6 ms·

"Few people understand that most religions e.g. Judaism and Christianity have an apologetic discipline – a deliberate arm open to debate." Just want to point o

"Few people understand that most religions e.g. Judaism and Christianity have an apologetic discipline – a deliberate arm open to debate." Just want to point out that Jewish apologetics is not the same as Christian apologetics. Christian apologists are working in furtherance of the Christian goal of converting everyone to Christianity. Jewish apologists are working only to prevent other Jews from being swayed by the arguments made by other religions (primarily those from Christian missionaries, who often target Jews specifically). That aside, what makes you think apologetics represents an openness to debate? I cannot speak for Christians, but Jewish apologetics only exists because other groups are trying to lead Jews to conversion to another faith, and apologetics holds little value within the framework of Judaism itself. What non-Jews think of Judaism is irrelevant because proselytizing is not a requirement (it is not forbidden, but it is also not encouraged and conversion is a deliberately difficult process). Judaism certainly has an openness to debate, but the debate is within Judaism itself -- what is the right way to practice the Jewish religion? What is the right way to interpret and understand Jewish holy books? Judaism is not open to debates about the need for Jews to practice Judaism; the covenant between Jews and God is an axiom.

rsj_hn 5y ago
> Jewish apologists are working only to prevent other Jews from being swayed by the arguments made by other religions (primarily those from Christian missionaries, who often target Jews specifically). The Judaism when the Talmud was written was a fanatically proselytizing sect, as is clear if you read the talmud. They created seed outposts all over the Roman empire of new converts, as they sought (and obtained) special dispensation to be the only religion allowed to proselytize in ancient Rome and they had an active missionary service travelling all over the world seeking converts. These missionary efforts were quite successful, spreading judaism to the far reaches of the Roman Empire, creating enclaves of newly converted Jews in the major cities of the Western world. It is these enclaves that were most receptive to Christianity during its initial expansion, and in that period when Christianty was considered another sect of Judaism, the Christians also used the special dispensation given to Jews to gain converts. This created tension, where some of the Jews complained to the Roman authorities that these Christian Jews were not real jews and thus should not be allowed to proselytize under the dispensation alloted to jews. This information also forms the backdrop that helps understand early Christian history. For example, in the first apostolic council recorded in acts, what was meant by saying "Moses is preached in all the synagogues" when referring to new converts in Corinth, Rome, and Ephesus. It is because those new converts were either fully converted jews, themselves converted a few generations previously by Pharisee missionaries, or they were in some other stage of the conversion process, and so they, too, met in Synagogues, even in places like Ephesus, and thus the early Christian missionaries just went from Synagogue to Synagogue all over the Roman Empire, winning over the descendents of converts in communities that were previously won over to judaism. The Pharisee missionary work is also mentioned in the New Testament, when Christ accuses the Pharisees, saying "You travel over land and sea to make one convert and when you do, he is twice the son of hell that you are." This missionary program was so successful that much of the Talmud was written by the children of new converts, in new communities all over the Roman Empire. Rabbi Hillel's famous retort to a man demanding to know the meaning of the Talmud while standing on one leg was in a debate that was attempting to convert his (gentile) questionner to judaism. In fact the background to many of the famous passages in the talmud were attempts at conversion and evangelization. Knowing that is an important part of understanding these passages. These jewish communities also provided sancturary to fleeing Jews after the Romans expelled them from Palestine in the wake of the third revolt - they were taken in by the descendents of new converts created by Pharisees, and these cities became the seed communities of jews in Europe and North Africa. But it is true that modern Judaism does not try to convert others and has become a racial identity as much or moreso than a religious identity, however this was not the case for those rabbis when the mishna was compiled or when the oldest portions of the Gemara were first written.
- vxNsr 5y ago
  As a jew who has studied the talmud extensively I would love to know where the sources for this whole comment are. I've never seen anything even close to this anywhere in the talmud or any history book on the roman empire or jewish history. > Palestine in the wake of the third revolt Oh... now I see you're gaslighting and re-writing history. Your sources will be the same ones Mahmoud Abbas used for his "thesis"
- betterunix2 5y ago
  Proselytizing is not forbidden. It is also not required, and for all that proselytizing activity of the ancient rabbis there is very little in the Talmud that actually discusses seeking out converts and Jews are not actually required to do so. The New Testament makes proselytizing a requirement for every Christian (the Great Commission). Likewise, Christians are called on by the New Testament to engage in apologetics; the Talmud only suggests that Jews should know how to answer a "heretic" (which, as I said, means the debate is only meant to be between Jews) and only (to my knowledge) in Pirkei Avot which does not even have a Gemara. In any case, what difference does it make if Jews in the first and second centuries were proselytizing? The religion changed since then and everyone knows it. Traditions we take for granted today like the Passover Seder had only just started to develop in the second century. There was no Jewish Calendar at that time and there was no canon of scripture (there was a collection of holy writings that overlapped with the Tanakh, but what was actually in that collection depended on who you asked). In this century, and for at least the ten centuries prior (likely longer), Jewish apologetics has only been in response to efforts by non-Jews to convert Jews to other religions, and that is very different from Christian apologetics.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    > Proselytizing is not forbidden. It is also not required, Very few religions require proselytizing. I think Mormons are expected to go on missionary trips, but that's all I'm familiar with. In most religions, missionaries are selected from the group and sent out, so the job of proselytizing is a corporate, not personal job, and the role of "missionary" can mean anything from establishing universities and hospitals in Africa to preaching on a street corner in Atlanta. But no churches I'm aware of require some type of missionary effort from all of their members - maybe I missed one. > In any case, what difference does it make if Jews in the first and second centuries were proselytizing? It continued up through the middle ages, so this is over 1000 years. Pope Gregory famously complained about jews proselytizing, but perhaps he was making it all up. See https://www.jstor.org/stable/24659643 https://www.jstor.org/stable/24659643 and also https://repository.yu.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.12202/6076/Ephraim_Kanarfogel_Conversion_to_Judaism.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://repository.yu.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.12202/6076... In terms of what difference does it make, it's up to you to decide how much you care, I was only pointing out that rabbinical judaism, at least in the past, had similar missionary efforts to Christianity today. You can take that for whatever you want - I don't want to get into a debate as to whether judaism in the 20th Century is the "true" judaism versus judaism in the 10th Century or 5th Century. There are different sects with different beliefs as to what is authentic and what is not. > The New Testament makes proselytizing a requirement for every Christian (the Great Commission). Woah. Even in evangelical churches, the commission applies to corporate bodies and the verb "go" is passive, not active. "Make disciples" is active, e.g. . E.g. "make disciples as you go into the world". Now there are many passages where Paul asks for help to be bold and open his mouth, so it depends on how you define missionary efforts or proselytization. In the early church, would be converts were turned away three times before being admitted in some places, even as there was public preaching and mass baptisms in other places. But there was no general requirement that everyone do these things, rather there were special roles of evangelists who do them, again modelled on the Pharisees and their system. The notion of being "born again" and water baptism - john the baptist for example, these all came from jewish practices. Now today, some evangelical churches have come to interpret a casual relationship in the great commission, in the sense that once there are Christians in every tribe, the end will come, and so to hasten that end they are trying to convert some from every tribe, but I don't think this is a mainstream view or a view that was part of historical Christianity. But I agree there is certainly a practical difference in that there are evangelical churches that actively proselytize and send missionaries out which are funded by church members, but for example Orthodox churches don't do this and they don't interpret the Matthew in the same way as evangelical churches. > There was no Jewish Calendar at that time and there was no canon of scripture There was absolutely a jewish calendar that predates the Babylonian captivity. Most of the content of the book of leviticus is concerned with special feast days and observances, and these must occur at certain times of the year. That requires a calendar. Now regardless of whether you believe the law dates to Jeremiah or Moses, at whatever point in time the law was observed a calendar needed to exist before then.

rsj_hn 5y ago

> Jewish apologists are working only to prevent other Jews from being swayed by the arguments made by other religions (primarily those from Christian missionaries, who often target Jews specifically). The Judaism when the Talmud was written was a fanatically proselytizing sect, as is clear if you read the talmud. They created seed outposts all over the Roman empire of new converts, as they sought (and obtained) special dispensation to be the only religion allowed to proselytize in ancient Rome and they had an active missionary service travelling all over the world seeking converts. These missionary efforts were quite successful, spreading judaism to the far reaches of the Roman Empire, creating enclaves of newly converted Jews in the major cities of the Western world. It is these enclaves that were most receptive to Christianity during its initial expansion, and in that period when Christianty was considered another sect of Judaism, the Christians also used the special dispensation given to Jews to gain converts. This created tension, where some of the Jews complained to the Roman authorities that these Christian Jews were not real jews and thus should not be allowed to proselytize under the dispensation alloted to jews. This information also forms the backdrop that helps understand early Christian history. For example, in the first apostolic council recorded in acts, what was meant by saying "Moses is preached in all the synagogues" when referring to new converts in Corinth, Rome, and Ephesus. It is because those new converts were either fully converted jews, themselves converted a few generations previously by Pharisee missionaries, or they were in some other stage of the conversion process, and so they, too, met in Synagogues, even in places like Ephesus, and thus the early Christian missionaries just went from Synagogue to Synagogue all over the Roman Empire, winning over the descendents of converts in communities that were previously won over to judaism. The Pharisee missionary work is also mentioned in the New Testament, when Christ accuses the Pharisees, saying "You travel over land and sea to make one convert and when you do, he is twice the son of hell that you are." This missionary program was so successful that much of the Talmud was written by the children of new converts, in new communities all over the Roman Empire. Rabbi Hillel's famous retort to a man demanding to know the meaning of the Talmud while standing on one leg was in a debate that was attempting to convert his (gentile) questionner to judaism. In fact the background to many of the famous passages in the talmud were attempts at conversion and evangelization. Knowing that is an important part of understanding these passages. These jewish communities also provided sancturary to fleeing Jews after the Romans expelled them from Palestine in the wake of the third revolt - they were taken in by the descendents of new converts created by Pharisees, and these cities became the seed communities of jews in Europe and North Africa. But it is true that modern Judaism does not try to convert others and has become a racial identity as much or moreso than a religious identity, however this was not the case for those rabbis when the mishna was compiled or when the oldest portions of the Gemara were first written.

vxNsr 5y ago
As a jew who has studied the talmud extensively I would love to know where the sources for this whole comment are. I've never seen anything even close to this anywhere in the talmud or any history book on the roman empire or jewish history. > Palestine in the wake of the third revolt Oh... now I see you're gaslighting and re-writing history. Your sources will be the same ones Mahmoud Abbas used for his "thesis"
betterunix2 5y ago
Proselytizing is not forbidden. It is also not required, and for all that proselytizing activity of the ancient rabbis there is very little in the Talmud that actually discusses seeking out converts and Jews are not actually required to do so. The New Testament makes proselytizing a requirement for every Christian (the Great Commission). Likewise, Christians are called on by the New Testament to engage in apologetics; the Talmud only suggests that Jews should know how to answer a "heretic" (which, as I said, means the debate is only meant to be between Jews) and only (to my knowledge) in Pirkei Avot which does not even have a Gemara. In any case, what difference does it make if Jews in the first and second centuries were proselytizing? The religion changed since then and everyone knows it. Traditions we take for granted today like the Passover Seder had only just started to develop in the second century. There was no Jewish Calendar at that time and there was no canon of scripture (there was a collection of holy writings that overlapped with the Tanakh, but what was actually in that collection depended on who you asked). In this century, and for at least the ten centuries prior (likely longer), Jewish apologetics has only been in response to efforts by non-Jews to convert Jews to other religions, and that is very different from Christian apologetics.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  > Proselytizing is not forbidden. It is also not required, Very few religions require proselytizing. I think Mormons are expected to go on missionary trips, but that's all I'm familiar with. In most religions, missionaries are selected from the group and sent out, so the job of proselytizing is a corporate, not personal job, and the role of "missionary" can mean anything from establishing universities and hospitals in Africa to preaching on a street corner in Atlanta. But no churches I'm aware of require some type of missionary effort from all of their members - maybe I missed one. > In any case, what difference does it make if Jews in the first and second centuries were proselytizing? It continued up through the middle ages, so this is over 1000 years. Pope Gregory famously complained about jews proselytizing, but perhaps he was making it all up. See https://www.jstor.org/stable/24659643 https://www.jstor.org/stable/24659643 and also https://repository.yu.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.12202/6076/Ephraim_Kanarfogel_Conversion_to_Judaism.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://repository.yu.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.12202/6076... In terms of what difference does it make, it's up to you to decide how much you care, I was only pointing out that rabbinical judaism, at least in the past, had similar missionary efforts to Christianity today. You can take that for whatever you want - I don't want to get into a debate as to whether judaism in the 20th Century is the "true" judaism versus judaism in the 10th Century or 5th Century. There are different sects with different beliefs as to what is authentic and what is not. > The New Testament makes proselytizing a requirement for every Christian (the Great Commission). Woah. Even in evangelical churches, the commission applies to corporate bodies and the verb "go" is passive, not active. "Make disciples" is active, e.g. . E.g. "make disciples as you go into the world". Now there are many passages where Paul asks for help to be bold and open his mouth, so it depends on how you define missionary efforts or proselytization. In the early church, would be converts were turned away three times before being admitted in some places, even as there was public preaching and mass baptisms in other places. But there was no general requirement that everyone do these things, rather there were special roles of evangelists who do them, again modelled on the Pharisees and their system. The notion of being "born again" and water baptism - john the baptist for example, these all came from jewish practices. Now today, some evangelical churches have come to interpret a casual relationship in the great commission, in the sense that once there are Christians in every tribe, the end will come, and so to hasten that end they are trying to convert some from every tribe, but I don't think this is a mainstream view or a view that was part of historical Christianity. But I agree there is certainly a practical difference in that there are evangelical churches that actively proselytize and send missionaries out which are funded by church members, but for example Orthodox churches don't do this and they don't interpret the Matthew in the same way as evangelical churches. > There was no Jewish Calendar at that time and there was no canon of scripture There was absolutely a jewish calendar that predates the Babylonian captivity. Most of the content of the book of leviticus is concerned with special feast days and observances, and these must occur at certain times of the year. That requires a calendar. Now regardless of whether you believe the law dates to Jeremiah or Moses, at whatever point in time the law was observed a calendar needed to exist before then.