We continue, from part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5,
We continue, from part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, part 8, part 9, part 10, considering pop-research on the issue of the historical Jesus and Jesus mythicism with regards to some Atheists who have taken to the utterly radical view that Jesus never even existed.
I have been considering Michael Paulkovich and Raphael Lataster and, in this case, I got into a comment section discussion within an article written by YouTube celebrity Atheist AaronRa that was simply titled “Jesus never existed” November 3, 2015 AD.
See my article Historical Jesus – two centuries worth of citations wherein I chronicled 205 texts that reference Jesus dating from pre 70 AD to 200-250 AD.
Note that Rabbi Stuart Federow’s purpose is to “give materials to Jews with which they can respond to the efforts of Christian missionaries” (FYI: sic. on everything the Rabbi wrote). This means he has a bias as, by the way and of course, do we all. Now, his bias goes beyond merely providing data but “shows the errors of Christiantiy.” Again, that is his bias and he is very honest about it. The issue is that having previously admitted to being perfectly aware that, “There is a difference simply because there are different halachic rulings from different rabbis” and that “In the article I wrote, I cited Plenty of rabbis’ Responsas that said” only “what I concluded” as in only that which we wanted to conclude whilst offering no other points of view.
The issue is that he now admits a much more serious bias which is that “For my purpose, there is only one viewpoint.” Well, if there are more than one then choosing one side and, worse yet, pretending that there is only one side, promulgating that there is only one crosses the line from bias to deception.
Note that he noted that “many rabbis write articles and make statements on this issue, without really studying all of the sources” and, apparently, he has studied all of the sources but keeps those which are inconvenient to him hidden away and only promulgates those which make his point. Now, who is worse, a Rabbi that write articles and make statements on this issue, without really studying all of the sources or one that write articles and make statements on this issue, having studying all of the sources and manipulating those sources towards deceptive ends?
In fact, he is even more honest and blunt when stating, “From my perspective this is a war for souls. And i will use whatever i can to win that fight.” I appreciate his concern for souls—apparently those of Gentiles or just those of Christian missionaries or just those of Christian missionaries who claim to be Jews are lost—yet, he is acting deceitfully even whilst condemning “Paul’s dictum to be deceitful” (which is untrue and with which I will deal below in the next segment).
This is why my reply was that which it was, as seen in the previous segment as I appealed to him thusly, in part
I foresee the problem being that a Christian missionary or layperson could easily find information which contradicts your ‘one viewpoint,’ such as just about any Jewish encyclopedia, and that could result in the Jew coming across as not very well informed. It could even lead to Jew to think that they have been misled by the Rabbis to whom they look for guidance.
The issue of there being various Rabbinic opinions is a very important one as Rabbi Stuart Federow employs this claim in order to give himself permission to choose one side. In other words, he appeals to relativism: when there is more than one opinion then simply choose the one which appeals to you.
Yet, such is not the case and in the many statements I have read on “Who is a Jew?” there is generally an obvious distinction between scholarly answers versus those based on emotion, personal opinion, bias and polemics.
Let us consider the Rabbi’s statements before I prove that which I just stated as someone can make a very good arguments and still be in error.
As a starting point, he notes “the ruse that one can be a Jew and a Christian at the same time.” He states that it is a ruse because it is a “lie is made, in order to obtain converts.”
His points about there not being an “organization for ex-catholics called, ‘Baptist Catholics’” or “Muslims With No Mohammad But Rather With Jesus” is faulty as he, himself, notes that in the one case he is referring to hypothetical people who “are also now Baptists” but “claim they remain catholics.” In the other case, he refers to Muslim who “becomes a christian” but claims that “they can still be muslims.”
What of a Jew in the Tanakh manner of describing who is a Jew who then becomes a Rabbinic Jew; are they still a Jew? What of a Rabbinic Jew who becomes a Reform Jew, a Reconstructionist Jew, a Buddhist Jew, an Atheist or Agnostic Jew, etc., etc., etc., are they still a Jew? Yet, the issue is not to ask an agenda driven bias deceitful Rabbi how he would answer these but to note that he is committing a category mistake.