Can we discuss Judaism without the politics?

[meltzerboy2]

I understand your concern. The 2-hour waiting period I tossed out is an error; it should be 3-hours, as ConstantLearner informs us, and it applies to Germany, not Holland. The Dutch, as you state, had a 1-hour waiting period. I was not aware of the Sephardic tradition, so thank you for that information. The 6-hour requirement, according to Law, I know from ages ago by my (maternal) grandmother.

 

[HarryStotle]

I don’t have an answer you want because I don’t accept that the question has merit.

The origin of the ‘question’ lies in a text that I don’t accept as either scripture or reportage.

There is no way of establishing that it’s either scripture and/or reportage, …

Then a consistency problem arises because if there is “no way of establishing that it’s either scripture and/or reportage,” that means those writings that you do accept as “either scripture and/or reportage” are accepted by you based not upon any reasonable and consistent warrant or evidence but on purely subjective grounds, Josh McDowell, notwithstanding.

If that is the standard by which you do wish to function, you are certainly free to do so. However, that would imply that the supposedly factual claim that no extra-Biblical sources exist to corroborate the Gospels is not actually a factual claim, but merely a subjective “I don’t accept” one.

It is good to be clear about your standards by which historical works are determined to be reliable and authentic: I accept these, but I don’t accept those.

 

[Kaninchen]

It is good to be clear about your standards by which historical works are determined to be reliable and authentic: I accept these, but I don’t accept those.

Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.

You demand an answer to a question based on a particular text, it’s up to you to establish that the text is history rather than literature, it’s not up to me to do anything at all.

If you don’t like the answers you get, try asking better questions.

 

[GKMotley]

What do you get when you multiple 6 by 7?

 

[GKMotley]

I thought you might.

 

[ConstantLearner]

I belong to a Conservative Jewish community, and I don’t consider myself that naive. Somewhat naive, but not that naive. I would never, for example, lay ant money down where “just anyone” had access to it. I’m not a trusting person by nature, though. Orthodox communities take very, very good care of their members needs, whatever those needs may be: medical, educational, etc. I’m not saying the other communities do not, they do, but just not to the extent that Orthodox communities do. As a result, and because of their more limited interaction with the secular world, I do find the Orthodox communities to be so trusting, it can be disadvantageous for them, That’s been my experience. It might not be wholly accurate, but it’s my experience.

 

[BlueMaxx]

Hmm…what one may call naive another may believe it is in having faith that God will protect and provide.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Hmm…what one may call naive another may believe it is in having faith that God will protect and provide.

I think G-d protects and provides, but I also think he expects us to use our common sense as well.

 

[HarryStotle]

Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.

You demand an answer to a question based on a particular text, it’s up to you to establish that the text is history rather than literature, it’s not up to me to do anything at all.

If you don’t like the answers you get, try asking better questions.

This is quite humourous, actually.

I asked a question based on the Gospel accounts. I was told by @ConstantLearner that the Gospel accounts have no extra-Biblical corroboration. I showed two sources, Tacitus and Josephus, that are about as reliable historical sources from the period as can be had, demonstrating that Jesus was executed by the Romans under Pontius Pilate, thus corroborating the Gospel accounts.

The claim then was made that Josephus and Tacitus were not eyewitness accounts and were only relying on hearsay. When I stated that Tacitus used primarily public records and official documents, the move was to simply dismiss Tacitus and Josephus, despite that @ConstantLearner admitted s/he hadn’t read much of Josephus and wasn’t aware of the interpolation problem. Although, s/he quietly said nothing about the Tacitus except to insist s/he didn’t consider him reliable.

You entered the discussion with the mere statement that the original question need not be answered because you don’t accept the literary texts (Josephus? Tacitus? The Gospels? Paul?) as historical and, therefore, you need not answer any question posed until it is better formulated.

We might be led to assume that you do accept some literary texts (the Old Testament and other Jewish writings, for example) as historical, but not other ancient writings, albeit without any real criteria for distinguishing those you do accept from those you don’t.

I take it that simply means you are unwilling to answer any questions that you are unwilling to answer, for reasons known only to you.

Okee

 

[Kaninchen]

You’re still trying to shift the burden of proof, that’s hilarious but predictable.

Is there any topic you can discuss sensibly?

 

[Kaninchen]

Apologies, JharekC, but, sometimes, proselytisers have to learn that it’s a waste of time.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Apologies, JharekC, but, sometimes, proselytisers have to learn that it’s a waste of time.

Surely he knows the question is irrelevant to us since we either (a) do not believe Jesus existed, or (b) existed, but ,was just the most successful of many messianic pretenders.

And surely he knows that since Jesus is not the messiah to us, we do not concern ourselves with the Christian bible or the events it portrays.

I think he would have more success getting an answer to his question, if an answer is, indeed, what he really seeks, in the (Catholic) holy scripture forum. And I think he knows that, too. One does not seek answers about Jesus from Jews!

 

[Rabbi]

Okay, so is someone trying to convert someone else (either to Judaism or Christianity)? Because this was not the intention of the original thread. The intention was to discuss Judaism, not arguments and debates around who’s right and who’s wrong. As we all know, both traditions are against the belief that everyone who doesn’t belong in their camp goes to hell.

 

[Kaninchen]

One does not seek answers about Jesus from Jews!

It’s all really about two things, the ‘proving’ of Jesus - which is much more an evangelical protestant thing than a Catholic thing - and the inevitable failure of others to stand up to the learning and force of intellect of the individual involved.

At least this one doesn’t spam.

 

[Kaninchen]

As we all know, both traditions are against the belief that everyone who doesn’t belong in their camp goes to hell.

You might want to try that one out in the Traditional Catholicism forum.

 

[HarryStotle]

The ultimate question is the ultimate in pointlessness, then?

I suppose we might point out the irony in appealing to a modern literary work of science fiction to justify the dismissal of ancient historical works as purely literary fiction.

 

[HarryStotle]

Kaninchen:

Apologies, JharekC, but, sometimes, proselytisers have to learn that it’s a waste of time.

Surely he knows the question is irrelevant to us since we either (a) do not believe Jesus existed, or (b) existed, but ,was just the most successful of many messianic pretenders.

Whether or not the question is irrelevant to you or not does not resolve the question of whether Jesus existed and why he was crucified.

Would that all important questions in life be so easily resolved (or sidestepped) purely by invoking interest or lack of it.

To merely write him off as “the most successful of many messianic pretenders” while not actually presenting a list of Jewish Messianic pretenders says something about your grasp of the actual question, as if guilt by tenuous association settles the issue, forever.

Speaking of moving goalposts.

Well, to be honest, you didn’t move goalposts exactly, you just arbitrarily bound them tightly together and posted a “We don’t want to talk about it” sign on the knotted cord.

A piece of performance art, I take it?

 

[HarryStotle]

Okay, so is someone trying to convert someone else (either to Judaism or Christianity)? Because this was not the intention of the original thread. The intention was to discuss Judaism, not arguments and debates around who’s right and who’s wrong. As we all know, both traditions are against the belief that everyone who doesn’t belong in their camp goes to hell.

I suppose framing an academic question about why a Jewish man was sent by the Jewish Sanhedrin to a Roman Procurator to be executed for blasphemy could be taken as an attempt to “convert someone.” But it could also be that framing it in just that way might be a convenient way to slough off the question entirely because the framer has no good answer to give. So better to avoid the question entirely than demonstrate a paucity of intellect. And what better way to way lay the question entirely than to accuse the other of proselytizing and then feign outrage at the audacity?

To be clear, I am not accusing you of doing this. You have wisely remained silent on the question. I would accept someone saying something like: “I am not sufficiently familiar with the issue to render an opinion.”

That Isn’t exactly what several in this thread did, however. They preferred to launch into accusatory tirades imputing all kinds of untoward motives while themselves arguing badly.

Since when is “I don’t believe it happened,” a sufficient argument to be made regarding any historical event? Yet that has been the extent of the argument presented.

To be even clearer, I have no interest in converting or proselytizing. I have an interest in the truth. If it turns out Jesus was not who he claimed to be in the Gospels, I would very likely convert to Judaism. Not because of what anyone says or does not say on here but because I have carefully looked into the theological and philosophical claims.

 

[HarryStotle]

I’m just scratching my head here because, what does one thing has to do with the other? To be quite frank, your scriptures were written generations after the fact AND are based on one witness only, who was a women who cheated on her viance claiming that G’D made her pregnant in order to safe her life! Her husband apparently accepted this story, forgave her and moved on. The Torah, however, was given in front of millions of witnesses on mount Sinai.
So… where exactly is your problem, I, too, don’t accept any of your stories as fact, all the whilst the scriptures and writings I do accept are based on reasonable and consistent warrant or evidence.

Oh my. You do realize that the evidence that places “your scriptures” (the New Testament) to “generations after the fact” is the same kind of evidence that would place the Old Testament to hundreds if not thousands of years after the fact.

The strength of witness for the New Testament does not come from Mary, whom you call the “one witness.” No one would make that assertion. In fact, you are the only one I have ever heard make it. Perhaps you are completely unfamiliar with the actual arguments to be made?

 

[meltzerboy2]

I can see that some Catholics may be offended by your depiction of Mary here because, frankly, I am offended. Now, I don’t wish to be mean about this or start an argument, but I think you must remember you are on a Catholic Forum albeit in the Non-Catholic Religions subforum, so, whatever your private views, please do not insult such a revered and sacred figure.