed say during his life that he was the Son of God, that he was the true Messiah prophesied about in the Bible, that he would die and even be resurrected. These claims are so psychotic and radical that they are either one big piece of bullshit anyway, or they will be proven true if he is indeed resurrected after being killed. Jesus' claim is the litmus test that distinguishes him from other resurrected figures (if there were any at all..).

Doron
Initial comment: You use words like ‘power’, ‘nature’ ‘motif’ which is a bit strange. Because it sounds like you don't see the Christian claim as a fact that is the truth, but rather a particular narrative that can be chosen for convenience (not a substantive claim, but on your style of expression).
Now to the point. Regarding the problematic issue of God's incarnation in man. Here the question needs to be split into 2. If it is about God himself being a man then it is easy to understand what the problem is here, he is actually limited in himself and not infinite and lacks a few more basic attributes that define God (Creator of the world, etc.). If it is about a transcendent God who incarnates in flesh and blood for a certain time (i.e. reduces himself) here I don't know if there is a philosophical problem, but it still seems strange and requires direct proof that this is reality. Because what is his status as a human being? What happens to the rest of the world that he creates and manages while he is a human being? Does he still remain omnipotent? In short, it is strange that God would be a human being for a certain time. Not like the status of Mount Sinai.
The power of the Christian narrative (I don't know what that means at all) is really not interesting at all. What does it affect reality? Because many people are convinced of something, so it is true? In times past, many people worshiped idols (in your language, you would say the narrative of idolatry was very strong), do you think this supports the correctness of idolatry? Why do you turn a blind eye to this narrative?
Regarding the third point. I did not accuse you of distortion, what do I care what the relationship between the Christian message and your claim is? I meant to say that you are making a claim that I did not know. In any case, you wrote: “God's purpose is to bring man closer to Him (this is also true in Judaism and Islam)” What what what?! Where did you decide that? How can you even know such a thing?
The theological explanation is that God has an additional person added to him. Now, I don't understand. Are they both God? Which one of them is unlimited and runs the world? If one of them is, then the other is not. What does an additional person mean? There can't be more than one God because then one of them is not God.
On the fourth point. If you have to repent anyway, why do you need Jesus? There is Yom Kippur (“for on this day atonement will be made for you to cleanse you from all your sins”)… There is a person's own repentance. Are you telling me that Jesus replaces the role of the sacrifice that everyone has to bring for their sins? That still doesn't make sense. How is it possible that the sacrifice was brought in David to atone for sins that will come later? The idea of a sacrifice that a person sacrifices to atone for his sins is also not found here, since he did nothing. A central part of the sacrifice is that a person brings it and thus actually atones for himself. What does it help if someone died 2000 years ago? What is relevant at all? How does it atone for my sins?
Fifth point: First, these didactic means definitely worked. (Rambam already wrote this: But the thoughts of the Creator of the world – there is no power in man to attain them, for our ways are not His ways, nor our thoughts His thoughts. And all these things of Jesus the Nazarene, and of the Ishmaelite who stood after him, are nothing but to make a way for the King Messiah, and to correct the entire world to worship YHWH together, as it is said: “For then I will turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call on the name of YHWH to serve Him with one accord” (Zephaniah 3:9).) Second, you fall into the same mistake again. Indeed, this is either a correct claim or an incorrect claim (like any claim about the world, there is nothing special here). But why did you decide that if He did resurrect, it proves that He was God? This is just a baseless assumption, it is certainly possible that God used him for certain purposes. And that is precisely why someone as stupid as Jesus was needed for the purpose to work (everyone would leave idolatry and draw closer to the God of the Bible.), meaning someone was needed to say that he was God in order to sweep others after him. Therefore, his resurrection to life proves nothing. (There are even explicit verses in the Torah that someone could do a sign or miracle and be a false prophet and be sent to test the people of Israel not to follow idolatry, meaning that a sign or miracle does not necessarily prove the prophet. )
A final point, the Christian myth is so widespread because it is so much fun psychologically. All you have to do is what people like, always love each other, pay the priest and you are exempt from the commandments, a beautiful life. You remain with God only without all the burden of the string of commandments. That is why it captivates people so much. In fact, Christianity is the religion of populism, something like that doesn't convince me.

This Christian argument is familiar to the eye, mainly a collection of data taken out of context, distortions and methodological errors. See for example Plogia and from there in the US.

https://youtu.be/S5pOSO9yino

I have no interest in starting to discuss it in depth now, I'll just tell you that I've read about 20 academic books on this argument from all sides, there's nothing serious there..

Almost every fact that the argument is based on is wrong. There is no academic consensus – it's a lie, there are no separate sources – it's a lie, when you turn the event into what it really was – there is no difficulty in explaining things and the entire way of analyzing the argument is completely delusional. If the subject interests you that much, I would start by reading Erman, Carrier and Ellison

And PS, the model of the Son of God and its use also exist in other ancient religions, there is nothing new here.. (See, for example, the trinity of Amon, Fatah and Ra, and carefully review Wells's introduction to Egyptian religion)

Yishai

1. I use terms like narrative, etc. precisely because I, probably unlike you, consider the discussion to be philosophically and historically critical, meaning that I am not willing to presume the correctness of the Christian claim. At most, I assume its plausibility (in my opinion, it is indeed very plausible, but no more than that).

2. This requires focusing first on the strength of the narrative, that is, on the question of how well it is adapted to the souls and lives of people (their hearts). As I said, we have no certainty about the truth (in this case, the Christian truth), but we do have a good ability to assess whether the narrative is strong, and if so, this is a hint that there may be some truth here. And it is very true: in paganism or even in Nazi ideology there are enormous strengths and in any case there is some truth in them too (although of course very far from the degree of truth they attribute to themselves). I thought you already understood this point because I took a lot of trouble explaining it…

3. Regarding the issue of the Trinity and the plurality of persons. Well, I'm not saying that there is no problem here at all for Christianity (and Christian history is full of debates about this anyway), but apparently the problem you point to does not exist here. In Judaism (and Islam) too, God reveals himself to man through a mediation mechanism, for example the Torah or the Shekhinah, for example the Quran. Christianity did take this one step further, but it did not give up on the basic monotheistic claim: God is one and only (and omnipotent) even if he mediates himself to man through different persons.

4. Forgive me, Your Honor, but again it seems to me that you do not understand the idea of repentance in general. Even in Judaism! The repentance in all monotheistic religions is a joint project of man and God. God is good and therefore considers man despite his limitations and helps him help himself (provides him with institutionalized channels of repentance). If in this case man rejects this help, then the responsibility falls on him. Here too, Christianity did not deviate from Judaism but only radicalized (in my opinion more consistently) the same original Jewish principle. Indeed, Jesus replaces the sacrifice as an external act (which in its historical origin was truly a physical act – see Cain and Abel or the sacrifices in the Temple) with an internal movement of the soul. In general, the Christian worldview is more sober (in my opinion, and to the knowledge of a few billion others..) precisely because it is more “tragic” in relation to man: it sees man's defects (his “fall”) as a basic existential condition that requires special treatment that Judaism refused to adequately account for. To this end, God “allocated” to man the best of all his resources – “his son”.

5. Your so-called excuses for the resurrection of Jesus – if we choose to believe in it – are not even an excuse. There are two parameters for examining your claim that this was an educational success: the important one is in terms of the hoped-for benefit and the second in terms of the actual result. In both cases, I do not see that the educational mission you imposed on God was successful. What did the Torah or Judaism in general contribute to the growth of the Christian narrative? And also from a consequential point of view: How can the transformation of Christianity from a persecuted minority religion on the fringes of the Roman Empire into the most popular and prosperous religion in the world be used as an educational instrument that serves the God of the Torah? Unless you want to tell me that the Torah was intended from the start to bring us closer to a monotheistic view that is neither Jewish nor Torah-based… If this is your excuse for Jesus' success, you are already three-quarters Christian yourself (and in any case, you do not believe in the Torah of Israel).
I am already tired of explaining to you my position on what is special about Jesus' narrative (which came directly from his mouth). It is not clear to me what is not understood in the claim that he set up the most pretentious narrative in history and in any case it is easy to check his success or failure in light of what came after (and in fact what continues to this day). It seems to me that you did not really try to understand the claim. Because it is really simple.

6. Your claim that Christianity is “fun” is also very puzzling. Even if it is true (not so sure) it is irrelevant. What is relevant is its strength (and fun is really not strength), how strong it is philosophically and finally (and least interesting to me) is how grounded it is in historical truth

M
Well, this is the first serious response here to my words and unlike the other commenters, it relates directly to the question of the facts and not to explanations about them. And thank you for it. I definitely intend to look into the matter in the direction you suggested and I'm just sorry that you're throwing a bone but immediately announcing that you have no interest in continuing the discussion. But that's of course your right.

I don't understand your comment about the Trinity in Egypt. First, because it's not directly related to the claim (which I made on behalf of those theologians and historians), second, it's not new (and I already addressed it above) and third, even if it is related, I don't see how it weakens anything from the philosophical-theological claims or the historical ones.

The purpose of the comment is linked to claim 4. Most of the innovations that were supposedly difficult to accept according to the arguments of the parallels – are well-known and not really delusional things at the time, including in Judaism. The Trinity and the Son of God are an example.

Regarding the continuation – start digging in the Paology channel (it has a whole forensics section just on this) and from there you can move on to additional sources and research literature on the subject. It is also not without problems, but as an introduction, it will give you a good initial basis.

Doron
1. A narrative (at least as I understand it) means an option that is not more correct than the other options, but rather another option among other options. So it is true that it is not possible to reach certainty and only stay with the most likely option, but in your relation to the claim, it is about the truth (since it is the most likely) and what happened in reality, and not a narrative in the slightest.
2+6. Although we do not have certainty about the truth, there are claims that bring us closer to the truth (bringing us to the most likely option). I do not accept your words that if many people identify with Christianity, this implies something about its truth. For the answer, it is a psychological phenomenon that stems from the need for religion, and the lack of commitment required to be a Christian. (In addition, we can also mention the fact that many people were forced to convert to Christianity.) Of course, according to what you say, if anything, one should lean towards Islam (I heard that they overtook Christianity in the number of people in the religion).
3. Glad to see that you also understand that there is a problem with Christianity here.
If we ignore Kabbalah in Judaism, there is no comparison between Torah and Shekhinah and Jesus. Torah is content that was delivered from the Almighty and Shekhinah is the presence of something spiritual that comes from God on a physical thing in the world. On the other hand, the claim about Jesus is that he himself is God/semi-God. (In Islam, the rationalist opinion does not have this problem either)
4. Jesus' death has no meaning of sacrifice. This is not relevant at all when talking about the concept of sacrifice - the death of a human being once, because the entire effect of the sacrifice is the final act of repentance. Which has nothing to do with the case of Jesus' death, so this whole idea of atonement does not begin at all. Apparently you don't understand that repentance has always been an internal movement of the soul (and you shall return to the Lord your God and listen to his voice according to all that I command you today, you and your children with all your heart and with all your soul) and the sacrifice was the final seal on repentance, which is not part of the death of Jesus. Indeed, Christianity does not believe in man and thinks that he is in a screwed-up state that he cannot get out of on his own, if it does you good, for health. But what exactly does this mean about us? What makes him different from other people? Is he God himself?
5. The rise of Christianity led to the spread of belief in basic monotheism (as you put it) and this is its success. Even if it is not the revised faith, it is much better than the pagan faith that existed before.
“I am not clear what is not understood in the claim that he put forward the most pretentious narrative in history and in any case it is easy to check his success or failure in light of what came after (and in fact what continues to this day).”- I think the claim is understandable to me. I simply do not accept it. No matter how pretentious his claim is, its success or failure does not change anything about its truth.

If there is anything that can support the truth of Christianity, it is the fact that the greatest sages, scholars and geniuses in history were devout Christians. Newton, Leibniz, Gauss, Thomas Aquinas, Pascal, Riemann, Watt, Maxwell, Faraday, Kepler and more. In Judaism, it is difficult to find Jews who reached such intellectual levels, were exposed to the most advanced knowledge about the world and remained religious. On the contrary, most of the wisest Jews were completely secular or converted to Christianity. In fact, a large part of the Jewish Nobel laureates were baptized into Christianity.
Then we must ask how such people did not overcome the lie of Christianity and how wise people did not discover that Judaism is true.

We must also examine in depth the revelation at Fatima. There are reports of 70 thousand people who attended the event and prophecies that claim to have been fulfilled one by one. Then we must examine whether the prophecies were unambiguous, whether it was possible to reach them by natural means. In my experience, most "revelations," even if they have a real basis, are sometimes distorted, even unconsciously, and interpreted in accordance with previous worldviews.
There are also quite a few such cases in Judaism.

Yishai
I can't find any substantive argument in yours that relates to the specific points I raised. From here on out, it seems to me to be just a trifle. I will only address one point, and it is the most interesting in my opinion, even though it is not directly related to our discussion of the narrative of Jesus.

I meant your (correct!) claim that the Torah served an extra-Torah and extra-Jewish purpose. In doing so, you opened the door wide to anyone who claims, like me, that the Torah is a means and not an end in itself.
I was aiming for such an interpretation of the Torah and its status from the beginning. Needless to say, Christians and Muslims, for example, could easily side with your position on this matter.

“The lack of commitment required to be a Christian”
Enough with this lie! Christianity is a religion with rules and it is not an easy religion as it is presented. Although it depends on the sect and there are tens of thousands of different sects. Some are literally cults with demands in heaven.

Catholic Christianity requires works as part of salvation. Some even claim that works are the only key to salvation and thus retroactively qualified believers in other religions.
The Catholic believer is required to receive the sacraments, participate in religious ceremonies, attend church on Sundays and on various holidays, fast during Lent, maintain modesty, give alms, and do good deeds. He is even forbidden to divorce and if he is divorced, he is forbidden to remarry and if he does so, he cannot participate in ceremonies until he repents and divorces again. The only way to get a divorce is for a church court to determine that the marriage was not valid from the start and that the ceremony was not conducted correctly or by an unqualified clergyman, that he was pressured to marry or that he did not do so voluntarily. And this is not a simple and complex procedure. In Judaism, for example, they find every little loophole to allow agunot and sourovat get and even consider this a sin. I think that living alone after a failed marriage is much more difficult than keeping Shabbat or not eating certain foods.
The Christian believer must also have all his thoughts clean and directed to God, and even a thought is considered a sin. Which is not the case in Judaism (at least from a formal point of view).
Most Christians in the world are Catholics.

In certain Protestant sects and Anabaptists, the requirements are even more extreme than in Catholic Christianity.
There are liberal sects in which there are almost no requirements for the believer except faith, but there are sects with demands in heaven. Some are run like a cult.
Liberal factions also deal quite a bit with actions and changing and improving the world, even if actions do not affect personal salvation according to their theology. This is not a simple matter either.

Regarding the psychological need for religion, this can be argued for any religion. Christianity is not special in this regard.

I once saw a film about a Calvinist community. Calvinists believe that works have no meaning at all and that people who are saved and will go to heaven have already been saved in advance. That is, God chose in advance who will go to heaven and who will go to hell.
Therefore, even faith does not save, contrary to the position of most Protestants.
On the surface, it is impossible to run a religion like this. Because a person will say that if he is saved, then it does not matter how he lives, and if he is not saved, there is no way for him to be saved. One can imagine such a church having no rules at all and everyone doing whatever they want.
(One can imagine what would happen if tomorrow Rabbi Edelstein said that it is not necessary to keep the commandments to go to heaven. The day after, ultra-Orthodox society would become Sodom and Gomorrah.)
In practice, their community life and rules are very strict with very strict regulations, and all the people are very active in the church and even have to volunteer long hours in the church.

Doron
I really tried to address the matter, but I also feel like it's a watershed because I actually understood the controversy. You see the power-sign (not sure, your words are not a sufficient condition) that Christianity is true and I don't see it.

I didn't really understand where you came to your conclusion about the purpose of the Torah. I'd be happy for you to explain it to me.

Rafi
Such demagogic words I'm not sure are even worth answering (referring to the first paragraph). But still. On what basis did you decide that these are the most brilliant and learned people in history? Have you forgotten Kant, Aristotle, Nietzsche, Einstein, Plato, and the rest is still hanging. I don't know on what basis you determine your list, but many deists or atheists will be included there. So this proof doesn't hold water. In addition, it's not wise to prove something about the beliefs of scientists based on a period when most of the world was Christian, after all, they behaved like the rest of the world. So much for your list. (I didn't have the strength to check your entire list, but I checked Gauss and the claim is that he wasn't a Christian, and I assume that many of the rest of your list aren't really Christians either.) To your next sentence, "Were exposed to the most advanced knowledge about the world and remained religious" - do you know what the knowledge about the world was in their time? What does this have to do with the fact that they remained religious? Are you also aware that in order to be exposed to knowledge about the world, you don't have to be a genius, therefore?" (The uniqueness of the people you talked about is that they discovered new things, not that they were exposed to knowledge) To your next sentence, "On the contrary, most of the smartest Jews were completely secular or converted to Christianity. In fact, a large part of the Jewish Nobel laureates were baptized into Christianity." On what basis did you determine that? Do you know how to estimate whether Dan Shechtman is smarter than Rabbi Akiva Egger? You're just talking about a level of knowledge and not about wisdom. “Then you have to ask how such people didn't get over the lie of Christianity and how wise people didn't discover that Judaism is true.” You can also ask that about Christianity (how could wise people not be Christians? How could they not get over the truth of Christianity?)
In any case, I don't know why I bothered to give you details when the answer is simple: there are wise people on every side. You have to address the merits of the matter and not trust others (why trust some more than others? Instead, look at the merits of the matter).
Regarding the second paragraph: What does it mean by reports? Did you see it on the news? And it's hard for me to believe in prophecies that will really constitute proof. If you have something specific, we can discuss it.
11
I'll answer you later. Right now I don't have the strength.

On the occasion of Holocaust Remembrance Day and Heroism 5722

Hi,

Good morning,

The discussion between you and the representatives of Christianity cannot get anywhere, because these are completely opposite worldviews. Just like the contrast between the perceptions of ‘Kfir’ the teacher and ’Raz’ his student, in the novel ‘Khild’ (published by ‘Niv’). The author of the book, D’P. presents himself as someone who is particularly interested in the connection between theology and childhood’

Indeed, this is the secret and foundation of pagan theology, of which Christianity is a part. According to them, God must be tangible, one who can be embraced and cherished. This is a theology that must remain in the world of a child who must be tangible.

Judaism, on the other hand, follows the path of Abraham, the three-year-old boy who was wise enough to see that even the heavenly bodies that rise and illuminate the world are not the pinnacle of heights, that beyond them there is something great and vast and abstract. Abraham laid the foundation for a mature theology.

The abstract God is not seen and is not touched. One communicates with and adheres to Him by learning His will and existence, by hearing His voice and by walking in His ways and adhering to His standards. Abraham will also command his children to “keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice.” This is how one draws closer to God and thus adheres to Him.

Therefore, the discourse is fruitless. Anyone who is not willing to accept an abstract God will prefer to believe in every illusory story. Just give him the illusion of a ‘touchable God’.

Best regards, Faybish Lipa Sosnowitzki-Dhari, owner of the old platform

The truth be told that even if I were of pagan inclination, I would rather worship some milk-filled cow, or an elephant that would stroke my head with its tusk and shower me with the waters of the Ganges 🙂 than the crucified sado-masochistic idol of the ‘religion of love and mercy’, in whose honor the Christians sacrificed, murdered and burned, tortured and humiliated, millions of my brothers…

Sh”el First of all, congratulations on joining the sales campaign for my debut book. I'm sure you've already purchased a copy or two, and if you haven't, you want to do so (the next book, a non-fiction book, will be released towards the beginning of 2023 – get your cash ready).
Regarding your claim about the childish tendency identified with the desire for the carnal and sensual… well, maybe when you read my second book you'll be convinced that it's exactly the opposite.
As you know, my main concern is not with historical Christianity but with the fundamental logical-metaphysical structure that stands in its background. The widespread claim that you share that this model emphasizes mainly the tangible is based, in my opinion, on a misunderstanding of the concept of tangibleness, or more precisely, the concept of actuality. This is not the place to go into detail and explain, but in short, my argument is that the Christian God is even more abstract than the Jewish God, and this is because the mediator chosen by Christianity (the Son of God – “child”) sacrificed himself on the cross. Death as a metaphor for the most abstract of all. But as mentioned, without a long and reasoned explanation, what I say here could really be seen as a substitution. That is why I wrote an entire book.

Yishai
First of all, it is important for me to emphasize that the strength of a religious model is very important to me, but it is not the most important element. The most important element is that it is rational at its core and therefore also philosophically solid. Strength is simply a good hint at that solidity (as in the case of the Torah from Sinai and so in the case of the Son of God). In any case, I think it is didactically correct to begin with it in the analysis of the model (although it is not the main thing).

Regarding the purpose of the Torah (and I am talking first of all about the Pentateuch), you were the one who brought the argument, in the name of Maimonides, that a possible explanation for the success of one religious truth (Christian monotheism) is its being anchored in another religious truth (monotheism in its infancy – in Judaism). This is an absurd assertion, since Christianity is not only anchored in Judaism but also claims to replace it… It is a paradox to claim that the original truth supposedly sees its success in a new truth that replaces it. In other words: your attempt to provide such an explanation for the phenomenon of Christianity is inconsistent with the Torah's claim to ownership of the complete and final truth. The Torah cannot justify anything that has arisen to inherit its place. If it does so (I claim it does), then it has a built-in problem. The only way I see to overcome that problem is to adopt a meta-Torahic and therefore also meta-Jewish interpretation. And here we are back to my conclusion: the most solid religious (monotheistic) model should probably emerge from the belief in the Mount Sinai status, but in no way should it remain there.

You see demagogy here. But the argument I brought is a real question that needs to be answered. Those people I brought were an example of quite a few scholars, all of whom are devout Christians. According to Wikipedia, 60 percent of Nobel laureates have been Protestant Christians.
Gauss was a devout Christian. I suggest you check before accusing me of lying, since I checked carefully before writing down my response. I remember my mathematics professor also saying this. From Wikipedia:

“Gauss was a Lutheran Protestant, and a member of St. Evans Church in Göttingen. Evidence of Gauss's deep belief in the relevance of belief in God comes from his response after solving a problem that had been bothering him for a long time: “In the end I succeeded – not by my own great efforts, but by the grace of God”. One of his biographers, G. Waldo Dunnington, describes Gauss's religious views in the following words:

For him science was the means of revealing the immortal kernel of the human soul. In the days when his mathematical prowess was at its best, his own faith had led him to creativity, and through the opportunities it opened up to him, had brought him hope and comfort. Towards the end of his life it had brought him security. Gauss's God was not a cold and distant figment of metaphysics, nor a distorted caricature of indignant theology. Man is not guaranteed such a perfection of knowledge as would justify his arrogant position that his dim vision is the absolute light and that no one else could possibly report the truth as he does (he held to religious tolerance). For Gauss, it is not he who shouts his "I believe," but he who lives it, who is most worthy of admiration. He believed that a life well spent here on earth was the best and only preparation for heaven. Religion is not the preserve of literature alone, but a way of life. The revelation of God is continuous, and not contained in tablets of stone or sacred scrolls. A book is insightful when it conveys insight. The unshakable idea of personal continuity after death, the firm belief in the final order of things, and in an eternal, just, omniscient, and omnipotent God, formed the basis of his religious life, which was in complete harmony with his scientific research. ”

Furthermore, quite a few claim that Protestant Christianity formed the foundation for the scientific revolution. Luther, who took authority from the church to the people, caused the literacy revolution and reliance on the Scriptures as the believer understands them. It continued by relying on reason and an inner desire to understand the wisdom of creation, which ultimately led to the scientific revolution, and not only. But also to the progress of morality, human rights, separation of religion and state, modern economics and in fact the entire modern Western world. And this is not my claim and many researchers believe so.
In fact, quite a few scientists have admitted that their religious perception caused them to investigate the world and nature.

My argument was not to prove Christianity. But to understand how such wise and learned people did not overcome the lie of Christianity? And why is the phenomenon the opposite among Jews? Why is it rare for an educated Jew to remain religious?
Clearly, there is no evidence here for the correctness of Christianity and I did not claim this. Nor did I claim that one should listen to a person because he is wise, but rather to examine his words objectively. But you will agree with me that a question arises here and that I am seeking an answer to it.

Wisdom, for me, is not only intellectual ability alone but also exposure to knowledge and understanding of the laws of nature. A musician can also be a genius and there are works written by people with high IQs and you can see it in their works. It doesn't mean anything.

Regarding the prophecies, you can say that about any prophecy. In my opinion, the prophecies should be checked and from there you can conclude whether they are true or fabricated. It is clear that there was something there because the event is documented. The question is whether Maria appeared or not (her description is a bit strange in my opinion) and whether the prophecies were prophecies. I am sure that if it were a Jewish event you would immediately go and check if it was real. To dismiss it as you do shows that you are not looking for truth.

I have already disconnected from the discussion here, and I also do not know what I have said about Rafi. But I want to respond to him.
You are presenting a factually distorted picture. This is not a difference between Judaism and Christianity, but between periods. In ancient times, people were religious, and so were the educated. Both Christians and Jews. In the last two hundred years (it started even earlier, of course) the Enlightenment has led to secularization (and vice versa) in both Christianity and Judaism. On the contrary, in the Christian world the war and hostility between religion, science, and education is much more intense and extreme than in the Jewish world.
It is true that in the Christian world there were more people who dealt with wisdom, and this certainly began before it happened in Judaism, but there are other reasons for this. In short, this picture is simply not true, and therefore there is no point in having a discussion about its meaning.

Even in later periods (the 19th century onwards) there were quite a few devout Christians who were geniuses in their fields, during the Age of Enlightenment and afterwards when atheism and non-theistic views became more widespread.
Riemann, Cauchy (who, although opposed the separation of religion and state, defended and assisted the Catholic education system, which damaged his popularity at that time), Georges Lemaitre, Ivan Pavlov (who started out as a theologian), Ernest Walton, Victor Hess and others. During their time, people like Bertrand Russell and Paul Dirac lived who were agnostics or outright atheists.
This was not a time when religion dominated the world. Especially not among the intellectual elite of their time, which was relatively diverse with a tendency towards non-theistic approaches.

At that time, Jews achieved very impressive achievements. Far beyond their share in the population. But I don't know of any religious people, especially Orthodox ones like that. At that time, Einstein, Bohr, Cantor, Bohm, Eugene Wigner, Richard Feynman, Wolfgang Pauli, John von Neumann, George Puglia, and others were more or less active. All were either completely secular or converted to Christianity. Some even passed baptism as adults by choice.

I don't think that in the Christian world there is more tension between religion and science. If you look at evangelicals and fundamentalists, it may be. But even in Judaism there are ultra-Orthodox Jews whose approach is more extreme than most Christians.
Most churches do not reject science, and even today there are quite a few Christian scientists. Some have achieved impressive achievements, even though today most scientists in the world are irreligious.
In terms of education, Catholic schools (with some Catholics being vilified these days) are very advanced. Even in Israel, Christian schools achieve quite good achievements, and even Muslims try to study in Christian educational institutions. Not to mention the more liberal factions. Where the priests have academic education (there are quite a few among the Catholics too). Except for the Modern Orthodox in America and a few more in Israel, I don't see much openness to science and education in the majority of the religious population. In terms of achievements, religious Jews don't stand out particularly. The only one that comes to mind is Professor Omen.

But what interests me is how such smart people who have reached impressive intellectual levels don't see that Christianity is wrong? And why can't Jews (according to most) be smart, educated and remain religious when some of them have converted to Christianity? (And again, this was back in the last century when Jews had full rights and religion was pushed out of public life in Europe, when in America there was separation of religion and state from the start).

You're making the same mistake again: religious Jews didn't deal with this, and it's not that those who did left the religion.

By S. A. Bayer P. B.

A significant portion of scientists, starting in the 18th century, and how they challenged the foundations of religious faith, such as the theories of biblical criticism and evolution, etc.

The strengthening of science increased secularization, both among Christians and Jews, and among Jews, the weakening of faith was also associated with the weakening of nationalism in an attempt to integrate into the dominant society. Jews thought that if they adopted English, German, French, etc. culture, they would be granted equal rights. Even Gentiles conditioned the acceptance of Jews as citizens with equal rights on abandoning their ‘different culture’.

A Jew who proudly carried his Judaism had great difficulty obtaining a senior academic position, and it was made clear to him that his conversion to Christianity – ‘Open the doors of a professorship’. For example, the Orientalist Daniel Havlonson sacrificed himself to accept a professorship in Russia, while the renowned Jewish Orientalist Yitzhak Yehuda (Iganz) Goldziher had to work for his living for thirty years as the ’secretary of the Budapest community’, and only in 1904 did the University of Budapest deign to appoint him a professor!

In this bleak situation, reactions differed between Eastern European Jewry and Western European Jewry. In Eastern Europe, most religious Jews preferred to ‘keep their distance’ from the Enlightenment so as not to be damaged religiously. In contrast, in Western Europe, the ‘Torah with a Path to the Land’ movement arose, inspired by Rabbis Hirsch, Hildesheimer, and Hoffmann, who argued that it was possible to combine loyalty to the Torah with excellence in culture and science.

From this school emerged great scientists who remained Torah-loving and observant, including: Dr. Yaakov Barrett, an orientalist and linguist, his son Aharon Barrett, who was a jurist and economist (served as CEO of Bank Leumi in the 1950s and authored the book "Our Generation Facing the Questions of Eternity," which deals with questions of "Torah and Science."

From this school emerged renowned mathematicians such as Prof. Zvi Herman Shapira, the late (founder of the Jewish National Fund), Prof. Abraham Frankel, the late (one of the founders of the Department of Mathematics at the Hebrew University), Prof. Hillel Furstenberg (Abel Prize winner), Prof. Israel Oeman (Nobel Prize winner) and Prof. Elia Rips; great physicists such as Prof. Yechiel Domb, Prof. Benjamin Payne, Prof. Alvin Radkowski and Prof. Jeremiah Bernover.

Even religious women have achieved important achievements, such as the Israel Prize laureate, statistician Prof. Esther Samuel (born in the Netherlands), Israel Prize laureate, pharmacologist Prof. Martha Weinstock-Rosin (born in England), and biotechnologist Prof. Shulamit Lowenberg (a native of the land, a graduate of Ulpna).

The people of Israel have gone through persecution, not least thanks to the nice Christians And crises that have belittled our numbers and strength, but ‘over the nose and fury’ of anti-Semites, Christians and atheists alike – we are growing and thriving in our country, both in cultural and scientific life and in the fields of security and the economy, and we have nothing to be ashamed of.

With greetings, Amioz Yaron Schnitzel”r

Paragraph 7, line 2
… Prof.’ Esther Samuel-Cohen, late (who is originally from Norway). …

11,
It seems that you are not a religious person or have not observed halacha in your life. Everything you said (except for the issue with the divorces and the reflections that I will touch on later) does not come close to observing halacha. Jewish halacha (Orthodox of course) exists in every detail that a religious person performs. It is not something that is once in a while “pay taxes” (like going to church once a week) but a constant burden that lies on you and does not allow you to do even the most basic things the way you want (there are even halacha on how to go to the bathroom!). All the things you said do not come close to that. People generally enjoy religious experiences from time to time (going to church once a week, etc., even in Judaism people enjoy making Kiddush once a week, going to synagogue occasionally, fasting on Yom Kippur) so the requirements (it would be more accurate to call them recommendations among Christians) that you present are not very difficult to observe and indeed, among the general Christian public, it is a religion that does not require much commitment. In fact, Paul and his followers waived the obligation to observe commandments for those who join Christianity, meaning he made the religion easier to observe.
Regarding divorce, in our day and age, with so many divorces, the prohibition of divorce is truly a very difficult thing (although allow me to doubt that over a billion Christians are as devout as you present them. Of course, when we compare to Jews, we compare to Orthodox Jews). But you forget that the time when Christianity became popular and gained momentum was in ancient times, when most couples, I think, would have stayed married their entire lives, so it didn't require such a special sacrifice. (By the way, if one of the partners dies, is it still forbidden to remarry? Just asking out of interest)
Regarding contemplation, first of all, in Judaism too, one can find sources that one should keep clean thoughts (contemplations of sin are worse than sin, and I assume there are more), but the question is how you define clean thoughts and to what extent does Christianity really demand this of its believers. Obviously, there is an ideal that would purify thoughts (I always equated the ’ with the opposite) but this is not something that is part of the basic Christian commitment. At least that is normal. In short, it is a religion that requires much less commitment than Judaism (as Paul also wanted it to be, according to what I understood from Wikipedia).
Shchel,
It seems that you are completely in the spirit of the discussion about the claim that Christians are childish. In any case, a large part of the reason I am answering is also for myself. That is, the fact that I have to confront other perceptions actually adds to and builds me up (and of course directs me more towards the truth)

Doron
First of all, did you write a book? What is it called? Is it a book from Zion?
Secondly, I'm not sure what it means to be "philosophically sound"; the question for me is what is more philosophically plausible and how historically grounded it is. Of course, the philosophical question is the more basic and decisive (here I think Christianity is quite lacking with the whole Trinity thing, you said it seemed more successful to you but I'm not sure what the definition of successful is and how much significance it has)
Thirdly, you seem to have misunderstood my point about Christianity. God used Christianity not as a replacement for Judaism but as a preparation of the world for the Messiah and the redemption of the world. This is not an extra-Jewish goal but a Jewish-Torah goal. Maybe that's why he really performed the miracles of Jesus (although Jews were not supposed to follow Christianity because of course it cannot replace the status of Mount Sinai and it is only intended for the rest of the world). It should be remembered that Judaism was not intended to be a universal religion, but rather a religion unique to the Jewish people. Therefore, in order for the whole world to be saved, it has a wayward daughter who brings the world closer (only closer! She herself is not the truth.) to the true faith. It seems that you just need to study a little Rabbi Kook and you will return to loving Christianity.
Rafi
Now I understand your argument. I think you were not precise in what you wrote before because it was a bit like the number of scholars constitutes unequivocal proof in favor of Christianity, and not it (as you yourself admitted).
The figure you quoted from Wikipedia is interesting, which says that 60 percent of Nobel Prize winners are Protestant Christians. I have nothing to answer for that. (Although you need to normalize the percentage of Protestant Christians who live in the modern world, meaning mainly Europe and North America, and check the numbers after normalization)
Regarding Gauss, it turns out that I was a bit biased in his Wikipedia entry. Although the paragraph I relied on is:
“Gauss declared that he believed firmly in an afterlife, and saw spirituality as something fundamentally important to human beings. He was once quoted as saying: “The world would be pointless, and the whole of creation absurd, without immortality”. Nevertheless, Dunnington states that Gauss did not believe in all Christian examples, and his belief cannot be interpreted as belonging to the Christian tradition. His faith was closer to Buddhist than to Christian, as he expressed some belief in reincarnation (in correspondence with Olbers regarding non-Euclidean geometry he wrote: “…Perhaps in another incarnation we shall be able to discern with our eyes the nature of space…” ) and believed more in the journey of learning that the soul goes through in the world than in an eternal paradise.”

As for Protestant Christianity being the foundation for the scientific revolution, that is a bit of a funny claim. It was the foundation for the scientific revolution after the Catholic Church had ruined scientific thinking, so someone needed to break free from them. That is, Protestant Christianity may have started the scientific revolution, but it was all necessary because of Christianity itself.

Now to the substance of your claim (general, I won't address every sentence now), I have no way of knowing why wise people chose Christianity. It can be assumed that it is because there is a kernel of truth there (the status of Mount Sinai, helping others, etc.). And as Rabbi Michi already pointed out to you, most wise Jews did not become secular as a result of exposure to world knowledge, but rather became secular from the start. And at the beginning of secularization and enlightenment, it is reasonable to assume that some were baptized into Christianity in order to integrate into general society (as Szel cited about a certain professor). In other words, the claim that Jews did not remain religious as a result of exposure to the intellectual world, I think is incorrect. Although the question really arises as to why religious people are less successful in academia than secular people these days, it can be assumed that it is because many times the wise among the religious will actually study Torah and invest less in science, and those in academia will also deal with things that are on the border between Torah and science. In the end, it turns out that not many religious scientists are successful. (Take for example Rabbi Michi who left physics and moved to teach Torah)

Finally, regarding the prophecies, I don't like all these proofs from prophecies because you can always explain them in a way that suits you. Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu also published a book called The Prophecy that shows the fulfillment of prophecies in our day, does that convince you to believe in Judaism? I find it hard to believe. It's the same with Christianity, prophecies are not very convincing proofs.

Yishai
I have written two books and neither of them is a “mission” or a shoe. The first is a novel (which was published – You are welcome to run and buy to increase the income of the Porat family) and the second is a non-fiction book that has not yet been published. Both books deal with the same topic – childhood. In the non-fiction book I only deal with the margins of the discussion of the connection between the narrative of Jesus and the concept of childhood. So much for the business of glorifying my name.

Philosophically solid means that it is rational and therefore a good candidate for its defense. Do you not like any religion or worldview to be like that?

You have neutered my words again, this time on the subject of the Trinity. I said exactly the opposite of what you attributed to me here: I explicitly said that in my opinion the third person (the Holy Spirit) seems a bit problematic to me. But since I am not familiar with the subtleties of Christian theology, I may be wrong here. Perhaps the Holy Spirit is a concept with “philosophical solidity”.

Finally, it seems to me that regarding the role of the Torah, I understood you perfectly well, but you did not understand yourself. It is unlikely that one complete and complete religious truth in my opinion (the Torah) would use a competing truth that wants to inherit it (the New Testament for that matter) in order to achieve its goals. The complete and utter victory of Christianity means the final destruction of historical Judaism precisely because of the abolition of the exclusive status of the Torah and of Judaism in general. In other words: if the universal gospel that Christianity promotes is the main thing, then the particular historical truth found in the Torah is destined to be abolished. According to your words, it follows that this is the purpose of the Torah – to wither and die in favor of its continuation.

First, to the best of my recollection in the Torah (in the Pentateuch) there is no “Messiah King” And there is no “redemption” (at least not in the cosmic meanings you are trying to give them). Your very use of these expressions that you supposedly “find” in the Torah distorts the image of the Torah from the beginning and in fact turns it into a means rather than an end. The Torah certainly does not intend to present itself as a means.

This is absolutely not true. In Christianity, there are sins that are forbidden. Such as anger, hatred, lust, gluttony, and more.
And these are extremely serious sins.
In ancient times, there were more problems with female infertility. Think about it, a Jew could take a second wife or get divorced, and a Christian was ordered not to start a family. It is much more difficult than observing the law. I, for example, would not stand for it.
Before the advent of artificial insemination, a person was ordered to be celibate.
As long as the spouse does not die, one is forbidden to remarry. In Christianity, there is also encouragement of monasticism, which is more difficult than observing the law, and there is a prohibition on owning property, eating certain foods, penance, a prohibition on speaking vulgar words, and more.
There are Catholic Christians who belong to certain organizations who live very difficult lives even when they are not monks. In Catholic Christianity, there is encouragement of suffering.

Observing the law is not easy, but I do not think that Christianity is easier. Especially since there are levels of prohibition, there are laws of doubt, there are voices in times of distress, in places of great need, the dignity of others, and other considerations. In Christianity, there are no such considerations.

Paul did abolish the commandments, but he introduced laws of celibacy, especially in the sexual sphere, which are very difficult to maintain. The ideal is not to marry and to live a life of celibacy. Even relations between married couples are undesirable if not for the purpose of culture. In contrast, in Judaism, it is a mitzvah.
Chazal spoke quite a bit about how important it is for married couples to have sex. They even introduced divorces without a ketubah to a rebellious woman or forced a man to divorce a woman who is unable to live with him.
Paul is also irrelevant because it is impossible to understand Christianity from a superficial reading of the New Testament, just as it is impossible to understand Judaism from a superficial reading of the Talmud.
I could equally bring the words of Jesus that a person should give all his money to the poor, gouge out his eyes if he sees a woman, give all his possessions to someone who robs him, turn the other cheek, and so on.
These are things that no person can stand. And they are very difficult. But again, this is not Christianity. Because there is an interpretation of things.

The laws of kashrut are not much different from the sin of gluttony in Christianity. Where the pleasure of eating is a sin (depending on the intensity of the pleasure and addiction and why one does it, but there are different opinions on the matter).
In my opinion, Judaism focuses more on external laws while Christianity focuses on general guidelines. But according to quite a few rishon, the purpose of the commandments is to distance oneself from phenomena of pleasure. For example, according to Maimonides, they could easily establish other rules that lead to the same goal.
Each of the approaches has advantages and disadvantages. Without tangible rules, it will be difficult not to fall, and with tangible rules, it will be difficult to reach the meaning of things.

Confession is not easy either. Try talking about everything you do from morning to night with a stranger.

Every religion has difficult things and less difficult things. Judaism is not special in this regard. There are also sects that are much more difficult than Judaism. Does that mean they are better or more correct?
Running a marathon every day and eating less than 1000 calories is also difficult. I don't see you doing that.
What matters is whether what you are doing is true or not.
Attributing to Christians a religious experience and a desire for an easy life is not serious. In the same way, one can also say about a posk who stopped the kola that he is looking for an easy life. But of course that is not true. He does what he believes is right.
There are many places where one can attack Christianity. The direction of an easy life is not one of them.
A person could also have sought a much easier modern spiritual movement. Why didn't he do it?

I personally have great respect for Protestants who live such lives even though their actions do not contribute to their salvation. They do things for their own sake and not to receive a reward. In Judaism, this is also a very great virtue.
In Judaism, only the most special individuals are able to live like this. Among the Haredim, without the threats and intimidation, people would abandon their homes.

And I wasn't talking about sects like the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Witnesses, and others where life is almost unbearable. The Adventists even observe Shabbat according to their own halakhah (I didn't look into what they do exactly), don't eat pork and other foods, don't accept blood transfusions even in life-threatening situations, and more.
There is a sect that doesn't even go to the doctors. I'm sure it's much harder than observing halakhah. That you reach a point where your life is in danger and you're ready to die. (By the way, here the Ethiopian halakhah, which is that Pikuach Nefesh does not reject Shabbat, is much harder. I don't see you becoming an Ethiopian).
The Essenes lived a very difficult life, even more so than the Christians. If so, they didn't survive, and the sages didn't view their way of life positively.

The entry I read about Gauss was the English entry. I brought the quote from the Hebrew Wikipedia after seeing that quote. The English entry does not mention that his faith was close to Buddhism. It also mentions that there were different opinions about his true faith, but at most he was a nominal Christian (a cultural Christian). But it is written there that he also encouraged a person to embark on a journey from Zion. A non-Christian believer would not encourage such a thing. In my opinion, he was a believing Christian even if he had radical tendencies here and there.
Professor Uman and Rabbi Michael Avraham are not classical believers in Judaism either. Neither is Maimonides. But no one doubts their Jewish faith even if there are radical beliefs here and there.

Gauss did not live in a time when it was forbidden to leave Christianity. If he wanted to, he could leave. There was also no discrimination against non-Christians.

It should be remembered that Protestant Christianity (at least outwardly) encourages a personal understanding of the Scriptures and God's intention. Therefore, every person who has come to faith is a Christian. Even if his opinions differ a little here and there. Newton also had radical opinions, but he was a devout Christian.

The contribution of Protestant Christianity goes far beyond a return to scientific research. This is a tremendous change in perception!
The transition from relying on reason alone, like most of the wise men of Greece and antiquity, to empirical research was a process that began with the winds of the Reformation in Europe. Newton's book “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy” expresses this change quite a bit. The change in perception of Protestant Christianity was very great.
The religious fervor of understanding the secrets of creation could not exist in this emotionless world either. Biblical research and archaeology, for example, began with the aim of investigating the lives of the Israelites and early Christians in order to discover their faith and arrive at the true faith.
Separation of religion and state, due to the fact that Christians from different denominations could not agree on many things.
So too capitalism, free market, modern economy, human rights and more. I do not have the strength to go into detail, but most researchers believe so and it is easy to see this.

I cannot yet express an opinion on the rabbi's words because I am still investigating them. There is truth in the fact that religious Jews are less interested in wisdom and research (at least today, in the Middle Ages Jews were interested in wisdom) but what is certain is that the Enlightenment movement caused tremendous secularization. It is known that sages left religion, such as the philosopher Shlomo Maimonides. It is also known that there was a war against the Maskilim for a long period. Which caused them to leave.
But in my opinion, if the Maskilim were observant, no one would doubt their Judaism, just as today no one doubts the Judaism of the Hasidim.
In my opinion, Christianity also did not come to be accepted into general society, probably because at that time there was separation of religion from state, freedom of religion, and Jews had full rights. It was possible to be Jewish and succeed.

Regarding prophecies, that is precisely why I think they should be examined in depth. To see if there is a factual basis or interpretation and whether there was a revelation and not another natural phenomenon. If Mary appeared and said that in the year x, World War II would begin and there would be events α, β, γ, in the year y Russia would become communist and in the year w communism would fall, and in the year z they would try to assassinate John Paul, then there was undoubtedly a prophecy.
If she said something that could be interpreted in retrospect, then it was not a prophecy. And if there was a UFO, then it was not a Christian prophecy.
That is why it should be examined in depth.
The event occurred in modern times and therefore can really be investigated. Until 20 years ago, it was even possible to interrogate witnesses directly.

Doron
I even found your website. It says there that you have been involved a lot in Jewish thought, interesting.

“Solid philosophically means that it is rational and therefore a good candidate for defense. You don't like any religion or worldview to be like that?”-Why did you come to this conclusion?

Regarding the Trinity, okay, okay, you love the Son and not the Holy Spirit, oh well. Both seem problematic to me and the things are well known.

Once again you didn't understand me, and it seems that you don't even try to understand me. Indeed, the complete and utter triumph of Christianity means the loss of Judaism, but it is still possible to say that God uses Christianity for Judaism. Not that Christianity will really succeed in “winning” and making the whole world Christian, but that it brings non-Jewish people closer to believing in it. The purpose of the Torah uses Christianity and does not die because of Christianity. In other words, Christianity will not win outright but will achieve significant (but not total) success.

Why do you speak in the name of the Torah? These expressions originate from the prophet and the sage who are part of the continuation of the Torah and Judaism. In truth, the universal redemption that I am talking about originates from the prophets. (“For then I will turn to the peoples a pure language, to call them all by the name of the Lord, to serve Him with one shoulder” and many more) The prophets do not act against the Torah and abolish it, but rather prophesy about what will happen and they are also part of Judaism.

I did not understand exactly what you mean by saying means or ends. The Torah comes to convey the word of the Lord. What is its definition as a means and what is its definition as an end?

11,
Where do you get the idea that there were more infertility problems? To the best of my knowledge, in the times of Christianity, having two wives was less common. Indeed, monasticism is more difficult than observing regular religious law, but monasticism was not intended for every Christian person, but only for priests with special virtue.

In any case, you are referring to today's Christianity. While I intended to answer the question of how Christianity became popular, so your claims are irrelevant. If you have a better source than Paul for what Christians committed to doing in practice in ancient times, you are welcome to bring it (Jesus is not relevant at all because he said this as a sermon to believers in general, while Paul is actually saying what to do in practice if I understood correctly).

It seems that you did not understand what I said in general. After you understand that Christianity is wrong (this is the first step!) the question then arises as to why so many people believe in it. I claimed that the reason is that it has a kernel of truth (the status of Mount Sinai, love of others, etc.) and a lack of commitment compared to Judaism. That is, in ancient times when Christianity became popular, people joined it because they could both earn the monotheisms and not take on this burden called the burden of commandments (and also have a nice religious experience). As you said, Christianity speaks in general terms, so a person in ancient times would want to join them. And after Christianity has already taken hold so much, it is difficult to remove such a thing from the world.
Of course, difficulty does not determine whether the religion is true or not. It is just a psychological explanation.

Rafi
I got it. Gauss was a Christian. (Very disappointing)
It could be that Protestant Christianity led to many successes. What does that show?
Even if Jews had formal rights, the question is whether they could integrate into society and culture. Here I am not sure that the reality is as you say.
I did not understand the comparison to the Hasidim.
Regarding the prophecies, what happened 20 years ago? I thought you were talking about prophecies from the New Testament.
If what is written in the prophecy is: ”x World War II will begin and there will happen events α,β,γ, in the year y Russia will become communist and in the year w communism will fall” and that is true and we are talking about a distance of thousands of years. There is no doubt that it sounds very true and true. I find it hard to believe that such a thing happened.

Yishai is very difficult with you…
Forgive me for my words, but Abba is confusing unrelated things and it seems that you do not understand the basis of the discussion. The discussion, if it is at all a systematic philosophical discussion, is first and foremost about the Torah, not about the Nakh and certainly not about the Sages… Now go back to what I said and try reading again and then maybe you will understand what we are talking about…

On one hand (although I feel that it is hopeless…) the purpose of the Torah is itself insofar as it expresses the authentic will of God. Not the morality of the prophets, nor the correction of the world, nor redemption, nor the Messiah, nor shoes. The Torah is purely for its own sake. If someone like you comes along and uses it to justify (not explain! justify) an alternative Torah that came to inherit its predecessor, then it is as if you said that the Torah condemned itself to be transient. Because such a statement means one thing: the Torah is a means to greater ends (which came from the prophets, the sages, or my grandmother). It's not that complicated to understand.

I'm not talking about the New Testament prophecies, but the apparition at Fatima. The woman who appeared there provided 3 prophecies.
1. World War II and the destruction of Europe
2. The rise and fall of communism and heresy in Russia
3. A prophecy that was kept secret for years when much speculation arose, including from the extreme Protestant side that the Pope would open the door to Satan, when in 2000, if I'm not mistaken, the Vatican published it and claimed that it was the attempted assassination of John Paul.
If the prophecies were unambiguous, there is evidence here of the authenticity of the apparition, and if the woman was really Mary, then there is proof here of the authenticity of Christianity. Therefore, in my opinion, we should investigate in depth what really happened there.
According to the version they published, the prophecy gave an exact date for World War II (the era of Pius XII), and the persecution of Christians in Russia.

In the third prophecy, the girl said that she would be of great importance and a great message to the entire world. Does the assassination of the Pope answer this? I doubt it.

In my opinion, the Vatican hid quite a few things. It also did not explicitly confirm for a long time that there was indeed an apparition, and there are claims that the girl was taken to a monastery against her will.
If so, then some event must have occurred there.
Some link this to the UFO phenomenon.

The Jews integrated very well at that time. I brought quite a few Jews who were completely secular. At that time, there were also quite a few secular non-Jewish scientists. In fact, as time went on, the proportion of secular scientists increased.

The comparison of the Maskilim to the Hasidim was to speculate what would have happened if the Maskilim had continued to observe the commandments. This was to find out whether a Jew left religion because he was Maskilim or whether he turned to Haskalah because he left religion.
The first Maskilim, like Mendelssohn, observed the commandments, but their descendants left religion.

It wouldn't hurt Judaism if Christianity embraced Jews who still believe in witchcraft and sorcery, prophecies and snake charmers and fortune-tellers. It suits them that an idiot like Jesus would be their guide.

It really took great prophetic talent to foresee in 1917, the last year of World War I, the expected collapse of rotten Russia and economically defeated Germany, the rise of the communists in Russia and its collapse after a while after the people's disappointment with communism, Germany's failure to accept its defeat, which would lead to a renewed nationalist awakening, was also expected. It seems that the Lady of Fatima had some ability for political analysis, or that newspapers reached her that interpreted both of them and analyzed the situation correctly. ‘Wisdom among the Gentiles – Believe’ 🙂

It is also worth noting the correct analyses of Dr. Benjamin Ze'ev Herzl, who already in the 90s of the 19th century realized that the European nation states would not tolerate Jews as citizens for long and called for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. And the wisdom of Dr. Chaim Weizmann, Ze'ev Zibotinsky, and Yosef Trumpeldor to take advantage of the imminent fall of the Ottoman Empire and the transfer of power in Palestine to Britain. Weizmann worked hard to cultivate diplomatic relations with the British authorities, while Zibotinsky and Trumpeldor sought to win the hearts of the British by enlisting in their army (and at the same time, the people of Niloticus worked to assist the British with espionage).

Zibotinsky also foresaw the collapse of the 'new order' in Europe and foresaw the rise of Nazism and fascism, and traveled around Europe like a madman calling on its Jews to flee Palestine and establish a Jewish state there before it was too late. Sometimes there is wisdom even in Jews 🙂

With greetings, Ben-Zion Yohanan Corinaldi-Radetzky

Zibotinsky and Tropflador were preceded by the idea of establishing a Jewish state in Israel by establishing "Hebrew battalions" that would cooperate with the peoples of Christian Europe in conquering Israel from the Turks by Rabbi Shlomo Molcho, who, in addition to being a Kabbalist and a mystic, had a political background as a former senior official in the court of the King of Portugal, and was therefore able to offer "at eye level" proposals for military and political cooperation with the European powers.

Molcho's experience was far ahead of its time. Neither the kings of Europe nor the Jews, in whom the legacy of persecution and humiliation of the Jews was deeply embedded, They were unable to conceive of such cooperation, and the Ottoman Empire was also at the height of its power and posed a serious threat to Christian Europe.

Only about four hundred years later, the peoples of Europe and Judea were ripe for the idea of Jewish political independence and military power, and even the declining Ottoman Empire was ripe for revolutionary change. Therefore, what Rabbi Shlomo Molcho could not do, was accomplished by Weizmann, Zhbotinsky and Trumpeldor.

On the plan of Rabbi Shlomo Molcho and his successors in the next generation, see my response, Messiah or Commander of the Battalion of the Children of Gad? On Naham Ilan's article "Messiah Died Fulfilling His Mission", on the website "Mossaf Shabbat" from Mekorrishon

Best regards, Eliam Fishel Werkheimer

Doron
Indeed, the Torah came to present the authentic will of God. I did not say that the Torah came to justify an alternative Torah that came to inherit the Torah. My previous argument was that it could be that the will of God is that the rest of the Gentiles draw closer to the monotheistic faith so that in the end they will draw closer to the truth of the Torah. Then the people of Israel will be a kingdom of priests (in the biblical sense of servants) and a holy nation. In other words, in order to bring the nations of the world to a state where the people of Israel can be a kingdom of priests to God, the nations must also believe in the truth of the Torah. And Christianity brings us closer to this state (it is not perfect, but it brings us closer to the ideal state). This is the vision of the Torah and this Torah will not be replaced, Christianity only comes as a servant.

P.S. The prophets, Messiah, redemption and sages did not come to replace the Torah, but by virtue of the Torah they continue (not replace or constitute an alternative) to deliver the word of God in various forms to the people of Israel.
It is worth noting in this context that the concept of a new covenant has been distorted by Christians. The verse says ” For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord, I will give my law in their midst” meaning that the same Torah will be given to the people of Israel in the form of a new covenant that will already be a part of everyone. And I will give it.

Rafi
From reading the content of the prophecies themselves on Wikipedia, the prophecies do not seem to be the clearest and most unambiguous (the period of a pope is not an exact date…). In any case, the question arises whether in 1917 these things were so difficult to predict? Even today, we saw someone who wrote a book in 2012 in which he predicted a war between Russia and Ukraine (I think he said 2020, but I'm not sure), there are things that can also be assessed in a natural way. Finally, why decide that it is Maria? (And I did not see 70 thousand people on Wikipedia)

As for the Maskilim, I am puzzled by you. After all, this is exactly the neo-Orthodoxy movement. They were really educated people who remained religious. There is no need to guess what happened to religious educated people.