A study conducted by Dr. Dan Yaffe from Bar Ilan University asserts that if it were not for the Jewish religious reforms that came after the destruction of the Second Temple, it is possible that today's Christians would be nothing more than another Jewish stream, just like Chabad or the Reformed religious
Jesus did not intend to add to the teachings of Moses, certainly not to found a new religion. And the first Christians considered themselves observant Jews. A study conducted by Dr. Dan Yaffe from Bar Ilan University asserts that if it had not been for the Jewish religious reforms that came after the destruction of the Second Temple, it is possible that today's Christians would be nothing more than another Jewish stream, just like Chabad (1*) or the Reformed religious.
Jesus did not see himself as the Messiah, and certainly not as God. Apparently he saw himself as a prophet. In the book of the Gospel according to Matthew chapter XNUMX, Jesus says "Do not think that I have come to violate the Torah or the prophets. I did not come to violate, but to fulfill." According to the sources, his perception was a prophetic perception - the Bible is full of such. So what is the difference between Jesus and Isaiah, Jeremiah or Habakkuk? the timing.
"The first Christians are called Jewish-Christians, meaning Jews who kept the mitzvot in the Torah. They saw themselves as Jews and also perceived and saw Jesus not as a divine figure, but as a messianic figure."
The confusion in the distinction was not only among the Jewish-Christians. One can find hints that even during the first century after the beginning of Christianity there are Jewish sages who know the Gospels, and are even judged for it, without themselves knowing what they did wrong. The Jewish-Christians look and act just like the regular Jews. The Talmud tells about Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkanos who was walking down the street one day and met Jacob who told him an interesting law in the name of Jesus. Rabbi Eliezer enjoyed the Halacha because at that time it was still not illegal, and only years later (after the reforms against Christianity), he regretted it.
Jewish society in the days of the Second Temple is very dynamic and undergoing significant changes. It is pluralistic and divided, there is no uniform law and no binding religious norm. After the destruction of the house, the society tries to nurse its fragments, and in order to prevent the collapse of the community, it goes in a strict conservative direction. After the year 70 the sages take a political and religious position, and they dictate their position to everyone. They try to eradicate from among them all the Jewish currents that are not in line with the norm, and as a start they add a new section in the "blessing of the species", a blessing which is actually a curse against all the enemies of Israel for generations. The species now also include the readers of external books and the members of the foreign classes, i.e. the Jewish-Christians.
"According to the later writings of the bishops of ancient Christianity (Church Fathers), starting from the 2nd century to the 5th century AD, there is literary evidence that there were Jewish sects of Jewish-Christians that were between the two religions. They both believed in Jesus as the Messiah and kept the commandments." Support for this can also be found in the Jewish sources from the Talmud, says Dr. Yaffe, who studies these sources.
Could it be that if it weren't for the destruction of the Second Temple, and the blessing of the species, the Christians today would be a stream from Judaism?
"It is very true, if (and we are dealing with speculations) they would not have announced the blessing of the species, and they would not have been expelled from the synagogues, since Judaism was becoming more and more orthodox, if these people really would have remained within the Jewish sector, and if even at the end of the 1st century There was an accession of the pagans into the Jewish-Christian community and it would have remained only Jewish-Christian. And if they had stayed with writings like the Gospel according to Matthew, and not the Gospel according to John, for example, which is influenced by the Hellenistic culture, then it must be assumed that Christianity would not have developed, but would have remained a Jewish current, as there were many other Jewish currents with a very strong messianic concept."
And could it be that Jesus actually did not intend to found a new religion?
"It certainly can't be that. After all, the gospel according to Mati is among the Christian gospels, those biographies that decades and hundreds of years later were included in the holy canon of the New Testament, in chapter XNUMX Jesus says that he did not come to break the Torah, nor to take it down, but to fulfill it.
Jesus had a perception that she is human who advocates and tries to show that there is a need for hierarchy in the religious commandments. The religious mitzvot of sacrifices, for example, have no value if there is no appreciation for others, and love for society. The social aspect was important to him, and it is important to note that Jesus himself does not invent anything in this, he is actually completely based on a prophetic concept that is already rooted and recorded in the Bible, we find it in Isaiah and the other prophets.
The New Testament itself testifies to this, we see that [when he is asked to heal] Jesus does not want to approach those present, he does not want to heal them, but only in two cases that insist and press him against the wall, he heals (if assuming that he really healed, I do not Entering the theological section here, I am a historian). Jesus refuses saying that he was only sent as a shepherd to the lost flock of Israel.
He does not see himself as a reformer, and certainly not as a messianic figure. He saw himself as a Jewish figure from the Galilee, who came to introduce humanity and consideration into the constitutional system that was in the making. Because we must not forget that there was no Halacha at that time, all of this was still in the making. There is still no Torah in the PF, there is no Mishna and Talmud."
There is a well-known saying by a great French historian named "Ernest Renan", says Dr. Yaffe, which goes like this: "Jesus only intended to herald the era of redemption, and in this place the church arose."
Dr. Yaffe authored several books about the period in French, Spanish and Italian.
(*) Note of the editor of the Hadaan site: At least with regard to Chabad there are academic studies that show that they are on the way to separation from Judaism. See Tomer Persico's article, The lost Messiah of Chabad Blue magazine, summer 2009
158 תגובות
An unnecessary and out of context article!
Of course Jesus did not intend to found Christianity, he did not intend to found anything beyond the correction of the corrupt establishment at the time, Jesus was a rabbi and a Jewish preacher who loved the Torah very much and preached Judaism and not any other religion!
It is true that he had the power/power to perform miracles like few before him...and also after him, but you were born as a man and died as a man and nothing more
Those who raised Christianity and had the power to raise this new religion were the Romans who adopted Christianity and also changed the order of things in it in order to be different from the Jews!
After all, for about the first hundred years after his death, the Jesuits {his followers} were devout Jews who practiced Judaism!
And all this is known, as stated, according to history and without any other "in-depth research".
I was happy to read an article and in-depth comments on it.
Allow me to present a different opinion than the accepted one. An opinion based on my analysis of reality. See my articles on the academia website.
Removed
Morality is not innate in us genetically. It is a fact that in different parts of the world the perception of morality is different. What is genetically ingrained in us is the need for survival and if the survival of society requires killing (animals and humans) so will the morality in that society.
Religious moral laws are nothing more than a shell to justify laws that will help us survive (remember what Amalek did to us). Christian/Jewish morality is not the most common way of conducting society as any anthropologist will testify. Where the moral laws do not work, society invents legal laws so that the society it is can run.
You don't have to go far to the Pirai tribes in the Amazon, you can see this in the morality of Hamas and also of large and anti-Semitic parts of Western culture.
Moral laws are also not the most important part of religion. The important part is precisely the worship that religious scholars and the prophets despise compared to the moral laws.
Worship allows peace of mind and a comforting routine. Every new religion that was opened with the noise and ringing of lofty moral principles, quietly descends into the routine of ritual mitzvahs. This is true of the Jewish religion and its sister religions, as well as the relatively new progressive religion. This is the reason why the clash of moral laws causes wars, when a religious ritual of all the different religions can make it possible to live in peace.
According to the basis of at least the Synoptic Gospels and perhaps the Gospel of Yohanan I have no doubt and this is according to the interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah and actual historical facts of the end of the First Temple that Jesus was the Jeremiah of the Second Temple. I will not go into details but the accuracy, including the creation in the Sanhedrin of Mev, of my hypothesis is based on history and the words of the Gospels The latter in themselves are not really reliable as historians, but they are a pretty good source for the Jewish faith of Jesus, if there was one. Neither did Moses and Abraham leave clear historical traces. According to the Gospels
Jesus fulfilled all the commandments of the religion and his protest against the religious establishment was no different from the protest of Jeremiah, who the monastics and the religious establishment also wanted to kill and actually tortured. The words are expressed beautifully and in detail in the book of Jeremiah. He is Saint Paul who fills the entire New Testament with his glory. He did not see Jesus in his life and was only caught in his name. Shaul Tarsi is an inventor of the foundation
Christianity. Jesus was a true righteous Jew like Jeremiah in his time and did not dream of destroying all the eras of the people. That is why Jeremiah said, a prophet close in greatness almost to Moses, in my opinion
, and to know, Harlebag. He will become a negro of his skin and a tiger of his companions
Shio
There is no way to the Father but through me
Netanya soup
What facts are you talking about exactly? Jesus - if he really existed - did not perform any miracles, just as no other person has ever performed miracles.
To be precise...
Alf the article is factually incorrect. Jesus did much more than 2 miracles, resurrected Talita in Capernaum, resurrected the son of a widow in Nain, healed a paralyzed man in Jerusalem, the bread and the fish. So if the facts do not fit the theory then they are omitted. And now it's hard to be objective. Suggest reading the Gospel According to Jesus by Goza Sarmanga. It will open your mind a bit.
He himself was actually a Jew who simply wanted to interpret the Torah differently and only after he started teaching did his disciples see it as something a little different. Many times the dead become saints after their death.
Jesus did not want to found a new religion. His disciples simply continued his ideas about human love
His students were Jews, but the generation that followed brought Judaism the practical content and
The mitzvot and first and foremost circumcision. The cessation of circumcision allowed the surrounding nations and their sons the Romans to accept the belief in one God. The cessation of circumcision, which is the foundation of Judaism, led to the flowering of belief in one God and it does not matter if the male son was not circumcised.
Sounds very believable because he himself was Jewish and simply wanted to interpret the Torah a little differently and only when he started teaching did his disciples see it as something a little different. And throughout history when a person dies and there are many more teachers and also famous Ifos who after their death their teachings and teachings spread their wings and became "idols of the public".
http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3480323,00.html
And I thought that the interested people in the academy could at least argue in an appropriate manner.. It turns out that man is indeed derived from the monkey.. Anyway, thanks, I skipped the step. But just a few points to think about the issues you brought up (and some because you wrote so much nonsense here! ) First, indeed the article does not innovate anything. It is known that those who shaped Christianity to what it is are the disciples of Jesus and this without ever delving deeper into Christianity, the truth is, that is also very logical. Like works of art that only after the death of the artist are praised and given interpretations will you truly know what the original intention was.
Two - have you ever thought about who decides what is moral? How is it possible that until 100 years ago no less!! In the moral USA was there segregation between blacks and whites on buses? Let it not be said before that they were slaves!!! their. The only place in the world that condemned slavery and if it already gave the slave insane rights is the Jewish Torah.
Everything you know about the Torah as contradicting science is actually drawn from Christianity.. Christianity is the one that burned scientists and books. Christianity is the one that degraded the status of women among Hither by the witch hunt (who ever checked then the definition of a witch does not ask for witnesses like in Judaism for example and cannot be refuted. Whoever is declared a witch her fate is decided).
And one last question - has anyone ever noticed that Christianity sanctifies death?? The cemeteries are always in the churchyard. In Judaism, on the other hand, it is an unclean place, to know that it is not the essence of life. If all Christians aspired to reach the closest level of connection to God, there would be no continuity for the world, Christianity contradicts life and does not fit into it. If you sin, go to the nearest priest and say, I have sinned, my father - and if you are sick in Judaism, at least you should strive not to repeat those "sins" or problematic behaviors. In Judaism, the high priest has children.. In short, many problems with the religion that has invaded the world, and who would say that there is no need for religion? Can someone explain to me why religion is so harmful to him? Don't you like it? Don't be religious what is the purpose of all this influence? And wait and see, around more and more people, their eyes are opening and they are looking for a meaning to life on earth. . Have a nice day. Look for answers (really) and be at peace with yourself.
Laurie [commenter 146]: Even assuming that you are not stealing ideas, for your information I have already seen a complete study with the thesis - Rabbi Elazar ben Horkonos = the inventor of the literary Jesus.
But apart from that, Dahilk Jesus is mentioned many times in the Talmud [in manuscripts and editions not censored by Gentiles], perhaps you mean that he is not mentioned in the Mishnah. But at least according to the main interpretation, the third sub-section at the beginning of tractate idolatry deals [in a negative attitude] with Christianity.
offers a new and underexplored approach
Some consider Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus to be the true prophet, that is, Jesus is a virtual figure that was "established" by Eliezer ben Hyrcanus after he was excommunicated by the Sanhedrin (see tractate Baba Metzia in the chapter dealing with the "furnace of Achnai"). They operated in the same period of time and miraculously no one is mentioned, neither Jesus in the Talmud nor Eliezer in the Gospels. Some consider the "crucifixion" of Jesus a metaphor and in fact it is an excommunication. It is worth an in-depth study about the characters of the two.
I would appreciate responses directly to email
Michael, I wanted to write to you for a long time, but so far my responses have not been received. That's why I will write briefly: indeed I mean such things, even though in my opinion these things are removed from reality
The honor of the honorable system!!
I think it's very nice of you not to post my comments. Are you afraid that I will light up one of the surfers' eyes???!!! are you afraid
Balloons, I didn't know that even the outsiders of the Jewish race beat the Torah. nice to know.
Greetings from all the people on earth, peace!
Your offer has been rejected
Friend, I suggest that we Jews strengthen our Judaism. We will strengthen ourselves by loving ourselves inwardly and not invest our energy in the heathen around us!
: )
Samuel:
When you talk about the morality of life theory, you mean for such things , Right?
By chance I came to the site and by chance I came to this article, I read some of the comments until I just got fed up and what I am writing is a deep shock:
It's a shame that the Jewish people, the chosen people, deal with such things. The Torah of Israel "Torat Chaim" has a lot to offer "Deep is like the sea and wide is like the land" It hurts to see that Jews are ashamed of themselves and deal with small things (even if the author is a professor). Only those who have gone through the entire Torah can, so to speak, write down their mistakes, not every ignorant person who claims to "understand" the intricacies of the Torah and God's affairs can fall into the eye of God
Legal C:
I did not intend to appeal to the religious at all, rather, I am interested in developing a discussion
widely public in order to show the contradictions that religions face
Faced with reality, that is to try and make the clergy think in a way
Self-critical, because they have more than enough external criticism.
Mark, it seems to me that there is a lot of innocence in your approach. First of all, religious belief and especially belief in a higher power derive from evolutionary needs (or those derived from evolutionary needs) and one must be really aware in order not to succumb to them (see the exit in the question). Hence, the explanation you give to a religious person regarding the sources of the holy books will probably fall on deaf ears. Second, with the exception of brute force that is not in your hands, almost the only way to change anything in the modern country (even those that are not democracies) is through political means, because it is the only force (besides religion) that moves the masses.
Michael:
That's exactly what I'm talking about, until today nothing has come between
in these people and reality. In addition, their grip on positions
A very strong key.
Are you a member of the party?? Can you give me some form
your email???
By the way, I received the following message by email, but I see that it is
Not posted with the other talkbacks, did you get it too??
The message arrived and was blocked because it exceeded the site's procedures.
soup:
The Or Party does not attempt to directly change the position of Orthodox Judaism at all.
The purpose of the party - instead of changing the position of the Orthodox is to change their position in society.
As soon as they stop complaining about the company - we have already won.
If in addition - the necessity to face the reality will eventually lead them to recognize the reality - the profit will only increase.
Parasitism can be stopped through state laws. No need to convince them at all.
Michael:
I know this party and Yaron Yedan, to be honest I don't think so
that a political solution is what is needed to deal with the problem.
You think that one party will move the position of Orthodox Judaism
from its place, after 3000 years of trying to change them???
soup:
It was precisely for this purpose that the Or Party was established
http://www.orr.org.il
Michael:
It's beautiful, but, as long as this thing is not done at a level
The country especially in Jerusalem, so it has no real effect
In my opinion. As I said, I live in Jerusalem and this is it
The center from which the disseminated information affects the parts of the country,
Tel Aviv looks like an enclave that won't be for another 20 years
She will have the power to influence, at least in politics that is
So. For proof, see Lieberman's agreement regarding
to convert with the Orthodox.
soup:
I have had successes here and there, but I see the main value of debates like these as "preventive medicine" that helps save people who are undecided.
In this matter - at least in relation to flesh and blood people I have met personally - I can boast of 100% success
Michael:
I haven't tried yet that's why I contacted you about a discussion,
But, Michael, what about you, did you manage to change the angle
Dogmatic view of people (regarding religion)?
soup:
I don't know on what basis you claim that I could have saved anything.
Have you already managed to convince all the religious people with the method you propose?
If not - a sign that it is not enough.
Michael, I think you could have saved the effort you invested and talked about a point
One on which the three monotheistic religions rest and form the basis of their validity
To this day. The point is very simple, if the books on which it rests are three
These religions were not written by some metaphysical intervention and are only a product of
Ancient philosophical thought created by Homo Sapiens, I sign you
100% because the majority of religious people will throw religion and the religious establishment from all levels.
It's very simple the power of religions rests on the simple people who understand the
These books as they say (at best) and at worst are helped by intermediaries
Innocent (mostly) who are just passing on what their predecessors sold them. You don't need to do eighths to understand this. The people who are educated and still are
Supporters of religion are nothing more than cowardly charlatans who are unwilling to face this truth and try to show fake empathy for those people whose only hope is that
In this life they didn't succeed so they will be rewarded for this hard life somewhere else,
Because most people are not interested in religion because of the philosophy but because of what the religion is
familiar to them. Maybe, that's why they invented religion from the beginning, in order to soap
You except that you don't get the opportunities that the others get.
So tell me, Dvir, after all these quotes:
1. Does the rabbit live?
2. Do the Euphrates and the Tigris come from a common source?
3. Do the above questions not point to a conflict between religion and science?
4. Do you know a way in which a person can "decide" that the rabbit is actually raising a rabbit?
5. Is it justified to stone Shabbat violators and homosexuals?
6. Does religion have any source that it can base itself on when it allows itself to give "answers" to questions that science cannot answer or is it simply a baseless pretence?
7. When a religious person tries to fabricate to a secular person that if it were not for religion we would not be moral and demonstrates this through the law "thou shalt not murder", how does he know that the secular person will understand that this is a moral law? After all, he is not religious! Isn't it true that he knows that the secular will understand this because he also personally feels that this law is moral not from religion but from the structure of the human soul?
8. Why, in the above situation, doesn't the religious person try to demonstrate the morality of the religion through the commandment "consider the gay"? Isn't it because he himself feels that this is an immoral act and this feeling also has its origins in the structure of the human soul?
The fact that man does not know how to decide what deity is is a very funny thing.
Can he decide what a flying spaghetti monster is?
It is not a matter of decision.
A meaningful word is always a definition.
After all, words are meant to allow us to share information with others and once they are not defined they do not allow this and therefore are pointless.
A large part of the words is intended to define things that exist in reality.
In such a case, the definition rests on some of the qualities that those things are endowed with.
God cannot be defined in this way because he does not exist in reality.
Other words are meant to allow us to convey an idea.
In such a case - the entire meaning of the word derives from the definition and without a definition it is pointless.
The impossibility of defining nonsense is used by the supporters of the religion - paradoxically - precisely to justify their position.
As soon as someone tries to show them that something they think about God does not fit with reality, they immediately get hung up on this island of indeterminacy to claim that this is not what they think about God (because it is impossible to think about something undefined) - and this despite all their actions being based on a world picture of a God with many attributes and desires (contradicting reality but this is not a problem as long as the existence of those attributes and desires is not acknowledged).
Rational thinking has a lot (but really a lot!) of place in ethical and value thinking.
In fact, all legislation - both democratic and religious - deals with drawing logical conclusions from basic principles.
After all, all Talmudic bickering is based on logic, and removing logic from it would cause the entire structure to collapse.
Likewise, the development of democratic legislation deals with the calculation of logical conclusions from basic assumptions or from existing legislation.
So are our personal thoughts on morality.
The whole difference between religious legislation and democratic legislation is in the degree of willingness to examine the basic assumptions and adapt them to existing knowledge about reality in general and the human soul in particular.
Of course, a change in the basic assumptions may lead to extensive changes in all the laws - something that can happen in a democracy and cannot happen in a religion that claims that the basic assumptions were determined by God, who nowadays does not even make a phone call.
And what is the basis of the basic assumptions of morality (yes! of morality!) in the world of a rational person?
In fact - every rational and honest person searches within himself - through introspection - for what he considers moral.
These are his basic assumptions and on them he bases his whole picture of the world in the field of morality.
Our ability to construct a moral system acceptable to most of us is a direct result of the fact that we are all results of the same process of evolution over billions of years and therefore our inner feelings are similar.
Since we are beings with the ability to think - we also generalize morality beyond our basic feelings.
We do this through rational thinking (using simple inference rules or complex considerations of game theory), when our goal function is not only aimed at satisfying our urges at that moment but at ensuring their maximum satisfaction throughout our lives.
This ability to consider logical considerations and take into account (yes! account!) also the future is what man is allowed from the beast in the field of morality.
In his article "Religion and State in the Changes of Spinoza, Mendelssohn and Strauss", Eliezer Schweide discusses the tension in the interrelationship between religion and science. Spinoza believes that the origin of religion is in the ignorance that gives rise to anxiety among the masses when manipulative religious priests give them an outlet in types of beliefs and customs that have no grip on reality. For the sake of the good life, religion must be uprooted, give all people a scientific education and base moral norms on it. However, Spinoza recognizes that religious ethics, despite its irrationality, has a hold on souls and that no rational philosophical achievement can deal with the belief in the existence of a creator of the world, and with ideas such as reward and punishment. His solution is to subordinate the religious establishment to the institutions of the state, however this reveals a contradiction since the rational cannot be subordinated to the rational. Mendelssohn, on the other hand, in the rationalist tradition of Maimonides and of the period, seeks to place religion on intellectual foundations, thus striving for the natural religion, the rational religion, but even in this there is a denial of the irrational nature of faith. Strauss, on the other hand, sees religion and science as two separate disciplines that do not depend on each other and do not meet on the same level of experience. Science does not solve distresses and moral wrongs, and here I add that science is not even capable of telling us what "good" is without entering into conceptualizations and operational definitions that are not sinful to the very point, and it is easy that science is not capable of telling us what "God" is and what "divinity" is. In his monumental and perhaps paranoid enterprise, which marks the culmination and end of rationalism, the "Critique of Pure Reason", Immanuel Kant insinuates before us: "There is no possibility of proving the reality of God in a theoretical way, since all the truths of reality are synthetic, that is, based on the use of the categories of our intellect regarding a given sensory material . However, with regard to the deity, there is no such sensual substance and therefore it is not possible to apply the abstract to reality." In this way he marks for us the limit of the scientific method which has not yet been broken in relation to religion. Those who nevertheless try to understand religion using deductive, inductive, statistical, and empiricist methods will end up adopting what Isaiah Leibovich calls the "frog view" of secularism on religion which sees religion in terms of instrumental meaning and according to which there is no value meaning to the contents of a person's consciousness except in terms of their use as means. The concept of "rationalism" teaches Leibovich only refers to the scientific thinking of processing data and drawing conclusions, but not to the ethical and aesthetic value thinking in which one does not draw conclusions but makes decisions. The religious person does not adopt faith because he knows who God is and what the deity is, but because he does not know who God is and what the deity is, and thus he is exercising a religious category and not an intellectual category.
To Michael, not religious, Netzer and all other readers:
I see that most of you have already been exposed to Dawkins, Harris and the rest of the company who took the initiative
real and came out against stupid ideas that exist in (certain) religions.
Non-religious, you misunderstand my purpose of holding public hearings
Regarding religion. I also do not understand what you mean that I am interested in proving
That religion is false. The only thing I'm interested in is opening a discussion
At the public level regarding religion, and to present how many religions have a decisive influence
About our region in particular and the future of the world in particular.
There is a link that I occasionally find appropriate to post because it can also teach some of thenot religiousAmong us:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1232718550543562442&hl=en
I don't understand what is the connection between academia and religion?
Is a chair more miserly or more loving?
Academia presents different methods to check things and reach conclusions.
These methods differ between different faculties and some may even be considered absurd in certain faculties, and if so - there is an evolution of ideas here. A rigorous attempt (at least as far as female births can) to reach the truth.
What does this have to do with religion? Does religion change ideas to adapt to the times?!? Does the believer examine the questions objectively?
There is also no competition between academia and religion. Muhammad Ali and Rocky Marciano did not compete in the same arena as Captain Kangaroo.
You have a collection of children's stories. And attached to them is a collection of sutra commentaries and stupid memory games, where every competition is to find the most twisted and bizarre interpretation - in the style of the next and takchakama - when there is no (!) desire to understand, change or develop.
On the other hand, in an academic discussion there is a discussion culture. There is a way to present evidence. There is a real willingness (for example the losses of Hawking's interventions) to admit that you were wrong and so on.
Do these two approaches make sense to you?
Michael and Mark do not try to fight religions in order to spread the knowledge they have gained.
If you want to get knowledge - go to the library. Michael and Mark try to protect their lives.
My biggest fear is that a person dear to me will be terrified. Families are destroyed in such a case!
Not religious:
You do not understand anything.
I brought the words of Maimonides - not to attack Maimonides but to attack the religion.
It is more convenient to use the Rambam's words that consolidate knowledge from several sources and make it more understandable and accessible - after all, this was the Rambam's intention when he wrote the Mishna Torah. If I brought the things in the original, the readers would have to learn Aramaic and many other things to understand.
Anyway - who are you to tell me what I meant?
Do you really think you know better than me what I mean?!
Even in the rest of your comment, you completely distort reality.
After all, they are coercing me and deepening the coercion day by day.
I'm not just talking about transportation on Shabbat or the need to pay for free food in order to be born, marry or die.
I am also talking about the fact that I am forced to support a group of parasites and spend my money on keeping them safe without them participating in the matter.
Maybe you don't know but we really live in the planet of the monkeys.
What bothers me - and I have said this many times - is the religious coercion.
The religious coercion is also expressed in morality and the law of killing homosexuals has already been found to be applied nowadays.
By the way - do you know that in 1966 (!) the court required a deaf woman who was widowed before she gave birth to be raped by her (married) brother-in-law because the Jewish religion does not allow a deaf woman to go through the (humiliating and idiotic) ritual of stripping?
That's how far religious coercion goes.
Now - this coercion - beyond being immoral by its very nature, and beyond the fact that it sometimes forces immoral behavior - rests on stupid beliefs.
The religious derive their sense of moral superiority from the belief in some flying spaghetti monster who gave them moral laws and obliged them to impose them on me.
Therefore it is only legitimate that I will also work to erode their faith in this nonsense.
It turns out that you also feel like, for some reason, spending my money defending them.
This brings me to another source from which the religious derive their sense of superiority. The source of this is stupid attacks by ignorant secularists on secularists who are trying to defend themselves.
I think I have to fight this phenomenon as well.
In your next response you tell me that I did not understand your intention when you said that you do not agree with my statement that every person has a conscience.
It's just ridiculous.
How can I not understand your point when you say you disagree with what I said?
After all, what I said - I said it and I know exactly what I meant and when you say you don't agree with me you are talking about what I meant.
Therefore - if there is a misunderstanding here - it is your misunderstanding of me.
And as a matter of fact - your words are meaningless.
Morality is genetically ingrained in us and we find significant steps on the way to it in animals as well.
I know all of Richard Dawkins' books - including The Selfish Garden and in fact Richard Dawkins is also a personal friend of mine.
I have written a lot about the subject on this website, but instead of starting to look for the responses, I suggest reading another book by Dawkins that was translated into Hebrew under the name "Is there a God?"
You still have a lot (but really a lot!) to learn.
Michael Rothschild:
I did not have time in my previous response to refer to your last response (117).
It seems to me that you did not understand my intention in that I do not agree with the statement that every sane person has a conscience. I suppose by this expression you think I mean that the Nazis were unscrupulous human animals, or acted against their conscience, but that is not at all the idea I was aiming for. I meant to say that in my opinion morality is nothing more than a set of conventions created by society (every society, because every society must have basic laws of this type in order to exist) and what you call "conscience" is nothing more than an expression of the penetration of morality into the intricacies of human culture and the basic human education that every person receives from his parents (have you heard of Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Garden" by any chance?) However, this is a much more extensive and useful discussion than can be conducted here. A reformed legal system is, by the way, a much later stage than the one I'm talking about. According to me, certainly at a certain point (and maybe even for a very long period of time) religion was needed in order to establish morality and develop it. I don't know if religion is needed today in order to maintain human morality, and I really don't want to try to imagine what the world would look like without religion, because it's simply impossible.
I know, on the other hand, that religion made a decisive contribution to the development of human morality, until the Enlightenment period, in fact, when morality ceased to be the exclusive property of religion, and it is possible that today, in the modern era, we really must throw religion behind us when we no longer need it, because of course it is Claims that Shabbat violators should be murdered, it doesn't matter that she doesn't actually do it, right?
It seems that this discussion could go on forever, so I will do the responsible thing and let you finish it, as I assume you really want, and I have no choice but to agree with Dvir who claimed that the culture of the discussion here is problematic, and I'm sorry that you had to turn it into personal lines and put me before the choice This: to be "non-religious" or "enlightened". If being enlightened is thinking like you, I'd rather be just non-religious.
soup:
I felt that there was an attempt to attack Maimonides because I was directed to a link whose name was "Read what was written by the author of Morah Nabukim" and it seemed strange to me to attack especially Maimonides out of all the sacred writings in Judaism. I didn't quite understand what you meant by saying that Maimonides' works existed in Judaism. Maimonides' work in the Mishna Torah was to collect all the Torah laws in the XNUMXth century in one file, arrange them and analyze them in a very partial way. He could not change the general attitude of Judaism even if he wanted to (and it is hard to believe that he wanted to).
I also didn't understand what it had to do with the Rambam's opponents, who, like him, held the same attitude, and the same morals (since they drew like him from the same sources of Judaism).
post Scriptum.
Mark, of course academics have a desire to prove that religion is false! Just as religious academics, and religious people in general, have the basic desire to prove that religion is true, whether consciously or not, so also secularists, who are the majority of academics, have the desire to prove that religion is not true. See for example yourself, who offers Michael Rothschild to participate in a discussion with clergymen. If your intention was not to try to prove that the religion is false, then there was no intention behind your request from him.
Originally said of Paul Dirac
There is no God, and Michael Rothschild is his messenger!!!
Michael Rothschild:
Let's start from the beginning. I claim that you attacked Maimonides and thus tried to attack religion, because the link you provided is to the Mishna Torah by Maimonides. That's why I think you attacked the religion by attacking Rambam, that's the whole point. If you wanted to attack the religion directly, you could bring the appropriate verses from the Torah, the Mishnah and the Talmud, which are the representative texts of the Jewish religion, and all in all I find it puzzling that you decided to base your argument on Maimonides. Now, of course the things you brought up are disgraceful and inappropriate, my view is the same as yours on this matter, however I maintain that you cannot judge the religion by your standards because they did not exist at all at the time when the Mishnah Torah, the Mishnah, the Talmud, or the Torah was written. These laws are part of the whole religion, and I assume that your opposition to them stems from your assumption that they are carried out in practice, or that the attitude towards women is derived from them in the religious society. Any sane person will agree with me that these laws are not fulfilled in practice, not in the ultra-Orthodox society, and even more so not in the religious-national society, and even the attitude towards women in the ultra-Orthodox society is much more humane than what can be seen in the above laws. My intention in this excavation is to show you that the things that are so against morality do not actually exist in religion, because religion, like everything else throughout history, changes. I hope I made that point clear.
Now, you claim that "when our ancestors were monkeys they followed customs even more stupid than religion". Well, what's the problem with following the customs of the monkeys if no human forces them on you? If religious customs do not necessarily contradict normative moral behavior, and are not imposed on you by anyone, what is the point of resistance? What is your business if a person chooses to uphold the tradition of his ancestors or not? I assume that you are against religion because you feel that it was imposed on you by the religious people, but who determined that they or the ultra-Orthodox are the representatives of the religion. If you oppose religious coercion, or religious behavior that is inconsistent with morality (assuming it is indeed significant enough to oppose it) you can simply say that you oppose them, instead of attacking the entire religion as a whole.
Not religious:
I noticed that I forgot to address your other mistake.
You do not agree with my assertion that every sane person has a conscience.
Of course you are wrong.
I did not propose to abolish the law and the law because even people with a conscience sometimes act against the dictates of their conscience, but I stand by my claim that everyone has a conscience and more than that - I also say that if this were not the case we would not have been able to establish a legal system that would be acceptable to all.
By the way - what is your alternative to my claim?
Are you saying that people have no conscience and therefore need a religion to tell them that Shabbat violators should be murdered because otherwise they would not know that this is the moral thing to do?
Actually - on further thought - probably 112 is nothing but Hugin.
That explains everything.
112:
So let's see what we had:
The other day you were "there is a defense attorney for Dvir" and wrote nonsense.
Yesterday you were unrecognizable and wrote nonsense.
Today you already managed to be both "Santa Claus" and "Lemark and Rothschild" and again you only wrote nonsense.
Not religious:
Ugh !!!
I wrote something whose function is to present the religion in its darkest form.
You wrote that in doing so I attacked Rambam and you said it was a stupid act.
Your accusation was stupid because I did not attack Rambam.
In fact, I didn't even really attack religion in this response, but presented things as they are so that everyone can draw their own conclusions.
Since those things as they are that originate from religion are disgraceful - it is expected that every sane person would be able to draw the conclusions.
After I told you that the words were intended to attack the religion and not to attack Rambam, you tell me that you did not say that I do not attack the religion.
so be it. You did not say that, nor did you say that I am not attacking the Supreme Court.
Since you proved that you do not understand the intent of my words, I found it appropriate to explain the intent and now you attack me for what I explained to you.
Your claim that the attack on religion is not justified is also stupid.
Know that when our ancestors were monkeys they followed customs even more stupid than religion.
So why am I not attacking these customs?
Because no one tries to follow them today!
I would not attack the religion if its believers did not want to apply its laws today.
When someone wants to apply to me today the laws of primitive people from thousands of years ago and also make sure that these laws will never change because God established them - I must oppose him.
In fact, this is the duty of every enlightened person.
Now decide what you are - are you just "non-religious" or are you an enlightened person.
Nothing new for me.
Soup? War mongering? Or do you mean brain fucks in front of the people you think represent religion.
Develop your own blog or website and on your own account and conduct the stupid wars there!
and let them know.
Shlomo:
Don't show your ignorance in public, you embarrass yourself and you underestimate people
who work hard in order for you to have a comfortable and longer life.
Tell me that you really do not compare the academy in Iran under the auspices of a totalitarian theocratic government to the academy in the West. One more thing, if you think of Akemia in the West
There is a desire to prove that religion is false, so you are a stupid and dangerous religious delusion
No less than your counterparts in Iran.
Non-religious:
I really don't understand where you submitted it from because there is an attempt to attack Rambam
In this long Tobkiada. In addition, if Maimonides' works existed
In Judaism then why did it take so long until the Rambam appeared in order for the words to be presented
The way Rambam studied them and drew conclusions from them. It is a fact that Rambam
Many opponents arose from among Judaism, if these opponents were also created by me
Judaism So how do we decide between their claims and the words of Maimonides??
Thank you
PS: Michael, I would be happy if we could participate in a discussion together with clergymen,
What do you think?
Michael Rothschild:
Did I say you don't attack religion? I felt that you were attacking Maimonides because the purpose of the link you provided was to attack Maimonides as a religious figure who is also known for his rationality, an idea that you don't seem to like.
post Scriptum.
I do not find any justification for the way you attack religion, since its laws were created hundreds if not thousands of years, before you put them in the light of the modern and liberal values that characterize your worldview. Similarly, I do not agree at all with your next sentence: "After all, every sane person has a conscience and knows for himself what is moral and what is not" but this sheet falls short of explaining why.
Not religious:
It is quite stupid of you to think that I am attacking Rambam.
And why do you think I attack Rambam?
Is the debate here about Maimonides?
I attack religion!
Michael Rothschild:
It is quite stupid of you to attack Rambam and thereby try to attack the religion. Rambam was a religious person because he lived in the Middle Ages, in which a person could not be religious, and therefore Judaism was his religion, just as Ibn Rushd's religion was Islam. His religion does not detract from his contribution to philosophy, (which he came to by the way, through religion), and I am convinced that if he were alive today he would also contribute to science (although this is only speculation). As a talented and intelligent Jew who lived in the Middle Ages, Rambam directed most of his efforts to study the Torah, which was reflected in the study of the aforementioned laws, which in your eyes surely detract from the dignity of women and humiliate her. He did not create these laws, but Judaism, and he did not deal with them out of disrespect for women, but out of respect for the Torah, which is reflected in the creation of the monumental composition "Mishna Torah".
Shlomo:
You wrote a lot of nonsense and I don't have the strength to address all of it - I already know you.
Therefore, I will limit myself to one challenge:
Please show me some study from the University of Tehran or the Van Leer Institute that shows that Israel is an artificial creation of Satan (or, alternatively, admitted to lying)
Michael
The universities and the academy, which are the site where intelligence is measured and determined and who is intelligent, are also the site where atheism grew and where it thrives and flourishes. Academia is also the main source of anti-religious propaganda. When studies conducted by atheist academics state that there is an inverse correlation between intelligence and religious belief, one can accept this with a slight sigh of resignation ("so be it") and with understanding, just as one accepts studies originating from the Islamic University in Tehran or the Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem, according to which Israel is An artificial creation of the Great Satan or international imperialism. And in any case, it is quite clear to me that these intelligentsia have not heard of the great French philosopher René Descartes, the great English-speaking philosopher David Hume or the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant, and they certainly do not understand how stupid Karl Popper was when he issued his theory that determines what can be considered a theory scientifically.
Mr. "Yes Defense":
Indeed - a defense worthy of its name: statements lacking any real content.
Well done.
Since you made yourself cry, you should read What was written by the author of Morah Nabumim
Who determines exactly what is an example and what is not?
Yes, Dvir is talking about living facts.
No demagoguery can overshadow his education and knowledge.
Real people are not supposed to be involved in politics and therefore there is no need to look for plaguta in science.
Some pearls of Devir that I have so far refrained from referring to (because I have already answered them twice before):
"There is nothing in the religious dogma that prevents a person from engaging in research"
Of course not - provided he is willing to step up to the plate if he tries to share with the world the discovery that the earth revolves around the sun or that man evolved from monkeys.
All objections to science grow out of religion.
Countries and societies with a religious regime are scientifically backward, but of course there is nothing like that in the religious dogma.
"One of the sick evils of the European decadence was that it embraced rationalism in a dogmatic way"
Wow! Maybe give us an example of a fact that is too rational?
"Science has never been able to prove the existence of God, or his non-existence. This question, like many conscientious questions, cannot be decided in a mental category."
The question of God's existence is not a conscientious question but a factual question.
The approach of science is that the description of reality should not be hampered by assumptions that contribute nothing to its understanding.
It's called Ockham's Razor.
The assumption of God only makes it more difficult to understand reality (because there is another flying spaghetti monster to explain) and therefore science has no need for it.
The only ones who need God are those who want to use this illusion to impose their will on others.
The link that this sentence makes between God and conscience teaches exactly that.
After all, every sane person has a conscience and knows for himself what is moral and what is not.
You need a religion (and it is desirable to have a policeman like God in it) to bring people to stone others who have not done them any harm or to believe in the other distorted moral laws of the religion.
"In the same way, scientific discoveries of one kind or another do not make a person educated."
Indeed - all the many scientific discoveries that were discovered did not make Dvir an educated man.
In order for the scientific discoveries to make a person educated, he must be educated to learn and understand them.
Dvir:
There is a fine difference between humility and self-righteousness.
for everyone:
I don't see any problem with the culture of the discussion here, does anyone else exterminate
think otherwise?
Dvir:
Although I didn't say a single word about myself, a liar remains a liar.
I would really appreciate it if you didn't respond to my words.
I, on the other hand, will feel free to comment on your words.
Rothschild. Since you appropriate to yourself all the virtues and good qualities, I have nothing left to appropriate to myself but the humility to admit that you are right and I am wrong. In the future, if your discussion culture changes, I might be willing to have some dialogue with you.
Dan:
Besides telling us that you are a prophet (and we know who the prophecy was given to) - what exactly did you want?
Dvir:
Your words are logically equivalent to the claim "scientific ignorance is science because the first person who engaged in science was - at the beginning of his career - scientifically ignorant".
This is of course another stupid twist that allows you to delude yourself that our ultra-Orthodox are the greatest scientists in the world and that Islam promotes science in an exceptional way.
It also shows the way you think that allows you to ignore any fact and lie with a determined forehead - which in itself indicates the contribution of religion to people's morality.
For some reason it seems that the entire addition of the Chabadniks in the article was only to annoy them, with all their beliefs, the Chabadniks are much more similar to the grandfather of the author of the "study" than the author of the study himself, and if they were to ask his grandfather who belongs to the 'additional current in Judaism', he He would undoubtedly point to Bar Ilan researchers.
All my cousins are Chabadniks, and there are also messiahs, but this is a passing thing (wait another 20 years), but if we wait another twenty years to see what happens with the descendants of the 'researcher', they will either be ultra-Orthodox (perhaps Chabadniks), or reformed religious.
Religiosity is living in a cave. The wider the hat and the blacker the garment, the deeper the above is immersed in the cave.
It's not that the non-religious who knows what are being released, since multitudes of them are being dragged into the depths of the cave every day...
And God is a placebo
A. I never really understood what makes a person a "believer" and another person a "non-believer", for me
These are concepts that the religious side invented in order to attach dogmatic labels to those who agree to eat their licks and those who pose a threat to this false utopia. Each individual can believe that it will rain tomorrow and the other will say I don't believe it will rain, but we have never invented absolute designations for people who have opinions about the future meteorological state.
B. You also forgot Newton who was quite a Christian fanatic, but that's not the point.
From my experience each person defines the actions of God in a different way.
That is, they once did not know how the sun rises every time anew, so they assumed that there was some kind of agent
That does this because a lot of people once believed in the sun god, or didn't know what was holding them
the ground on which they walk, so suppose Apollo holds it on his back or sleeps
four turtles No one has really proven that Apollo or the turtles do not exist, they are simply forgotten. No one has really proven that the astrologers are wrong in assuming that the stars influence our lives, but, most of my children no longer refer to these people as "believers".
third. First of all let me correct you, the word "atheist" has no real meaning,
I believe you don't get up in the morning and identify yourself as someone who doesn't believe in astrology
Or call yourself an "atheist" towards astrology. No human being is immune to dogmatism, which is the result of mental fixation (mainly due to social ideological fixation).
d. Why has the theory of evolution received so much opposition from religious people (mainly from Abrahamic religions), the answer is simple because most believers have the mental image in their head that Jehovah created the human body in roughly the same way as a person creates
Any other tool and it is no different at all from those people who thought that a special agent was needed
to hold the earth Don't confuse me that this is just a theory
And it has no scientific evidence.
Religiosity is not in ignorance. Educated people throughout history who laid milestones for science were religious people. Moshe Mendelssohn, the father of the Haskalah movement in the Jewish world, was a man of faith. Maimonides, who was a supreme religious authority over time, was a doctor by profession. Ibn Rushd, a Muslim philosopher and physician, was a religious man. Roger Bacon, an English philosopher who was one of the first proponents of modern scientific method, was a monk. Ibn Sanaa - the father of modern medicine, knew the Koran by heart. Copernicus himself, who acquired education in every possible field, was a priest. The truth is that anyone can be a dogmatist. Also a complete atheist. Also a person who inherited the Marxist ideology. One of the sickening evils of European decadence was that it dogmatically embraced rationalism. There is nothing in religious dogma that prevents a person from engaging in research. Science has never been able to prove the existence of God, or his non-existence. This question, like many conscientious questions, cannot be decided in a mental category. In the same way, one or another scientific discovery does not make a person educated.
Very ironic that you ask us to grow up when you are the one who needs to
A cosmic babysitter from whom you will learn how to live your life.
After all, it was built to be for a person who believes in privacy
Dear Jehovah gives exact instructions what to do to people who don't
believe in him or want to follow his path and this is called absolutism,
I am not a person who believes in absolutism and therefore I will never be in favor
A cosmic dictator whose commandment "Thou shalt not murder" comes with small letters that say
That you should murder but only those who disagree with what I am
teacher. If it is removed then you can do as you wish with me.
Anonymous (90):
I will never be old enough to give up the truth and stick to a lie.
88,
Grow up.
I will add another layer to your words Michael:
It's exactly the same kind of convulsions that religious people suffer from,
When there are studies that supposedly show a connection between circumcision and infection
In AIDS, then there is no problem with the science and the conclusions are clear even if they have not been fully tested.
But, when there are studies that are not to their liking, then science is limited and "it is impossible to test everything."
The subtleties" and I wonder, how much do I really need to cut for my 8-day-old child in order to
who in the future will grow up to be irresponsible enough and will not use appropriate means of protection against
sexually transmitted diseases. And on this Christopher Hitchens said, shame on you and here is the video, recommended
Warmly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx_ov2NiNo4
Anonymous (83):
You have your theories and you don't let the facts confuse you. Right?
Did you even read the studies I pointed to?
Both talk about the (inverse) correlation between education and proven scientific ability and belief in God.
No matter how you define intelligence - being at the top of science requires high intelligence.
They didn't ask there how many people "think" they are intelligent. It would be really stupid if they did. Imagine if they asked you - you probably wouldn't confess your real situation!
Your words in response 85 are generally an insult to intelligence, but you probably didn't feel that, so I forgive you.
In response 87 you "explain" them and present your ignorance in an even more extreme manner.
The first study - for example - was carried out in the USA.
Do you know that in the US being exposed as someone who does not believe in God is something that can cost a person his coolness? You simply have no idea what you are talking about but you state what you are comfortable with even though you know you don't know the stuff.
In Hebrew it is called a lie.
My own statistics show that religious people tend to lie when confronted with facts that contradict their beliefs.
I will explain: I mean that the composition of the questionnaire and the options presented to the respondents are usually lacking, they cannot contain all the subtleties necessary for the diagnoses. This means simply: limited.
Nonsense? Inventor? See reality behind the scenes.
Regarding nicknames like "cowards". It's not as simple as it sounds since respectable people or any other nickname with family responsibilities take into account the consequences of every statement they make or their personal opinions, especially if there is an obvious or implicit conflict of interest between the issues related to their status and/or sources of livelihood etc.
and anonymous?
Are you really sure that you know who is your friend and who is your enemy? Who is for you and who is against you?
More than that, do you know how many percent of you are against yourself?
These are more or less the dilemmas.
"Limited in questioning options"?! Explain and reason why?
What nonsense are you making up, where have you seen an educated man who is afraid to speak his mind?!
One last thing, if a man who claims to be educated but is afraid to admit his belief for the reasons
As she pointed out, such a non-believing and uneducated person is simply a coward.
The studies that try to examine education against this or that religious belief or approach are limited in their questioning possibilities and therefore it is not possible to derive the exact findings from them. Especially these days when there is a general identity crisis and a lack of credibility due to the multitude.
Even worse is the fact that highly educated people are afraid to publicly confess their personal faith or particular sect of religion for fear of losing their jobs or degrees they have acquired.
It's strange that the more open the world seems to be, the more it closes and extrapolates from it unidentified or undefined qualities.
To an anonymous user:
No one was necessarily talking about intelligence. In the case in question, research was done and found
Because as a general rule, the more educated a person is, the less religious he tends to be, but, should we really conclude this from some kind of research?!
The more intelligence a person has, the less he believes in God?? What nonsense you will speak.
You can say that as much as a person "thinks" that he has more intelligence than everyone (+ God), then he "thinks" that there is no one but him. But of course, this is only an illusion or a borrowed privilege given to him for a limited time only.
Not so intelligence, which you cannot measure.
exterminate:
You speak as if you were there and heard him say that, you speak of destruction
And the destruction that Jesus wanted to sow, the same Jesus who spoke of laying down arms and preached to love enemies.
I don't know, in my opinion what you are saying is the sweet pills that the Jews have swallowed since the appearance of Christianity and a real unwillingness to face the appearance of Jesus.
In addition, let's say he did want to do everything you claim about him, was that a reason to get him murdered???
Unlike John the Baptist, for example, who was content with religious and social preaching in the Galilee region or unlike the Essenes who led a celibate life in the Judean desert, Jesus, like a military leader accompanied by a caravan, goes up to Jerusalem to "attack" it with his religious truth. There he declares, as I imagine, not according to the spirit of his social messages - do not think that I have come to bring peace, but I have come to sow destruction and destruction. This boldness of face - to go to the Temple, to the eternity of Israel, probably knowing that he would be arrested as if out of a feeling that as a son of God he is protected from all earthly shackles, suggests that perhaps Jesus did see himself as a revolutionary. The question of whether he saw things in terms of a new religion or the fulfillment of the original Judaism that was falsified or forgotten by the Jews - has no meaning. Obviously, two thousand years of Christianity did not stand before his eyes and he could only rely on and receive inspiration from the concepts of the Bible, however, unlike the prophets who maintained a stand outside reality and a separation between their messages and being men of God, Jesus creates an identity between himself and his messages. The religious authority of his words is not in the strength of their reasoning and logic but in the strength of his being the Messiah. It is not that his ability to see what all the rest are blind to makes him the man of God, but being the man of God he is distinguished from all the rest and sees what they do not see. A person who acquires the messages of Christ by the power of his whole mind will not become a man of God like him. Jesus identifies his messages with himself. It is impossible to accept Christ's messages but not accept his authority. He says - accept me. I am the Messiah and the things I say I say as the Messiah. My messages come intertwined with the gospel of the last days. When you accept them you will also have to accept the thought that Christ is already here anyway.
Jesus may have been pushed into this position by his disciples and again could not go back. The journey to Jerusalem indeed seems like a suicidal journey because Jesus embarked on a path of collision in the end of which the nature of his religious authority will become clear one way or the other, whether he is able to lose it and remain as a preacher on the margins or alternatively to bring salvation. In my opinion he was too jealous to consider reality and for that he paid with his life.
And by the way, Jacob:
Why was it so important that the State of Israel be established at all?
Why were more borders and wars needed?
The only justification for the existence of the state is the fact that it serves as a refuge for the Jewish people.
Without the persecution of the Jews, there would be no need for such a shelter, the world would be better, and except for a few crazy people, no one would think there was any value in the establishment of the State of Israel.
Jacob:
I hope it is clear to you that the same set of facts led Einstein to say (among other things) the following:
The idea of a Being who interferes with the sequence of events in the world is absolutely impossible. [Albert Einstein]
The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events... He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion . [Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions]
I hope it is also clear to you that Einstein is not the only one and that the better a person understands the world, the less likely he is to believe in God - as the following study shows:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
And the following study indicates that the higher a person's intelligence, the less likely he is to believe in God:
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/55/ART1/748/479.html
Therefore, I allow myself to answer you that with all due respect to your belief - it seems to me that it does not represent a very deep understanding of the facts.
Jacob,
I respect you for your inner truth and that everything is clear and clear to you.
However, I would expect simple logic from the Creator of the world. Why choose a nation and then cause it to suffer more terribly than any other nation? Just to finally establish a country for him?
Why establish Christianity that will bring the Inquisition, the pogroms, the Crusades, the expulsion from Spain and finally the Holocaust upon the chosen people? And if the state has already been established, why do we still need to kill its people in endless wars?
So maybe the simple logic means that there is actually no plan? Have you thought about it?
And maybe the poet J. was right. Amichai who said:
"merciful God
Unless God is full of mercy
There was mercy in the world, and not only in him"
In honor of R.H
It's a matter of my inner truth, I may be hallucinating, but after many years with myself that I look back a little and do one + one and study the ancient Jewish wisdom in the universe and examine the matter in depth and not from the intellectual aspect I came to this conclusion.
This world view that I live, I do not offer it even to the hater, it is very difficult for the human soul.
Jacob,
And maybe another possibility is that there is no plan?
Was it necessary to kill 6 million of the chosen people in order to establish the State of Israel? Why did the states of the non-"chosen" nations arise with such ease and precisely with the virtue that one had to lose 1/3 of its sons in order to win a war-torn country?
If there was a plan, I guess we would be sitting under the coconut tree in Brazil by the sea to the sounds of samba without any problems and wars and not getting sunburned in the desert with millions of crazy people around who just want to devour us.
As a secular person but a believer, it seems to me that Christianity was God's plan to establish another religion as a way to reach salvation. Without Christianity there would not have been a Holocaust and without the Holocaust the State of Israel would not have been established. The matter here is much more complex from my point of view and unfortunately. I mean there is some kind of plan here from the beginning of creation that leads To some place, but the road there is full of suffering and pain for people and especially for the Jewish people.
I must admit with the required modesty that in these words I did not use historical sources, but only my familiarity and understanding of the New Testament and based on the assumption that Jesus indeed presented himself as the Messiah and the Son of God. Also, I believe according to the line of logic that if the gospel of Jesus was not zealous and radical and if indeed there was decency and good faith in it why did the priesthood reject him in the temple. Why was he ridiculed and why was a crown of thorns placed on his head if his messages were acceptable. I of course invite Dr. Yaffe to enlighten our eyes further with his research.
exterminate:
Everything you say is in retrospect, the result of the story of the events from the mouths of people who interpreted the things that followed. If the New Testament was written by me
Jesus himself and not according to evidence then clear conclusions could be drawn about
his intentions. For evidence, if Jesus really wanted to spread religion outside the framework of the people he
would do so outside the province together with his students.
I have a question for you, do you think Jesus planned his betrayal and death on the way
That he is mentioned in the New Testament?
Unlike the social and religious institutions of the Bible, which preached repentance and the correction of morals as the chosen people, Jesus preached a new religious truth according to which he himself is the Son of God, the embodiment of divinity in man on earth and as such he declares that God has abandoned his people and re-chosen other peoples to be united under this message . It is not the people's denial of God that is at the center of Jesus' message, not a deviation from the right path, but the denial of himself and his body and his central message that he is the Messiah, the Son of God in his own right. The man of God (Jesus) is no longer the messenger of God or the bearer of God's word, but rather He is God Himself who came down from heaven and rested on the land of man.
To identify Jesus as a Jew by virtue of Christianity's adherence to Judaism is to assert the obvious. Jesus lived as a Jew and grew up as a Jew and perhaps even acted as a Jew. It is possible that he recognized himself in the figure of the prophets and social institutions from the Bible, and he certainly borrowed the concept of the Messiah from Judaism. He was probably not the only one who recognized himself as a man of God among those who withdrew and remained Jews and those who remained Pharisees (that is, separated) and did not manage to establish a "new religion" or a new movement over time. I agree with the above comment according to which Christianity also identifies itself as the "fulfillment" or "fulfillment" of Judaism and as another stage of the religious development of Judaism itself. All these do not teach that Jesus intended to shelter under the canopy of Judaism.
Jesus did not intend to establish a new religion because the same precious light that shone in Moses did not shine in him, and he was not able to propose any conceptual innovation in Judaism, but it seems that he did intend to establish an innovation in the world of the Jews according to which the same eschatological basis of tirom and expectation of the redemption of the days that sprouts in the writings of the prophets and refers to the world For the future to come, it already happened and was realized with his appearance at the gates of Jerusalem riding a white donkey, and the present days, which are the days of flesh and blood and without experimental proof, are the last days.
With this inner truth together with the total impressions and personal insights he collected as an average preacher in markets that are mostly based on rebuke and opposition, Jesus led a cult life that withdrew from the world of normative concepts while being caught and going to an eschatological mindset, and which not only repeatedly attacked the "ordinary days" of The reality and the world of the Jews which was perceived in generalization in the examination of "Judaism" but also spread itself with a rough foot and in a madness that looks like an attempt to rape the gospel about the stubborn, unruly and failing reality.
These make me disagree with Dr. Yaffe and believe that Jesus actually withdrew from Judaism, even if within it he still identified himself according to his method as a Jew.
Paradoxically, the acceptance of the Christian gospel confirms the Jewish framework. In other words, the very existence of Christianity confirms its being a "current in Judaism" because it means that Judaism is able to bend its theological concepts and contain the idea of divinity in man. However, even in a world of vague concepts that took shape according to Dr. Yaffe as a counter-revolution to Christianity only later, it turns out that Judaism intuitively and healthily rejected the gospel and in fact withdrew Christianity from it, in its Torah.
Leo:
Because for them this is not a new religion but a continuation of the previous (covenant) religion.
I agree with the very fact that Judaism should have changed a long time ago
Time, but, it's a shame that this new approach was built on the wrong idea that a mortal
A commoner can be a god of earth and as a result copying his ways can lead
for redemption of one kind or another.
I still don't understand why the appearance of Jesus 2000 years ago was not enough and why he has to come back one more time, that is, if you are a being of infinite intelligence and know
What's to come, you won't finish what you set out to do once and be done with it.
Christianity presents Jesus as if he were a HOT technician.
mozar..
As one who knows Christianity, pastors and church history.
Before this article, I had no idea that Jesus wanted to invent a new religion.
Well, R.H.:
First of all - what you are saying is that there can be no luck at all in a scientific discovery because the reality is there anyway and someday someone will discover it.
This is of course a distortion of the intent because I meant that Penzias Wilson was lucky.
More than that: they didn't even understand what they discovered! By chance someone who knew about Gamov's predictions and even tried to absorb the background radiation himself heard about their findings and explained to them what they discovered.
There is also a claim that they never really understood what it was about.
Well If receiving a Nobel Prize in such a situation is not luck then I don't know what luck is.
Of course, this also meets the definition of a rare coincidence. Take a million people and try to calculate how many of them will win the Nobel Prize without realizing what they discovered.
Similarly - "selling" Christianity to a Roman emperor was a normal and logical act - the kind that a salesman does every day (just like a radio technician tries to improve reception).
The salesmen of Christianity had the good fortune to fall into a period when it was possible to give a cite license to an organization as large as the Roman Empire - and at a time successful enough to take the scepter of power over Europe later on.
While the first thing was a combination of ordinary (and not brilliant) work with luck, the second thing was pure luck.
Michael
There is always a chance. It's just that, in my opinion, it's difficult to determine with the tools we have today what the chances are that this will actually happen, and that's what I argued about the academic studies. The only thing I can base myself on is feelings and I guess as a Chabadnik my feelings have more validity than the feelings of a secular person for example. But as mentioned this is only an assumption and not a determination and it is possible that my feelings are deceiving me.
In any case, unfortunately for the messiahs, it is difficult for me to refute the claim that they are on the way to separation, although it still seems far away.
I have several reasons to believe this.
1. The majority of the Messiahs are converts who joined the Chabad movement generally after XNUMX the year of Rabbi Zia's death. These teshuvah people have never seen the Rebbe, even though they allow themselves to educate us on how to behave... including trying to impose various customs on us in the synagogues that they started after the third day of Tammuz, the day of the Rebbe's death. These Teshuvah people clearly have fewer foundations that bind them to the ultra-orthodox religious world.
2. Some of them (for now it is about the fringes and we hope it will stay that way) are already changing the Halacha and do not fast on the seventeenth of Tammuz and the ninth of Av. In terms of Jewish law, in the eyes of every religious person of our generation, this is a red line.
3. Their disdain for the ultra-orthodox world is quite great.
4. The ultra-orthodox and religious world's disdain for them is very great.
Suffice it to say that in the short term they cause enormous damage to the Chabad movement as a whole, but in the long term it is possible that the movement's gain is that in the eyes of the ultra-Orthodox today there is an increasingly sharp distinction between the Chabad movement and the Messianic movement. and better this way…
By the way, regarding the damage they inflict on the Chabad movement, you can see what happened in Ramat Aviv and Jerusalem as I mentioned in the previous response.
Why is Judaism not a religion that wants to spread itself??
Some historical notes:
1. Jesus was probably a way of expressing the name Yeshua in Galilee during the first century AD (final eye in vain, therefore unheard). There is no derogatory term here
2. Although no archaeological evidence has been found for the existence of Jesus (unless the bone sarcophagi are indeed those of Jesus and his family, but this cannot be proven with certainty due to the great popularity of the name Jesus ben Joseph), however, archaeological evidence has been found for significant figures mentioned in the New Testament, such as the priest The great Cephas who judged Jesus, or of the Good Samaritan and his son. I don't think there is any doubt that there was indeed such a historical figure, but there is also no doubt that he was a good Jew who did not set out to invent a new religion
Sorry, Alfred Russel Wallace.
What I mean is that luck is an extremely rare coincidence and not that something happens unintentionally.
Darwin's discovery is not luck even though when he traveled with the beagle he was not looking for an explanation of species or anything like that and the discovery was accidental. However, the evidence for evolution is everywhere so if it wasn't for him something else would have come up with the idea, and really at exactly the same time Alfred Russell also developed an almost identical theory.
There was no luck in the discovery of Penzias Wilson. The radiation was there and anyone who used sufficiently sensitive receptors would have picked it up. Their genius in detecting radiation is no accident. And even if they had ignored it something else would have discovered the radiation because it was there. I don't see what the luck is here.
You can say that it was an accidental discovery that we did not intend and there was no research in that direction, but it is not luck.
R.H.:
I didn't claim otherwise, but in fact your comment also says that in some cases luck plays a role - only that sometimes it's hard to know.
Fleming's case is such and it demonstrates what is known as "serendipal discoveries".
There are several articles on the site (I was too lazy to look for a link) and it seems to me that one of them also mentions the fact that these discoveries are not always completely accidental because mental preparation is required to notice them.
Sometimes - on the other hand - it's quite easy.
This kind of readiness was not, for example, available to Arno Panzias and Robert Wilson when they discovered the cosmic background radiation.
Bill Gates didn't exactly take care to be born to a mother who works at IBM, and he didn't even notice the opportunity that came his way - it was his mother who noticed it.
It seems to me that the existence of an empire like Rome was not planned by the founders of Christianity, but going to the most influential factor is a really elementary step when you want to market, so it didn't take a minute of special diagnosis to notice the fact that you should go to the Roman emperor.
I assume that the establishment of Judaism - if it wanted to "sell" it to all people - would have turned to the Roman emperor and it is likely that things would have been completely different today - but, as I have already mentioned, Judaism does not try to spread itself
In the same way, the emergence of Judaism and Islam can be explained as luck, but the facts are laid out on the ground, the Islamic and Christian worlds make up about 2/3 of the world's inhabitants, both
Achieved dominance by coercion of one kind or another.
M*A*L,
It is very difficult to quantify what is lucky and what is not. Take Fleming's story for example. His discovery is considered one of the most discounted. He forgot an open plate of bacteria, luckily a penicillium fungus fell on it and that's how he discovered penicillin.
But if you read his biography you will see that:
A. Several years before, he had published lysozyme as the first antibacterial agent in history. That is, he was looking for such materials and immediately understood what he was seeing. Who knows how many such plates people have seen and not noticed?
B. In his same building was a mushroom laboratory that grew penicillium in large quantities, so it is no coincidence that penicillium landed on his plate. There were mushroom spores everywhere.
So it can be assumed that sooner or later he would have discovered penicillin even without the case of the forgotten open plates.
R.H.:
There is always luck in these stories.
The success of Microsoft, for example, owes a lot to the fact that Bill Gates' mother worked at IBM (their continued success is also based on stealing from Apple).
The success of Christianity is partly based on the existence of an empire like Rome at the time and the character of a Roman leader.
Her continued success is based on the fall of Rome.
All of these are historical events that are not the result of the correct behavior of the marketers of Christianity, but rather opportunities that came their way and without which things would have been different.
This morning on the radio on Network XNUMX in his Shabbat World program, Doctor Yitzhak Bar Noy who lectures in England said, originally Israeli with an Israeli name, Tali Inbar I think that's her name, she converted to Christianity. She teaches some ironic Hebrew and Israeli culture at a university in England. She was not promoted in rank and she filed a complaint that she was not promoted in rank - according to her this happened because she converted to Christianity.
So she also teaches Hebrew and Israel's heritage, both bears an Israeli name and complains about not being promoted because she converted to Christianity.
Well... then Jesus, who bore a rather Hebrew name - Yeshua - became a Christian. 🙂
scion,
Call it a lottery, but I think the fact that one product succeeds at the expense of another is usually not a coincidence and depends on luck.
Sometimes the reasons are not the nature of the product, as in the case of Microsoft products, inferior products (Office, Windows) pushed much better products (Lotus, Word Perfect, Netscape) just because of marketing. Another example is the election of Katsav as president at the expense of Peres. luck? I do not think so.
As above with Christianity, there was no luck here but the correct conduct of the Christians against the Roman Empire.
polish
I thought you were going to tell something new
To R. H. Wentzer Seidenberg:
Historians claim that by the time of Constantine, Christianity was already an influential factor
So much so that it threatened the social order of Rome, therefore, Constantine chose to get rid of it
From the religion of those times to choose Christianity. In my opinion, his choice was wise and after that Muhammad took it as a patent, monotheism is more effective than polytheism because you are able to unite your audience much better, it is not for nothing that most societies died in faith
polytheistic and moved to monotheism of one kind or another.
Anyway I think the reason Jesus is such a good product to market is, he represents a God that is easy for people to identify with, the idea that God suffers just like you is what makes so many people identify with him. But in addition, Jesus supposedly proves that there is life after death and that is actually the main point of every religion, the eternity that people aspire to.
In my opinion, one Amalek male died and Joshua killed the people of Canaan, but even if I am wrong, this was the divine command in the sources.
And by the way, Purim is indeed a terrible holiday where we celebrate the murder of innocents (for example the sons of Haman.) and where it is said that the Jews out of joy murdered several hundreds of thousands. The Nazis would not have written better….
As for Constantine, one set of circumstances would have caused his conversion to Christianity if he had not encountered a Christian Amnon Isaac or if he had not been a religiously influenced person or if another emperor after him would have converted his religion again or another empire would have risen and controlled its culture in the same way that Rome did... . - Isn't it a lottery????
scion,
You see? You exactly prove my point about advocacy. Was the Amalek destroyed? Did Joshua really kill and destroy all the inhabitants of Canaan? According to the archaeologists, probably not. Did Jews kill thousands of Persians in the streets of Shoshan, the capital? I doubt. But what, bad explanation.
As for Constantine, you claim lotto. I don't think luck had any effect here, unless you accept the story of the cross in the sky. Except that political and propaganda factors played a role that managed to convince the emperor and this is not luck.
And to all the skeptics
http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/
Eliminates most arguments in the film Zeitgeist
Commenter #16 must have seen the movie Zeitgeist
warmly recommended
The first part is very relevant to the discussion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist:_the_Movie#Part_I
It is very little wisdom to ask Diaved why it was chosen.
For example, why did those numbers come out in the lottery?
In the lottery of the religions that was drawn in Rome, Christianity won. It could mean that another religion would have become popular, but even then you would ask, wouldn't you?
And by the way - I don't know of a more murderous religion than Judaism.
Amalek male protest remember? Remember that Joshua had to destroy not only all the nations in the land but also their animals?!? The Muslims at least did not kill the animals and gave the possibility to convert to Islam. (a much simpler procedure than converting by the way...)
scion,
It is true that Constantine accepted Christianity, but the question is, why Christianity and not Judaism or another religion? Of course there is the story about him seeing a cross in the sky, but in my opinion the reason is the correct marketing of the religion.
The Muslims also had an aggressive and quite successful marketing method "Deen Muhammad by the Sword".
The Jews, as opposed to always, suffered and still suffer today from poor information and unfortunately no one understands their position.
There are people's names on the glosses.
(Of course there could be other people who were called Yeshua ben Yosef at that time....)
In any case, to the question of whether Jesus himself existed -
I guess there was a man like that or similar to him. (Perhaps someone else who lived in about the same place at the same time with the same name.) Second Strait I am quite convinced that even 2000 years ago people could not walk on water exactly like today... So I am quite convinced that quite a large part of the New Testament is bullshit.
scion:
I read about the glosses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus
Many disagreed with the conclusions.
And in any case - this testimony is also nothing but verses written on the glosses 🙂
And more is written in writing, what is ridiculous? 🙂
R. H. In my opinion, the thing that contributed the most to the spread of Christianity was the conversion to Christianity of the Roman Caesars.
When Rome spread the Greek religion (mythology) in the areas of her rule then it was the most popular. And after Christianity they spread another religion.
In my opinion, if Roman emperors had accepted Islam for example (a bit difficult chronologically considering that Christianity was before the birth of Muhammad, but go with me) then Islam would have been the most popular religion in the West.
To Michael Rothschild you write (in response 23) about evidence for the existence of Jesus.
We will find glosses that are suspected (to the extent that archeology is an exact science...) as having contained the remains of Jesus in a burial cave near Jerusalem...
soup,
What made Christianity a separate religion that is no longer mainstream in Judaism were several factors. The most important of them is the decision that even non-Jews can be Christians. Unlike them, Chabad, for example, does not accept non-Jews and is therefore a sect in Judaism.
The second important factor is the relinquishment and change of central symbols in Judaism. Kosher b. the Sabbath c. circumcision
All these together turned Christianity from a Jewish sect into a competing religion.
Miriam Kesh - If you had bothered to read not only my last response but all of them, it is likely that you would at the very least know that I am not responding (if my name does not reveal this already enough) and there is also a chance that you would have found an answer to your question.
Michael:
I think the accepted assumption is that the first Christians came from Judaism, if they were observant of Judaism then that is what made them Jews, right?
By the word "many" I meant that there was a wide base of believers which was enough for the expansion of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire until it became a religion
Officially in 325 BC.
soup:
There is a hidden assumption in the last wording of your question that I don't know how well founded it is.
You ask: "What made the Christian product so good for so many Jews in those times?" "
And I ask you: was the Christian product so good for so many Jews?
I have not come across any established information about the number of Jews who died after Jesus (I clearly emphasize - I personally have not come across it. I am not saying that there are none). did you come across Can you share this information with us?
Be that as it may, this information has nothing to do with the scope of Christianity today because most Christians are not descendants of Jews.
Come on, find out, we're tearing up from the tension
Commenter 37, I didn't understand, why raised an eyebrow?
In order to stop the Romans' persecution of the Christian-Jews.
The Christians pointed an accusing finger at the Jews for killing Jesus and plotting to revolt against the Romans.
According to the rule, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the Romans allied themselves with the Christians against a common enemy - the Jews.
In this way, Christianity spread into the Roman Empire and from Rome to all the lands conquered by the Romans.
And so came the end of paganism in the world.
When will the article about Islam come?
Michael – you are absolutely right about the 2000, 2010 to be exact. I said 30 years because that's what I was taught in school in the 80's, and because if I was taught these things in the XNUMXth grade they would probably have been known at least since then.
Surely the things were not "forgotten" - that's why I raised an eyebrow in the face of the puzzling study - all the things that Dr. Yaffe claims as a result of his study, are things that were taught in high school decades ago, so I wondered if it was a joke or just a cuckoo study aimed at feeding a few mouths.
What made the Christian "product" so good for so many Jews in those times.
The first Christians were persecuted, made food for animals and burned at the stake in the sports fields of those times.
One last chance and then I give the answer
Shlomo:
Right. even here But thank you that what I said they say is funny.
To Michael R. (23) Regarding him. Shakespeare
Many things are said.
to Itamar
Thanks, but a lot of things are said.
I would like to clarify some matters for some writers
1 My research does not discuss Jesus and Christianity as a new religion, but about the sects of Jesus-believing Jews and the reaction of the conditions towards them. In other words, the separation of the Jews and the Christians. So the innovation was not ashamed at all.
2 To Gali Weinstein - to think that there is solid historical evidence is an illusion. Everything written by a person, even archives, certificates or documents, is biased and subjective. Is this a reason not to investigate them?
Complete,
You are a genius 🙂
Gillian:
First of all we will solve the problem of you not knowing where I live.
I live in the highlands of Israel.
Not that it is important to us, but since it was important for you to know, then this is the answer.
In the highlands of Israel, they speak Hebrew and there when they say that something is known, it means that it is known to almost everyone, if not everyone.
I did not disagree with the article. I agree with what is said in it.
I know the history of Christianity very well and I also know something about the New Testament and neither of these two facts make the fact that Jesus did not intend to found a religion a known thing. I'm sure that some of the commenters here didn't know him (just as I'm sure that I was required to do so - even before reading the article - I would say that in my opinion Jesus did not try to found a religion).
Why are you talking about 30 or 300 years?
Why not 2000?
After all, if Jesus did not try to found a religion, then Jesus also knew this two thousand years ago!
So what? Was it forgotten in the middle? by everyone?
Who is responsible for the forgetting and how was the fact rediscovered 30 or 300 years ago?
Can someone direct me to archeological evidence that points to the existence of Jesus
Maybe he didn't exist at all?
soup,
The answer is simple. Like any other successful product - marketing. See for example values Paul and missionaries.
soup:
I don't think I have anything smart to say about the question.
I would guess that the answer lies - as with any product that is trying to be marketed - in the area between the nature of the product, timing, luck, and public relations - something like the question of why the operating system created by Microsoft for personal computers is so widespread.
The field of timing and public relations was manifested in the conversion of the Roman Emperor - Constantine and following it Christianity's takeover of the Roman Empire and then the fall of the Empire in a way that left Christianity as the sole ruling force throughout the Middle Ages.
European imperialism also made a significant contribution to the matter (I would also classify this in the field of public relations and timing).
The nature of the product is actually similar to the nature of Judaism and Islam, but in this regard Judaism has a disadvantage because it does not encourage conversion while Christianity and Islam do everything in their power to entice or compel more and more gullible people to buy their wares (these are actually public relations that are anchored in the definition of the product).
Michael, I don't know where you live, and maybe in Israel they don't know basic things about the New Testament and the history of the world, and I doubt if you ever bothered to open it, but the fact is that Jesus never tried to establish a new religion. Jesus, if he did exist, was a Jew and remained a Jew until the day of his death, he preached goodness and moral behavior (even exaggerated and extreme), but there is no hint even that he tried to establish a new religion. History proves that Christianity arose as a result of Jesus being crucified and nothing else.
I'm sorry to say, but all the comments here show a terrible ignorance when it comes to Christianity and history, including the research itself. If I were my father, I would not publish such a ridiculous and shameful article on a website that claims to be a serious scientific magazine.
What's more, I find myself amazed every time again by the blatant ignorance among Israelis when it comes to history.
I have lived in Jerusalem for 17 years and the phrase "Jesus did not try to found a new religion" is a popular phrase in any conversation about Christianity, so for me it was correct to use the word "everyone". What do you think Michael, why is Jesus a figure that so many people
Do you see it as heroic and symbolic??
soup:
By the word "everyone" do you also include Mark (18) and those who edited the program he watched?
Do you include Gil in it (response 20)?
In my opinion the real question is not the one you are asking but the question of whether or not there is a Higgs boson.
The fact that Jesus did not try to found a new religion and that Christianity actually developed as another religious movement that existed at that time in Israel, everyone already knew.
In my opinion, the real question is, why did the teachings of Jesus get such a huge spread
Even before Christianity was organized after the Nicaea Conference, I mean, what caused (and still causes) so many people to be drawn to this specific figure??? Does anyone have a sleeper?
Answer before I answer?
jelly:
I am not aware of any evidence other than the verses of the New Testament even for the very existence of Jesus.
I am not aware of any evidence of anything that is not a collection of verses (not necessarily from the New Testament, but if the problem is that verses can be interpreted however you want, then it doesn't matter).
The practice of reconstruction is not wrong.
You can call it historical research and you can call it psychological research or come up with a unique name for it.
There is no doubt at all about the usefulness of such studies in everyday life and in my debates with Israeli settlers I often use the argument that if the laws that the countries of the world are trying to impose on Israel had been used during World War II, the Allies would not have been able to win it.
Gillian:
What is a "known thing" anyway?
Can you point to a text from 300 years ago that claims what the current research claims?
Can you explain to me on that occasion what is implied in your claim, which is that people who expressed an opinion here that opposes what is said in the article actually know the facts that the article presents and oppose them just for fun?
Shlomo:
Regarding William Shakespeare - it is said that he did not write the plays attributed to him, but another man with the same name who lived at the same time and in the same region 🙂
age,
All languages, including Hebrew, are a mixture of tens or even hundreds of extinct languages.
In the past, the languages were a means of brainwashing the population occupied by the intellectual government, and the masses were required to speak the language of the government instead of growling, grunting and chirping as they used to do before the appearance of the languages. Whereas nowadays, Hebrew, like other languages, tolerates a lot of nonsense, so why not yours as well.
Scarecrow,
Be strong and courageous. Let's not forget Socrates, who neither existed nor was created but was invented by Plato as a synthesis of the characters of Pythagoras and Zeno, who in turn are based on the mythical characters of Kashibo and Amizo from Sumerian mythology; Julius Caesar whose tomb has never been found and is actually a mythical incarnation of the Hittite Panthoplach; Charlemagne the Great whose character was built on the biography of Ramses the 19th; William Shakespeare which is the pen name of R. Kaplan (retired in Khazari) Zand, the father of the ancestors of Prof. Shlomo Zand the Khazari, and of course General Schwarzkopf, who is nothing but a straw man in gematria.
All religions including Judaism are a mixture of dozens and even hundreds of extinct religions.
In the past, religion was a means of control and control of the occupying government over the occupied population.
As loyalty to the conquering government by obeying their religion and customs.
Which also created an injection of customs and religion from the conquered population into the conquering country
Interesting, I didn't know it took research to know things that have been known for at least 30 years, if not 300. I wonder if this is a joke or just a ridiculous excuse to get research budgets.
I don't pretend to understand the subject or anything, but I saw a program on TV that claims that the first Christians were persecuted Jews and they deliberately tried to differentiate themselves from the Jews and be liked by the Romans.
How does it work out?
The Rebbe of Lubavitz didn't mean to either
It's interesting how no one addressed the small fact that… well, how to say it…
Jesus was not a real man! His character is based on several earlier myths
that circulated in the Middle East region, with the source most similar to the Christian story
He is probably the Egyptian myth of Hero-Or, also known as Horus (the falcon god).
Those who founded the above movement were a number of people who were fed up with the priesthood and the control of the fanatics.
correct. We have a tradition that one of the Amorites was a "graft" whose job was to distance the Christians from Judaism, so that they would no longer be a sect but a different religion.
Is there anyone here who ends up getting exactly what they intended in the beginning.
I wonder why commenters here claim to represent the others and their intentions.
A little modesty, everyone has their own private opinion.
Indeed his name was Jesus and not Jesus, considering an evil and distorted nutricon of Yeimich his name and memory.
It is true that the New Testament, just like the Bible, cannot be used as a historical source, but in any case, its foundation and principles should not be dismissed outright.
Jesus and his group acted against a background of very problematic historical developments, such that finally resulted in the outbreak of the Great Rebellion in 66 CE. Similar to Jesus, other groups acted in the same way, with the same very special and problematic political, economic, social and cultural background, who sought to fix the world according to their own way, and these, it seems, were none other than currents and shades in Judaism. These groups found only a negligible and marginal expression in the writings of Joseph ben Matthew and to a microscopic extent in the literature of the Sages. The relatively largest group among them was the one led by Esau.
Indeed, it seems more superficial, that if it weren't for the correction of the blessing of the species at the initiative of President Raban Gamaliel, whose motives were not so clean, (such as a squint towards the thawing of relations with the Romans, when the latter referred to Christianity as religio-ilikita, and persecuted it to the point of fury) it is doubtful whether the Christian group would have become - Jewish to a separate religion.
If we can draw a parallel from the development of Christianity to the present day, it seems that Chabad is not the only one on the way to separation from Judaism.
In fact, for 200 years, there has been a process of splitting the descendants of the Jews into several nations.
That is, just as the first Christians were not aware of their disconnection from Judaism, on the way to forming a new human group - so are those groups, not aware of being "new nations", in actual fact, only their origin is from the Jewish people.
I would like to argue that Judaism, as a dynamic midrashic religion, has completely disappeared from the world, gradually - first with Mendelssohn, the Enlightenment, secularism and Zionism - then as a defensive counter-reaction to the point of a freeze of anxiety (Orthodox...), from the creator of Hatam Sofer and later with The Ashtanite experience of religious Zionism comes from the loins of Rabbi Kook. To complete the picture, I will mention those among the secularists, who are enchanted by the Kokian idea of their work as "Athalta d'Gaula" and somehow, they have a corner of faith in it, in a corner of their soul.
I would like to reverse the assumption of the research presented here, based on it and instead of saying that Christianity could, in principle, be a current in Judaism - I want to assume that the main "currents" in Judaism, including today - are peoples at the beginning (relatively) of their formation and are separate - both from the Judaism of their parents, which no longer exists and - from each other. All the divisions in Israeli society stem from the lack of agreement regarding the increasingly vague term, "Judaism". For sentimental reasons, apparently, the "Mendelssonian - secular", the "Hatam Sofari - ultra-Orthodox" and the "Kokian - national religious" peoples, all cling to the term "Jewish", as if it were some kind of holy magic word and, above all, necessary, for defining self-identity.
It's a shame that the discussion drifts in a shallow direction and deviates from the main idea.
If we look at what is accepted to be called the three monotheistic religions, it will be seen that it is actually the same religion, with three main variations, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam with a division into many Mishnah groups in each of them.
They all believe in a personal God who is somewhere in the sky and everywhere.
In all of them, the believer is required to submit all his ways of life to the instructions of the religious priests,
while threatening his fate if he does not do so.
In the name of all, terrible crimes against humanity were committed, including the murder of holy wars
Suppressing robbery and creating a fixation on the progress of the human race.
If someone thinks that if Judaism had taken over the world instead of Christianity, would things have been different? He has a serious mistake! Please see what the Jews did every time they were given power. (There is no shortage of excuses).
Therefore it is useful to understand that all these religions originate from vain beliefs, and in modern life it is necessary to be based on a different social philosophical approach.
I'm not ignoring history, and especially not Jewish history, but nowadays it's better to just take God out of the business.
What historical evidence does Dan Yaffe have that Jesus did not intend to found a new religion, other than verses from the New Testament? Because verses can be interpreted here and there. Likewise, verses are not evidence, because it is known that reading the New Testament as well as the Torah or the Bible is not a historical reading but an allegorical reading. This is not a purely historical book. After all, as soon as you read it historically, contradictions immediately arise. Therefore, solid historical evidence is needed, such as certificates, documents, archaeological evidence and more.
Also regarding the issue that the Christians could have been a stream within Judaism - this is speculation - the so-called reconstruction of history. Historical research does not deal with reconstruction, what would have happened if. The fact is that Christianity is not a stream in Judaism and it did not happen. Therefore, a scenario like the one described here is not relevant to the matter at hand. Whether it could happen or not, it's a matter of nice speculation and sensationalism - but nothing more.
Regarding the name Jesus, this is the name that appears in the Hebrew version of the New Testament.
Regarding Tomer Persico. Tomer Persico is a PhD student in the religious studies unit at Tel Aviv University and therefore belongs to the academic establishment. He investigates the New Age phenomenon. Chabad is Judaism's fast food, as Prof. Oz Almog defined it well.
In Jewish literature, actions taken by the leaders of Judaism of that time are clearly indicated, with the clear aim of removing the Christian faction from Judaism.
They were afraid that the phenomenon would gain momentum among the Jews (messianic phenomena were common in those days), so they declared them non-Jews, and did everything they could to keep them away
To Dr. Yaffe, thank you from the bottom of my heart.
J:
You write, 'The situation today in the Chabad movement is that the majority of Chabad does not belong to the Meshachist sect (as the Chabad Chasidim speak), and defines itself as a complete anti-Meshchist. '
Then you write:
In order for a group to separate from another group, two basic conditions or at least one of them must be met. 1. That the small group would like to separate from the large group. and/or 2. that the large group would like to reject the small group from it. I completely disagree with the author of the article and these conditions do not exist at all.'
Do you think there is a chance that the messianists will become a separate religion?
I would like to remind the writer named "the historian" that Jesus is indeed mentioned in this way in the Babylonian Talmud. The name "Jesus" is the Land of Israel and appears only in ancient sources.
Dan is beautiful
Father this is simply not true.
I belong to the non-Messianic current and I can say today with certainty that the main stream in Chabad strongly opposes the Messianic movement. There is an internal debate going on today as to whether the unity of the ranks should be maintained or whether breaking away from the Messianic stream is a reality if the movement intends to maintain its strength and size. But the power of the Messianic movement in Chabad is diminishing over the years as we get further away from the day of the Rebbe's death. I think the example I gave regarding the youth movements in Kfar Chabad proves the opposite, that 70-80% of the residents of Kfar Chabad are anti-Mashachists and not the other way around. (Although the ratio between the children was 90% in practice, I believe the ratio is more in the direction of 70-80% since many of the Messianic residents who are still swinging on the fence did indeed send their children to the anti-Messianic movement in its size and not because of the ideology).
In any case, the fact that the person in charge of one of the Bnei Akiva movements prefers that Chabad followers open Chabad houses in secular places and not near the Bnei Akiva branch has nothing to do with the strange statement that Chabad is on its way to breaking away from the Jewish world. I assume that almost one hundred percent of the religious, including the "dissident" Lithuanians, would prefer (unfortunately) that you leave the Jewish world long before Chabad leaves it.
And bring an example from your rabbi? Well, really... either you are ignorant of the Jewish wars within the ultra-Orthodox public or you are deliberately misleading. But, Rabbi Shech was one of the biggest opponents of the Chabad movement and to quote from him about Chabad is about the same (as opposed to, of course, there are a thousand and one differences...) to quote from Ahmadinejad about the State of Israel as objective proof.
By the way, there were periods before the Rebbe's passing that were extremists in the Lithuanian world who did remove Chabad from Judaism and took it upon themselves to treat the wine of the Chabad Hasidim as unsanctified wine (those Lithuanians will not even touch the wine you drank from it...). But this phenomenon has completely disappeared in recent years.
And regarding your claim against Huldai, you are wrong again, you will notice that the only places where the Chabad movement disturbs the local residents are extreme messianic Chabad houses. Both in Ramat Aviv and in Jerusalem near the "Yellow Submarine" these are independent Messianic branches.
Unfortunately, the leadership of the movement in Israel (Chabad youth) chose to back them up despite the contrary reports. With the feeling that the claims in Ramat Aviv stemmed from gratuitous hatred. In my opinion, they were wrong about that and they should have disowned. But this is only a tactical mistake that does not indicate the unification of the ranks.
There is no Chabad house that has reached such a situation. Chabad as a movement has been operating flawlessly for decades in Israel and abroad. This is one of the only movements that does not advocate repentance (with the exception of the Yeshiva in Ramat Aviv...) as an ideology, but only adding knowledge and reducing the ignorance of the people. And also, credit for mitzvos such as putting on tefillin, taking Lulev, etc.
It's not that Chabad doesn't have thousands of converts, but the ideology is completely different from the conversion movements.
You will probably claim that this is just a method to return to repentance and I will tell you that there are far more by the tens of thousands of Chabad supporters over the years who have remained secular than there are converts.
It's no secret that he was Jewish. A student of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Farahia. After all, in the Gemara the well-known story is presented.
It is very interesting to note that they claim to be the SON OF GOD on the one hand and at the same time claim that he is a descendant of the house of David (Messiah son of David) and therefore from him the savior will come. Uncle?. . .
To remind you of Rabbi Shach's words that Chabad is the closest sect to Judaism - close but not part of it. I was not able to discern any ideology but by citing facts that may not be convenient for Chabad but are true.
In addition, the fact that national religions and others want to keep Chabad in Judaism is because of one reason - the inexhaustible manpower that Chabad has and which is invested precisely in convincing these people. But between us, if you ask, as I had the opportunity to speak with a person in charge of one of the Bnei Akiva branches in Tel Aviv, they prefer that the Chabadniks do not get close to their children. For the secular children to go, to teach them a little paganism that they mistakenly call Judaism. There are secularists like Huldai who still think that these are some unruly members of Chabad, it's a shame he didn't hear the well-known saying about lawyers that honest lawyers shouldn't suffer because of 90% of their community……. The same goes for Chabad. The existence of a non-messianic current, and which is not active among secularists, is only a legend.
Note to the site editor's note.
Don't know if you read Mr. Persico's article. However, Mr. Persico publishes his article under the guise of an institution with a clear ideology. It is difficult to understand how such an article can be cited as proof of pure academic studies. In general, do you believe that academic research can determine the future of associating a certain population group with a more general group? This is fundamentally superficial and shallow thinking. The elements of population and ideology, especially religion, are so numerous for both Chabad and Judaism as a whole, so that sticking to a selected text and hashing out misleading facts certainly cannot pretend to predict such complex processes.
One example of the distortion of the facts in the article:
The article quotes from Rambam: "If a king stands up from the house of David who thinks in the Torah and deals with the mitzvot like David his father, according to the written and oral Torah, and compels all Israel to walk in it and be strong in it, and fights God's wars, then it is with certainty that he is the Messiah: if he does and succeeds, and conquers all the nations around him, and he built a temple in his place, and gathered the rejected of Israel, after all, this is the Messiah for sure."
And later the author of the article states: "It would not be an exaggeration to claim that Rammash made special and conscious efforts to adapt his works to the "instructions" of the Mishna Torah, assuming that in this way he would fulfill his mission and prove acceptable to the people and the world; One can get the impression that Maimonides' criteria provided him with a work plan, which he meticulously followed."
Indeed, the Rebbe defeated all the nations around him, built a temple in his place and gathered the outcasts of Israel. What nations are around him? Canada? Mexico or maybe Cuba? What temple did he build in its place?
This is just one example that even you, who do not pretend to belong to such an expensive movement as Chabad, will be able to agree that this is a jumble of words without any connection to reality.
Did the author of the article read the article he wrote himself after finishing writing?
As a Chabad follower, I can tell you that there is hardly a paragraph that does not contain mistakes, but for each such paragraph I will have to explain and detail that is why I chose something that would also allow another person to understand how superficial every sentence in the article screams.
I have not read the academic articles but relying on the quoter it would not be responsible to put such a summary paragraph out of your hands.
I can't keep quiet about just one mistake. To my great joy, the situation today in the Chabad movement is that the majority of Chabad does not belong to the Mishchist community (as the Chabad Chasidim speak), and defines itself as a total anti-Mishchist. Suffice it to mention that the statutes of new synagogues in Kfar Chabad explicitly state that the Mishchist announcements are not to be announced. And if you want, proof is enough if I mention that in the last year there were two youth movements in Kfar Chabad, one that was considered messianic in which about 30 children participated every Shabbat, and one that was considered anti-messianic in which about 300 children participated every Shabbat. Yes, that's the ratio!
But what does it matter to the writer of the article if you have to distort a little to arrange the article better.
In any case, and without detracting from my opinion that it is not possible to predict the behavior of such a large population in an academic study, I will state my opinion that for a group to separate from another group, two basic conditions or at least one of them must be met. 1. That the small group would like to separate from the large group. and/or 2. that the large group would like to reject the small group from it. I completely disagree with the author of the article and these conditions do not exist at all.
Chabad followers do not wish to separate from the Jewish world. And the ultra-orthodox, and certainly not the national religious people, are not interested in rejecting Chabad Hasidim from among them. It would be enough if you saw the diverse population that participated this year in the event where Rabbi Rabbi Yoel Cohen's "returning" committee met in the Nation Buildings in Jerusalem. I'm sure you would have come back from the ridiculous statement you mentioned at the end of the article.
If the historical research is already covered, at the very least history must be respected and the correct name must be used: Jesus!!! from the word of salvation.
Using a derogatory name and not the correct name does not respect your site and especially not the history in whose name the research was conducted.