Discussing my book “Is Jesus the Messiah? A Judaism vs. Judaism Debate”

To the video Is Jesus the Messiah? A Judaism vs. Judaism Debate – William Ramsey & Ken Ammi, discuss, andrewmarkmusic commented:
Interesting discussion. This will likely be unpalatable; but alas, I’ve often been a wrench in the wheel in my life:P


To the video Is Jesus the Messiah? A Judaism vs. Judaism Debate – William Ramsey & Ken Ammi, discuss, andrewmarkmusic commented:
Interesting discussion. This will likely be unpalatable; but alas, I’ve often been a wrench in the wheel in my life:P

You guys do know that the beginnings of Judaism come from earlier iterations of middle-eastern religious thought? Most of it polytheistic…So Jewish religion is syncretism which would have been an entirely normal thing to do!

Also, Moses wasn’t a slave in Egypt and neither were the Jews. Slam dunk that one is as there is no evidence for it whatsoever. And what about GOOD parenting? Which one of you would set up strife between your siblings intentionally? Strife that will cause millennial age strife and bloodshed! No GOOD God would do such a thing or use such methods…Not much evidence for a historical Jewish Jesus either! No Nazareth at the time…Pilate described him as Arian and blue-eyed…
But I’m just a hippie Gnostic who believes we live in ‘the place of the damned’ and that the Pleroma is entirely distinct and separate from this meat-grinding death show of an earth… This makes me a Docetist! And the largest Christian church in antiquity was the Marcionite church which taught the Antithesis.

But I agree the RCC is Neo-Judaism and its primary agenda was to protect the character of the Demiurge…
All the best guys!

I, Ken Ammi, replied:
Appreciate the input, friend however, you seem to be using a comments section about a specific topic to vent emotively.
Indeed, of course “Judaism come from earlier iterations of middle-eastern religious thought? Most of it polytheistic” since that is a main feature of the story of Abraham abandoning that.

I am unsure why you say “Moses wasn’t a slave in Egypt” since no one ever claimed that he was, the Bible most certainly never does.
You add that “neither were the Jews” but you seem to assume various things such as that our knowledge of that history is 100% and that we can actually trust Egyptian records—even though Egyptians are notorious for altering their own history. Please watch these vids (but only if you are interested in verifiable facts):

In the real world, “strife between your siblings” is inevitable, you are referring to a case pertaining to something very important and not trivial.

But I am getting the feeling that you are merely emoting so I should ask: since your comments are based on hidden assumptions, which is why you began with conclusions, please take a step back: how does your worldview provide you 1) a premise for truth, logic or ethics, 2) for holding to these and 3) for demanding that others do likewise?

For example, you complain about “bloodshed” but why? You refer to “GOOD” but do not define it. You demand that which a “GOOD God would” not do but based on what?

Now, I appreciate that you admit that there is evidence for a historical Jewish Jesus.

As for “No Nazareth at the time,” please see chapter “Appendix: On the Existence of Nazareth” of my book “Jesus: Historical, Biblical, Apocryphal, Mythical Pagan Copycat”: https://truefreethinker.com/articles/new-book-%E2%80%9Cjesus-historical-biblical-apocryphal-mythical-pagan-copycat%E2%80%9D

If “Pilate described him as Arian and blue-eyed” please provide quotations and citations.

So, basically, you have bought THE lie: that the God of the Bible is “evil” and Satan is “good” so that well, what? Eat and drink for tomorrow we die or neglect the flesh until you die?

andrewmarkmusic:
The idea that any criticism of Judaism is a psychological projection on the part of the criticizer is a weak gambit that I reject. NO WHERE did I claim Satan is good so please don’t misrepresent what I said. IMO., Satan is exactly what the Torah says he is: an agent of Yahweh who is an adversary of man. BUT, in my Christian Gnostic view, only an inept evil God needs such a henchman. So, yes, I agree with the Torah in that regard and reject the Christian notion that Satan is a fallen Lucifer …But this hardly argues for a better theology. If we can’t agree on what a simple common-sense definition of what GOOD is then the whole subject is absurd and not worth anyone’s time. Bobby’s GOODGOD channel clearly delineates what GOOD means in a theological context.

YAHWEH ain’t it! There is zero evidence for the Torah’s version of history as to the Exodus. Claiming the Egyptians wiped ALL records of it is frankly ridiculous. And further, Yahweh should have had NO enemy capable of distorting the historical record so there should be overwhelming historical evidence for the whole Bible yet most of it is non-existent, historically inaccurate, metaphysically absurd (as is Christianity and Islam), scientifically unsubstantiated, and next to impossible (Noah’s Ark as one of thousands of examples)… As a Docetist, I also reject that Christ (The AEON KRISTO’S) was a Jewish carpenter and I concede no such evidence of this historical fiction.

BTW: As a Christian Gnostic, I critique pretty well ALL the world’s religions. The Vedic Book of the Law, Manu, is as absurd as Leviticus! Buddhists claim to know God doesn’t exist solely based on experiences from the meditative disciplines: this I reject. I would also concede there are a few good ideas in the Torah such as allowing land to lay fallow and debt Jubilees (something of the utmost importance on a worldwide scale today)…But the bad and incoherent far outweighs any good that is in that book!

Ken Ammi:
Since I never claimed that “any criticism of Judaism is a psychological projection on the part of the criticizer is a weak gambit that I reject” then that is a non-issue.

Now, I noted that “you seem to be using a comments section about a specific topic to vent emotively” and that is all you continue doing since you merely sidestepped how your worldview provides 1) a premise for truth, logic or ethics, 2) for holding to these and 3) for demanding that others do likewise.

Since I never claimed “the Egyptians wiped ALL records of it” then that is a non-issue: did you watch the videos I linked?

I see you also simply sidestepped those things I requested that you back with evidence.

But the bottom line is what I noted above about your lack of premise for doing anything but emoting since, for example, when you merely subjectively assert that the Bible is “historically inaccurate, metaphysically absurd…scientifically unsubstantiated, and next to impossible” those statements on the level of a “My dear diary, today I feel…” statement.

Andrewmarkmusic:
I’m not doing this Ken. I don’t share your view that a comment section must be a doctrinal thesis.

The burden of proof is on YOU for the claims you’re making that the Bible is true. There is zero evidence for supernaturalism let alone any specific religions claims and Jewish manipulation of civilization is not evidence whether from the Sabbateans, the Rothschilds, or the incredible amount of Jewish swarming on the internet when it comes to Bible-related issues. And to claim that the Bible is a code for morals and ethics is the height of absurdity.

Here are some links though:
A series on Nothing Fails Like Bible History:

EvilBible.com which deconstructs every evil act written in that book:

Evil Bible Home Page


Where Genesis came from:
https://youtu.be/z1qrqXEA4fg
But it gets worse as humanity can’t even demonstrate a good argument for an abstract creator mind:

As a Christian Gnostic, I suggest the reason for the lack of evidence in the last linked video is because the nature of reality here is inherently deceptive by design. Search the Nag Hammadi library for the creation myths which suggest evil and deception were build into this construct. These myths are at least consistent with the facts of this deeply flawed existence we find ourselves in.

Ken Ammi:
Since I never claimed that “a comment section must be a doctrinal thesis” then that is a non-issue—but you seem to employ that mischaracterization in order to abscond from facts that are inconvenient to your worldview.

“The burden of proof is on YOU” is a conclusion: please work your way to it rather than merely asserting it.

“There is zero evidence for supernaturalism let alone any specific religions claims” is a conclusion: please work your way to it rather than merely asserting it.

“to claim that the Bible is a code for morals and ethics is the height of absurdity” is a conclusion: please work your way to it rather than merely asserting it and, FYI, your subjective view of that which is and is not absurd is not a standard.

But if you are getting your info from the likes of EvilBible.com then I instantly know that your discernment skills are seriously lacking. Let me take a guess: you have never one single time actually double checked a single assertion made therein, right? Well, I have: I have written many point by point replies to many of their claims: https://truefreethinker.com/evilbiblecom
I am well aware of the Nag Hammadi texts and know that such is why your view of reality is to take anything that the Bible states and turn it inside out, upside down and backward—which is why the Gnostic savior is Satan.

Again (and again) “I noted that ‘you seem to be using a comments section about a specific topic to vent emotively’ and that is all you continue doing since you merely sidestepped how your worldview provides 1) a premise for truth, logic or ethics, 2) for holding to these and 3) for demanding that others do likewise” so again, your comments are still merely on the level of a “My dear diary, today I feel…” statement and if that is what you are interested in doing then there are plenty of channels on which you can comment that are about sharing feelings.

andrewmarkmusic:
Ken, it’s impossible to have a conversation with someone who thinks the Torah is the foundation for reason and logic and ethics–it’s the exact opposite!

See below or give Sam Harris a call!
this:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqZMgLgGlYAWvSU8lZ9xiVg
Again, go to Bobby’s GOODGOD channel where he methodically proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Yahweh is demonstrably evil!
BTW: the Torah clearly states that Satan is a servant of God and any Jewish person observing that book knows this to be true.
One cannot get to the Jewish Christian version of Satan without committing incoherent metaphysical contortionism!
Maybe you should seek out a Rabbi! Lol

Gnosticism posits one of the only spiritual schemas that makes any sense out of any of this theological mess and to suggest the incoherence of orthodoxy is more accurate is absurd.

You’re the one making positive claims about the Bible so the burden of proof is on you! You proved nothing here nor does the Torah which only posits a racial supremacist theology and any thinking person with any common sense whatsoever should reject it.
See ya!

Ken Ammi:
It is amazing how many times I have this very same experience: people begin with conclusions, I call them on it, they cannot premise their conclusions, I note that fact, they run away.

“someone who thinks the Torah is the foundation for reason and logic and ethics” tu quoque logical fallacy.

“it’s the exact opposite!” un-argued to conclusion of an assertion.
I featured Harris in my book “Pop-Atheist Bible Expositors”: https://truefreethinker.com/articles/new-book-pop-atheist-bible-expositors
“Yahweh is demonstrably evil!” another jump to conclusions of an assertion without even the ability to define “evil.”

As for what “the Torah clearly states” well, I am a Jew and Satan is not a servant of God but is restricted by God.

“committing incoherent metaphysical contortionism!” which on your worldview would be a problem (even if true) based on what? Another jumped to conclusion of an assertion.

Justify your demand that I have the “burden of proof.”

You are merely jumping to the asserted conclusion that there is something wrong with racism. But how can you say that “the Torah…posits a racial supremacist theology” when it tells us that we are all related via Adam and Eve?

“any thinking person with any common sense whatsoever should reject it” a jumped to assertion of an imperative.

andrewmarkmusic:
Ken we all came from two people who never existed is the height of absurdity and the circular reasoning of saying it’s so because the Torah says it’s so is not reason–it’s illogic.

If we take 1500-years from the early proto-Hebrew to Jesus we should be asking why Yahweh failed to impart the tripartite nature of its being to its people. That is a dismal failure of communication for any God that wants to share honest knowledge with its creation. There is NO GOOD reason not to do so and it’s worse because most Jews today still believe what the Torah says about God–that it’s an ineffable ONENESS and not divided into three.

But metaphysics aside, the issue comes down to the efficacy of religiosity…There may some positive arguments in that regard but I don’t think religion is necessary for healthy living.

Ken Ammi:
Friend, I agree that to claim that “we all came from two people who never existed is the height of absurdity” and I am not aware of anyone who has ever claimed such a thing.

Now, you will recall that I noted “you merely sidestepped how your worldview provides 1) a premise for truth, logic or ethics, 2) for holding to these and 3) for demanding that others do likewise” and you are still sidestepping it.

This means that when you merely emotively and subjectively merely assert that “circular reasoning…is not reason–it’s illogic” you are saying nothing since you have not provide a premise upon which to reach those conclusions to which you merely jumped.

Likewise with your question about the tripartite nature: it is a conclusion based on a foundation that you have yet to lay so have not actually made a point, you merely expressed your emotions de jour.

Not to mention that when it comes to what we Jews believe about God you have clearly not done your homework—such as the classic recognition of the “two powers in heaven” concept, etc. but that discussion cannot even be had until you start at the beginning—as noted above—since, for example you appeal to how you “don’t think” as if your thinking is a universal standard “religion is necessary for healthy living” but you refer to the vague and undefined term “religion” and seek to turn “healthy living” into some sort of standard but, again, as a merely asserted subjective jump to conclusions.

Yet, that ended it as no replies were forthcoming.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.