Prophets prior to Jesus

[Jayhawker Soule]

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".

I hope you feel better now. Did I mention that I love Job?

 

[Rise]

I hope you feel better now. Did I mention that I love Job?

Your statement does not attempt to offer a valid counter argument to my point.

You have failed to meet the "burden of rejoinder".

As such, you tacitly concede my points stand and your claims are refuted.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You have failed to meet the "burden of rejoinder".

^ can you imagine the above rendered with sound effects? Spooky!

 

[Rise]

^ can you imagine the above rendered with sound effects? Spooky!

Logical fallacy, Ad Hominem.

Unable to refute the points I made, you have only Ad Hominem attacks to fall back on.

 

[Rise]

A man who has achieved his semicha in Rabbinic studies.

Before such modern times and notions, it refers way back to those who recieved their authority from Moshe; and he learnt it from his master who learnt it from Moshe, and he learnt it from his master and so on. This is the chain of transmission.

Answering your question is not possible based on that definition because it requires knowing two things which you cannot establish through the Bible or even historical records.

Those two things are :
1. That any such line of authority ever was established or existed.
2. That you know who those people were historically so you can see whether or not they wrote any of the Scripture.


However, even if you could do that, I don't see what relevance you think that has to any of the points I made (the points which you are still ignoring).

Adding on to that, I'd like to explore this concept further.

So we know you have no evidence for the idea that a "rabbi" ever wrote Scripture given how you choose to define a "rabbi".

Is Moses a Rabbi? Well you might try to say that because Moses' authority is part of how you define what makes a "rabbi". But it seems Moses shouldn't be called a "rabbi" by definition because he received his information directly from God rather than having it passed down via oral tradition from Moses (which is how you really define a "rabbi").

You might try to say Joshua fits your claim to there being appointed succession. Well, appointed by whom? Appointed by God. That's the key difference.
The claim about Joshua being a rabbinical succession also doesn't really work because Joshua was an eye witnesses to Moses who didn't need to have information about Moses passed down to him via second hand oral tradition.
Furthermore, Joshua also heard directly from God himself. Which means he didn't need to rely on second hand information if God wanted him to know the truth of a matter.

Which brings me to my next point: We have reason to conclude from Scripture that your belief cannot be true.

Firstly, we look at Joshua. We see in Numbers 27 that God Himself appointed Joshua as the successor to Moses. We see in Joshua 20 that he heard from God for himself. And this is verified by the anointing we see upon Joshua when miracles are done upon his prayer and under his leadership (like Joshua 10).

So we see that if spiritual succession exists then it must be based upon God's anointing (Anointing being a concept which we see in the Scripture represents both being appointed to a position by God as well as being empowered by God to fulfill that duty).

We see the same pattern with Elijah and Elisha.

No where in Scripture do we see the idea that spiritual authority is passed down by man's decision or by simply the relating of information from one person to another.

The most damning evidence to your belief of rabbinical succession would be in the innumerable examples throughout Scripture where God calls otherwise ordinary people, in the midst of a time of spiritual darkness, to take up the position of judge, king, or prophet over Israel/Judea.

There is nothing in Scripture that would give us any reason to believe that men like cowardly Gideon from an idol worshipping family or young David tending the sheep, had any kind of training or even knowledge of a great body of oral traditions and teachings that Moses supposedly passed down.

Yet God calls them to be the singular leader of Israel as Moses and Joshua were before them.

Again we see God is the one who ordains and anoints His leaders - not man. And not based on their earthly knowledge of a supposed oral tradition.

 

[Rival]

Adding on to that, I'd like to explore this concept further.

So we know you have no evidence for the idea that a "rabbi" ever wrote Scripture given how you choose to define a "rabbi".

Is Moses a Rabbi? Well you might try to say that because Moses' authority is part of how you define what makes a "rabbi". But it seems Moses shouldn't be called a "rabbi" by definition because he received his information directly from God rather than having it passed down via oral tradition from Moses (which is how you really define a "rabbi").

You might try to say Joshua fits your claim to there being appointed succession. Well, appointed by whom? Appointed by God. That's the key difference.
The claim about Joshua being a rabbinical succession also doesn't really work because Joshua was an eye witnesses to Moses who didn't need to have information about Moses passed down to him via second hand oral tradition.
Furthermore, Joshua also heard directly from God himself. Which means he didn't need to rely on second hand information if God wanted him to know the truth of a matter.

Which brings me to my next point: We have reason to conclude from Scripture that your belief cannot be true.

Firstly, we look at Joshua. We see in Numbers 27 that God Himself appointed Joshua as the successor to Moses. We see in Joshua 20 that he heard from God for himself. And this is verified by the anointing we see upon Joshua when miracles are done upon his prayer and under his leadership.

So we see that if spiritual succession exists, it's based upon God's anointing (Anointing being a concept which we see in the Scripture represents both being appointed to a position by God as well as being empowered by God to fulfill that duty).

We see the same pattern with Elijah and Elisha.

No where in Scripture do we see the idea that spiritual authority is passed down by man's decision or by simply the relating of information from one person to another.

The most damning evidence to your belief of rabbinical succession would be in the innumerable examples throughout Scripture where God calls otherwise ordinary people, in the midst of a time of spiritual darkness, to take up the position of judge, king, or prophet over Israel/Judea.

There is nothing in Scripture that would give us any reason to believe that men like cowardly Gideon from an idol worshipping family or young David tending the sheep, had any kind of training or even knowledge of a great body of oral traditions and teachings that Moses supposedly passed down.

Yet God calls them to be the singular leader of Israel as Moses and Joshua were before them.

Again we see God is the one who ordains and anoints His leaders - not man. And not based on their earthly knowledge of a supposed oral tradition.

I'll be honest; at this point I have no idea what you're even arguing against. This just seems like some Christian polemic against Rabbis for some reason and I'm not remotely bothered about what you think on this issue.

 

[Rise]

I'll be honest; at this point I have no idea what you're even arguing against.

I can gladly and easily rectify your state of confusion.

I stated two simple things:

1. You have no evidence for the idea that a "rabbi" (according to your definition of "rabbi") ever wrote Scripture.

2. The Scripture disproves your claim with regards to how spiritual authority is transferred, and is full of examples of men being given leadership of the nation of Israel who we cannot reasonably believe ever were the student of a "master" of "rabbinical oral tradition" before they took up a leadership role over the nation.

And if you are confused about how this issue relates to previous claims then you should consult yourself on that because you were the one who introduced the issue by asking me whether or not rabbis ever wrote scripture.
I am merely responding to your question.



As to the previous claims you made where you tried to assert what I said was wrong - those are no longer factored into my post because you already effectively conceded those points are refuted by being unable or unwilling to offer a defense of your claims.

Those claims were:
1. That you have reason to believe from Scripture that God works the way you claim with regards to there being potential messiahs.
2. That it's ok to follow someone who isn't the messiah, but claims to be, even though we see the opposite demonstrated for prophets in the Bible.
3. That we shouldn't regard Akiva has part of the judged "bad figs" as part of God's judgement upon Judea as a nation in AD70-AD130.

This just seems like some Christian polemic against Rabbis for some reason

Logical fallacy, "Ad Hominem".
You are not able to refute the points I made.
You're trying to distract from that fact by slandering my post and calling it names.

and I'm not remotely bothered about what you think on this issue.

Your state of being bothered or not bothered is irrelevant to the truth I demonstrated with logical analysis of the Scripture and history.

Furthermore, nothing I have posted is just "what I think", but has been shown to be true based on logic and evidence.

 

[Rival]

1. You have no evidence for the idea that a "rabbi" (according to your definition of "rabbi") ever wrote Scripture.

Where did I say this?

2. The Scripture disproves your claim with regards to how spiritual authority is transferred, and is full of examples of men being given leadership of the nation of Israel who we cannot reasonably believe ever were the student of a "master" of "rabbinical oral tradition" before they took up a leadership role over the nation.

Ohhhhhhh I see! You're one of those 'Oral Tradition is made up by Rabbis in a cave' people.

Yeah I'm not wasting my time with this.

 

[Harel13]

Logical fallacy, "Ad Hominem".
You are not able to refute the points I made.
You're trying to distract that fact by slandering my post and calling it names.

At this point, would it be an Ad Hominem or some other such thing if I say that you've completely derailed my thread?

 

[Rise]

Where did I say this?

You did not need to say it.

You asked the question whether a "rabbi" ever wrote scripture.

I answered by pointing out that you have no evidence they ever did.
Because you have no evidence such "rabbis" even existed that far back in time, and no evidence that those who wrote Scripture could have fallen under that definition.

I then further pointed out the evidence we have in Scripture suggests that your idea of a rabbi isn't even found in history.

Which by default would make the answer to your question "no".
If "rabbis" as you define them never actually existed that far back in history then it would have been impossible for them to write the books we now consider Scripture.

So I answered your question for you by using the Bible.

Ohhhhhhh I see! You're one of those 'Oral Tradition is made up by Rabbis in a cave' people.

Yeah I'm not wasting my time with this.

Logical fallacy, "Ad Hominem", "Appeal or Mockery".
Unable to defend your claim, you can only distract from that fact by trying to mock the valid points against it in an effort to try to dismiss them without having to actually deal with them.

Remember:
You were the one who first tried to argue against what I said.
So then I merely showed why your claims were wrong.

And now that you don't have a valid counter argument to that you want to pretend like you aren't interested in arguing anymore, even though you were the one who decided to start one. You're just looking for a face saving out because you can't defend your claims.

That means you have failed the "burden of rejoinder". You conceded your claims are refuted because you aren't able or willing to offer a counter argument.
You were subject to the burden of rejoinder that moment you decided to try to dispute my claims and say they weren't true.
By your inability to defend your challenge upon my claim you have conceded your challenge was refuted.

 

[Harel13]

You did not need to say it.

You asked the question whether a "rabbi" ever wrote scripture.

I answered by pointing out that you have no evidence they ever did.
Because you have no evidence such "rabbis" even existed that far back in time, and no evidence that those who wrote Scripture could have fallen under that definition.

I then further pointed out the evidence we have in Scripture suggests that your idea of a rabbi isn't even found in history.

Which by default would make the answer to your question "no".
If "rabbis" as you define them never actually existed that far back in history then it would have been impossible for them to write the books we now consider Scripture.

So I answered your question for you by using the Bible.




Logical fallacy, "Ad Hominem", "Appeal or Mockery".
Unable to defend your claim, you can only distract from that fact by trying to mock the valid points against it in an effort to try to dismiss them without having to actually deal with them.

Remember:
You were the one who first tried to argue against what I said.
So then I merely showed why your claims were wrong.

And now that you don't have a valid counter argument to that you want to pretend like you aren't interested in arguing anymore, even though you were the one who decided to start one. You're just looking for a face saving out because you can't defend your claims.

That means you have failed the "burden of rejoinder". You conceded your claims are refuted because you aren't able or willing to offer a counter argument.
You were subject to the burden of rejoinder that moment you decided to try to dispute my claims and say they weren't true.

Yay, good for you. Now, can you get back to the thread subject? If not, just stop.

 

[Rise]

At this point, would it be an Ad Hominem or some other such thing if I say that you've completely derailed my thread?

Yay, good for you. Now, can you get back to the thread subject? If not, just stop

You are the one who first tried to argue against what I said.
I merely defended what I said against your attempts to dispute it.

So if you don't want a thread to become about a given issue then you probably shouldn't try to argue against it.

Why do you feel entitled to simply tell people they are wrong and not expect them to tell you why they aren't?
And then act like they are the ones at fault for not letting you just tell them they are wrong without responding?

If you don't want to argue the issue anymore then you can simply be humble and admit you were wrong, conceding the issue.

You can also just give up and stop responding without even attempting to give a valid counter argument, but that's also a tacit concession that your claim was refuted because you failed the burden of rejoinder.

The easiest answer is you shouldn't start an argument you aren't willing to finish to it's conclusion.

(and the answer to your question is "no". That wouldn't qualify as the definition of an Ad Hominem in any way).

Ah, now I get it. You're lording over the Jews of the 2nd century with future knowledge. Because you know Bar Kochva failed as a messiah, you feel you know better than those dumb ol' Jews of the past.

I missed this post and forgot about it after getting caught up responding to others. But I can respond now:

Your logic doesn't hold up Scripturally.

You don't get to use the same excuse with false prophets.

People are held accountable in Scripture for being able to discern who are false from true prophets.

Those that don't heed true prophets are eventually led to destruction without repentance. Those that follow false prophets may also be led to destruction.

Why would you think following someone who claims to be the Messiah would be any different?

What you're missing here is that those ol' Jews thought in Jewish terms and I myself addressed your questions from a Jewish perspective, which differentiates between "failed messiah" and "false messiah".

Because of that key difference in perspective, we have no reason not to follow the teachings of Rabbi Akiva despite his mistake, which was only a mistake in retrospect. For this reason we don't see it as any "deceivement" - like your classic Christian perspective.

I already refuted your claims in my responses to Rival on that issue. Considering I went into that quite a bit there's no need to repost it all here. You are free to look at those and try to dispute them if you think you can.

Had I realized you didn't actually care in any way about the Jewish perspective, I wouldn't have bothered replying.

I asked you what reasons you have for believing your perspective could be true.
"Caring about your perspective" doesn't mean I just have to accept what you say is true without question.

I haven't gotten any reasons.

I pointed out that Biblically we have reason to believe your perspective couldn't be true.

So, in light of that, how could you justify your perspective?

 

[Rival]

You are the one who first tried to argue against what I said.
I merely defended what I said against your attempts to dispute it.

So if you don't want a thread to become about a given issue then you probably shouldn't try to argue against it.

Why do you feel entitled to simply tell people they are wrong and not expect them to tell you why they aren't?
And then act like they are the ones at fault for not letting you just tell them they are wrong without responding?

If you don't want to argue the issue anymore then you can simply be humble and admit you were wrong, conceding the issue.

You can also just give up and stop responding without even attempting to give a valid counter argument, but that's also a tacit concession that your claim was refuted because you failed the burden of rejoinder.

The easiest answer is you shouldn't start an argument you aren't willing to finish to it's conclusion.

(and the answer to your question is "no". That wouldn't qualify as the definition of an Ad Hominem in any way).



I missed this post and forgot about it after getting caught up responding to others. But I can respond now:

Your logic doesn't hold up Scripturally.

You don't get to use the same excuse with false prophets.

People are held accountable in Scripture for being able to discern who are false from true prophets.

Those that don't heed true prophets are eventually led to destruction without repentance. Those that follow false prophets may also be led to destruction.

Why would you think following someone who claims to be the Messiah would be any different?



I already refuted your claims in my responses to Rival on that issue. Considering I went into that quite a bit there's no need to repost it all here. You are free to look at those and try to dispute them if you think you can.



I asked you what reasons you have for believing your perspective could be true.
"Caring about your perspective" doesn't mean I just have to accept what you say is true without question.

I haven't gotten any reasons.

I pointed out that Biblically we have reason to believe your perspective couldn't be true.

So, in light of that, how could you justify your perspective?

Go make your own thread if you want to discuss this further. This has nothing to do with the OP.

 

[Harel13]

You are the one who first tried to argue against what I said.

I was willing to play along for awhile, because I'm not strict with off-topic subjects in my threads, but as you've succeeded in making what was a friendly question on Christianity thread into a Judaism-bashing one and aren't quitting any time soon, I've lost my patience.

 

[Rise]

because I'm not strict with off-topic subjects in my threads, but as you've succeeded in making what was a friendly question on Christianity thread into a Judaism-bashing one

You are engaging in the psychological act of projection.
You're the one who decided you wanted to be unfriendly by leveling baseless accusations of "judaism-bashing" where they aren't warranted.

You are others here are the ones who have chosen to attack me , unprovoked, for no reason other than you did not like my points.

I have done nothing but furnish facts and logic to support my claims, and used logic and facts to refute your claims.

That is a neutral activity unless it makes you mad to be proven wrong.

But it is not my fault if the truth infuriates you.
Nor am I responsible for the fragility of your personal worldview.


You are completely incapable of refuting the truth of my points.
Which is why the only defense mechanism you have left is to accuse me of "judaism bashing" and try to silence my voice. Not unlike the political left that thinks slinging around the accusation of "racist" at anyone they disagree with means they don't have to actually debate the issues on their merits. It's an accusation for which you have no basis to make. Which is the very definition of an Ad Hominem fallacy.

In fact, a baseless accusation like that without cause should qualify as being against the rules, if it isn't already.

and aren't quitting any time soon, I've lost my patience.

Quitting what exactly? Defending my position against your attempts to say it's wrong?

You won't quote a single instance of me doing what you accused me of ("bashing"). You certainly won't find me being the first person to say anything that counts as a personal attack against someone.

So if all I've done is to simply defend my position against your attacks upon it, then what you're really saying is you feel entitled to go around telling people they are wrong, but then want to claim they are bad if they rationally defend their position against your attacks.

Why do you feel entitled for someone to stop defending their position just because you don't like what they are saying?

You shouldn't attack what people say and claim it's wrong if you aren't prepared to logically defend your assertions in the first place.

Stick to simply expressing your opinion if you aren't capable or willing to defend your statements as being factual truth.

I was willing to play along for awhile,

What you mean is: Until you realized you couldn't defend your position with logic and facts.

 

[Rise]

Go make your own thread if you want to discuss this further. This has nothing to do with the OP.

Your assertion that it's not relevant is not even true.

The issue of why we don't have intertestamental books is 100% relevant to the issue of whether or not prophecy existed during that timeframe. We can't go into whether or not prophecy existed in that time unless we can answer why we don't have intertestamental books in the canon. Which we can't do without talking about Akiva.

The entire assumption that God stopped speaking during that time is often based on the fact that we don't have canonized Scripture from that time.
But the fact that we don't is entirely because of people like Akiva.
So we have to determine whether or not he had a legitimate basis for rejecting the intertestmental books before we can state with certainty that no Scripture was produced during that time.

My issue is far more relevant to the OP than what you tried to introduce by arguing about Jesus as Messiah. So don't be hypocritical. Hold yourself to the standards you are demanding of others.

And if you truly felt that was off topic then you never should have tried to engage in an argument over it by claiming what I said was wrong, thereby entitling me to refute your claim. And then you tried to argue those points, until you realized you couldn't. Now you just want to silence what you disagree with because you can't refute it.
In fact, you tried to even derail the issues I was talking about by trying to argue about whether or not Jesus was the Messiah.
If you aren't prepared or willing to have someone refute your claim then don't go around trying to tell people that what they have said is not true.

You might be able to state your opinion while feeling somewhat entitled to not have it refuted - but you can't claim as a factual statement that someone is wrong without being to willing or able to backup what you said and deal with counter arguments.

 

[Harel13]

Quitting what exactly? Defending my position against your attempts to say it's wrong?

Let's backtrack and see how this happened.

My OP:

In Judaism, prophecy is believed to have ended after Malachi and is set to come back during the messianic era (never mind the reasons now).

From what I've gathered, Christians believe that prophecy never ended. Jesus, for example, is considered, among other things, a prophet. Maybe also John the Baptist, though I'm not sure. It's a big chunk of years between the time of Malachi and the time of Jesus (several hundred years). I was wondering, therefore, whether Christians can point to other individuals who lived before Jesus and had prophetic capabilities?

After some back and forth with other members, I wrote to KenS:

Why the silence, according to Christianity?

To which you decided to reply and wrote:

It's based on nothing more than the fact that no writings from the time were canonized.

But that is not correct reasoning.

We know writings were produced during this time after Malachi which the early church regarded as authoritative and eastern orthodox still uses.

Whether or not they are Scripture is a separate debate.

The fact remains that logically you cannot conclude God didn't speak during a particular era just by the absence of canonical writings.

The fact is the OT mentions writings by prophets like Gad and Nathan which were not preserved for whatever reason. That doesn't mean God never spoke to them.

The fact is we see in Luke that Anne is referred to as a prophetess, and
Simeon received word from God that he would live to see the Messiah.

Matthew also makes reference to a spoken prophecy about the Messiah, not a written one, which we presume he knew the readers would be aware of.

Obviously people were still hearing from God prior to Jesus.

It would also be inconsistent with God's nature and character to stop speaking to anyone. We see from earliest times with Cain, Able, Enoch and Noah that God is speaking to people. We see with Melchizedek (believed to be Shem by Jewish tradition) that the world was not without people speaking on behalf of God prior to Abraham and Moses. We don't have any Biblical reason to believe God ever stopped speaking to people in any given era. It would be counter to His purposes to not talk to mankind considering His whole goal is to restore man to communal relationship with Himself.

Then you actually replied to my OP with this:

Some of the reasons I gave for why Christians have no reason to believe God stopped speaking to people during the intertestamental period also apply to Judaism.

It raises the question of why did the Jews start asserting in the first place that God had never spoken during that time?

They knew that writings were produced during that time.
They knew that some people considered these writings authoritative.

Rabbi Akiva in the 2nd century denounces the practice of reading them in the synagogue as though they were Scripture. He had to specifically argue against their inclusion. Implying there was significant uncertainty over this issue.

This leads us to believe that they were more widely regarded as authoritative than just among a few isolated groups that could be dismissed.

The fact that early Christians made reference to those writings also suggests they felt they were authoritative enough to reference for the purpose of pointing to Jesus as Messiah.

If they didn't think other Jews would regard these writings with authority, then they would not have thought they could gain agreement by referencing them.

So why were they striken from being considered authoritative in the 2nd century? Probably for the same reasons the Gospels were denounced at the same time. The intertestamental writings point to Jesus as Messiah in more overt ways than you find in most other books. We can speculate this may have influenced their desire to remove them in order to draw a sharper theological divide between Rabbinical Judaism and Christian Judaism.

But considering that Akiva promoted a false messiah as part of a failed revolt against the Romans, it brings into question why anyone should trust his judgement about what should or should not be considered Scripture.

So quite clearly, you are the one who moved from talking about my question about Christianity's view on what I've come to learn is called "the silent years" and talk about Rabbi Akiva, and messiahs, and Jewish authority and whatnot. That was the point that I decided to humor you and play along. I see that was my mistake; I should have immediately told you to quit it or get lost. Go start a thread with all of your claims about Judaism and we'll consider answering you. Till then, off-topic. Call it projection, call it a logical fallacy (as I knew you would) or whatever. I honestly don't care. Either get back on topic or get outta here. Go bash Judaism somewhere else.

 

[Rise]

So quite clearly, you are the one who moved from talking about my question about Christianity's view on what I've come to learn is called "the silent years" and talk about Rabbi Akiva, and messiahs, and Jewish authority and whatnot.

I already gave you the reason why you cannot talk about one without the other.

It is because protestant Christianity, and to a lesser extent Catholicism, derive their canon of OT Scripture from Jewish tradition. In contrast to other groups like the Eastern Orthodox, Syriac, or Somali OT canons which never decided to adopt the masoretic text as the basis of their OT.

And that particular Jewish tradition derives from the time of Akiva.

You cannot talk about the issue of why protestant Christians believe prophecy did not exist in the intertestamanetal period without talking about why we don't have canonized Scripture from that period.

You also cannot talk about why some Christians believe the way the Jews do about the end of prophecy, while others never did, without getting into what happened with Akiva and why that led to a rejection of the intertestamental books.

Because generally it is only the protestants who believed like the Jews do that prophesy ceased after Malachi.

And the only reason they do that is first because Jerome caused latin catholicism to adopt the masoretic text over the septuagint in the late 4th century.
This caused the latins to come to regard the additional books as not on part with true canon, but still useful to read.
And then the protestant reformation stripped the Bible of those additional books, believing they were something false the latins must have added on. But they only did this because they weren't aware of the eastern, syrian, or ethopian traditions, and they were prone to knee jerk reactions against anything that seemed to support the catholic claims (which is also why luther said James should probably be removed from the the NT).

Which is why a lot of protestant Christians actually believe the same way Jews do: believing that prophecy ended after Malachi, came back for a brief period with Jesus and the apostles, but then ended.
Prior to the spirit filled movements of the early 20th century, it was the standard position of protestant Christianity. But those like eastern Orthodox never believed prophecy stopped.
Protestant Christianity is merely only realizing in the last century that they were wrong to assume it had ever stopped - because they see it operating today.

Which then raises the question of why should we trust Akiva's claims about what is or is not Scripture.

The fact that Eastern Orthodox rejected the claims of Akiva, unlike the Western Catholic who abandoned the Septuagint in favor of the Masoretic text at a later date, is part of why they never believed God stopped speaking after Malachi.

So it never was off topic.

It doesn't become off topic just because you decide you don't like the implications of what I said.

Go bash Judaism somewhere else.

Logical fallacy, Ad Hominem.

And probably a violation of the rules as well.

You don't get to go slinging around accusations of "Judaism bashing" without a basis for it. You'll not be able to quote a single thing I posted that would qualify for that accusation.

Merely posting a disagreement with what Jews believe doesn't qualify as "bashing judaism" just because it makes you mad for me to do so.

Your accusation is unwarranted and done only for the purposes of trying to silence points you disagree without having to logically or factually refute them.

You are no different than those on the political left who cry "racist" at anyone on the right who expresses a viewpoint they disagree with, even when the issue they are talking about has absolutely nothing to do with race.

That was the point that I decided to humor you and play along. I see that was my mistake; I should have immediately told you to quit it or get lost.

Quit what exactly?

Since I've already established that it is relevant to the topic, you can't tell me to quit being off topic because you never established that I actually was off topic.

And since it's also been established that there is nothing in any of my posts that could be accused of being "judaism bashing", you can't tell me to stop doing that either. Because I never started doing it to begin with.

The only thing that's left you could tell me to stop doing is you want me to stop defending my logical and factual points against your fallacious attacks.

Because that's the only thing I've done here.

So that raises the question then of: Why do you feel entitled to tell people they are wrong, use fallacies to do so, and then feel entitled to tell them to shut up and not defend what they said against your fallacious accusations?

What you're really effectively saying is "stop using logic and facts to make points I don't like because I cannot refute them, and that makes me mad".

 

[curious_mind]

As @KenS already squeezed it out of me...

That is very interesting.

Are these reasons derived from your religious scriptures, and if so, where and which ones?

And would you like to make a separate thread, as you haven't really provided much details and I have quite a few more questions on this topics and I assume that requires more time and a different environment and this thread seems to be more a question aimed at Christians.

 

[Harel13]

Are these reasons derived from your religious scriptures, and if so, where and which ones?

They are. But as I previously wrote on this thread, I'm lazy at collecting the sources. The reason being is that they are spread out through many different texts and I don't have the energy to go through all or even some of them.

You can feel free to ask follow ups here in this thread on anything from my explanatory posts, provided it doesn't get too off topic.