but for paqid, his rigid historical method which calls christianity into question does not apply to his own religion. how convenient and "logical", don't you think?

not like Christians today...they were Gnostic...Eseene, Nazarene etc., not like Christainity of Rome in which most Christians today are apart of or offshoots of the salvation doctrines. Judaism at this time was very sectarian. They had a different Halacha, and understanding than the other sect.

He was baptised when Lysanias was tetrach of Abilene which was until 36bce, his birth coincided with Herod who died 4bce, there was no killing of the innocents, the tradit birth 1ce, his birth coincided with the census 6ce, His bapitsim (which was in the fifteenth year of John's work who also did not exist)coincided with Caiphas who was high priest until 15ce, and with Annas who was high priest beginning in 18ce, separate not together, and coincided with Tiberias's reign 28/29ce and with Pilates rule 29-36ce, the only one who should deconstruct is you.

... your deconstruction of Christianity is spot-on. Kol haKavod!

your "belief(s)" get YOU through the day, but do US who are uniformed, at least NOT as informed as YOU seem to think you are, a favor and start offering some PROOF for all your banter. You, sir/madam are eat up with hate and live in a world OF YOUR OWN. To those of us in the REAL world, well we KNOW that your statements are FALSE and just YOUR way of "making it all better," in YOUR mind. Seek some help, QUICKLY! PEACE

YOU confuse the Crusades with Christianity--NOT! Catholics go by the name of "Christian," but just because a mouse lives in a cookie jar, does NOT make it a cookie. TRUE Christians, er uhh Barbarians as YOU like to call, would NOT have conducted themselves in the manner that the Catholic Church did. Thanks, but you still need to get more AND accurate information. As For Jesus never existing, well one day you WILL see THAT error also, but will be too LATE, I'm afraid! PEACE

then there was no abraham, no moses, no torah, no ling david, no first temple, etc. and what about the jewish claim of the land? gone in a *poof* of historical minimism. you want to go down that road, go all the way down it. if it's fiction, then it ALL is fiction. even teh paqid's logical religion claims.

I see no scholarly proof offered in your diatribes to back anything you say. You sound exactly like Arafat and the Palestinian propaganda machine, who say that there was no temple in Jerusalem. Perhaps you think you are doing the Jews a service by denying Jesus' existence, but you are in fact shooting us in the foot.

based upon the many myths and legends and stories and forgeries and fabrications and rituals of its time, Christianity was a myth first only then accrued so many layers of total falsities, there was no such person, the jews were not involved, it was a story, six million jews were hated and exterminated because of a fictional story.

Come on, mike, there is archaeological evidence that Solomon's Temple existed and there is corroborating textual evidence that the Torah has been around for at least 2300 years. The Jewish claim to the land, with this strong archaeological and textual basis, doesn't need David, Abraham and Moshe to remain valid. As regards Jesus of Nazareth, however, there is no non-circumstantial evidence he ever existed. Even the discovery at Talpiyot doesn't prove anything. Also considering that there is absolutely no textual evidence on Jesus of Nazareth that predates 135CE (115 years (and about 2-3 generations) after the birth of the youngest person who, under halakha, would be able to legally testify to the resurrection) the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth really existed is even more shaky.

who said any of what you said? if you'd READ, this preferred historical method reduces the jewish claim to the land to a long list of peoples. the romans, greeks, egytians, turks, and the most recent claimants: palestinians. take a number and get in line with everyone else. and i notice that you are silent to the list of people i actually wrote about. typical.

Some of the Jewish sects held to "living christ in man", but not the Roman type godman Christian personification. In NT commentary in book of James it is interesting there is never any mention of Jesus of Nazareth? There is no salvation = getting to heaven or escaping Greek underworld of god of hades..... through the atoning blood of a man in the death, resurrection and ascension of a man? He was the brother of Jesus, and part of the Nazarite sect? Leader of the Jerusalem assembly? Don't you think he would have mentioned an assemblance of this type of historic Christianity? Thats because they are not one and the same.

You say :".. Solomon's Temple existed ..". And you say :".. (one) doesn't need David, Abraham and Moshe ..". Dear Joe, you are playing with fire. Reading your above 2 quotes, it appears to me that the existance of the Temple you have accepted -- but the existance of King Solomon you have rejected. Why are you doing that ? You have accepted the Torah (as you have said) -- but you are rejecting Abraham, Moses the Law Giver, King David. Why are you doing that ? IF there was no Moses the Law Giver -- the world would NOT have received the Torah ; there would be no Torah. Dear Joe, you are accepting the Torah -- but you are kicking-out Moses the Law Giver. That is disingeneous towards Moses the Law Giver, don't you think ? You have accepted the First Temple -- but you are kicking-out King Solomon. How, do you think, King Solomon would feel ?? Honour SHOULD be given where honour is due. To kick-out the persons involved -- grateful persons wouldn't do that. BTW if you accept the Torah, you HAVE to accept Abraham, Moses tthe Law Giver, King David, King Solomon, and all the other persons mentioned in the Torah. BTW to reject one is tantamount to rejecting BOTH. BTW you may not have intended that -- but that is what it boils down to.

Here's the catch, mike, the Romans have Rome, the Greeks have Greece, the Egyptians have Egypt the Turks have Turkey (and Azerbaijan, too) and the Palestinians, as a people distinct from other Arabs living in the Levant and therefore "deserving" of their own country, is a work of pure fiction and propaganda. The country provided to their ancestors, both according the League of Nations partition plan and the current demographic reality, is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. As for Abraham, David and Moshe (peace be upon them), whether or not they actually existed does not harm the integrity of Rabbinic Judaism in any way. Whether the Torah is just a document that was pieced together in the 6th Century BCE or handed down in its entirety from Sinai does not harm the integrity of Rabbinic Judaism in any way. What is authoritative in Rabbinic Judaism from a de facto perspective is Mesora- the traditions and customs handed down by the Jewish community for over 3000 years. When you add Jesus of Nazareth into the picture, things get much more tricky because if Jesus never actually existed, there's no way he could be Mashiach. If you're going to maintain the position that if Abraham, David and Moshe (peace be upon them) never existed, then there's no reason to be Jewish, I beg to differ. The very fact that the Holocaust was perpetrated by Germany, the country which was the birthplace of Jewish reform and where most Jews had intermarried, and the fact that Hitler had to go back to 2 generations to define who was Jewish and who wasn't, is proof that although we Jews may discard our heritage, we will always be viewed as Jews by the outside world. The Jewish people is inextricably bound to Torah and haShem whether we like it or not. Besides, casting doubt on Judaism in an effort to divert attention away from breaches in Christianity is intellectually dishonest. If I were a Muslim and answered questions about whether Muhammad actually existed by merely saying that there is no proof that Isa existed, I wouldn't only just be avoiding the issue, I would be punching holes in my own theology.

Let me explain, I believe that Abraham, David and Moshe (peace be upon them) actually existed. What I do not believe, however, is that the Tora is the only piece of evidence of our right to live in this land and that the archaeological evidence indeed puts into concrete terms what the Tora puts into spiritual terms. mike claims the opposite but does it via reductio ad absurdum. If my response to mike gets posted, please read it, if not, I will repost it. Thank you for your concern.

Also, Maansingh, I am grateful for many things, but the thing I am most grateful for is the fact that haShem gave me a brain. It would be a desecration of The Name for me not to use it properly...

so rabbinic judaism is just a cultural and traditional exercise perpetuating their evolving ancient myths for a certain genetic group of people? i'm glad that you at least admit that what we see today has practically no connection with what the tanakh actually says because that's what i have been saying all along.

Anybody can convert to Judaism, so your comment on "ancient myths for a certain genetic group of people" is completely off base. Also, what Rabbinic Judaism is today is very much steeped in the words of the Tanakh- the only thing is that the Tanakh is not the be-all, end-all "Alpha and Omega" of Judaism and Jewish knowledge. You and I both lived in the United States for what appears to be a lengthy period of time. The Tanakh is to Jewish Law and Jewish practice what the US Constitution is to jurisprudence in the United States. Why is it, however, that the minutiae of daily living in the United States has actually very, very little to do with the text of the Constitution? The answer is that the Constitution empowers qualified individuals to create narrower legislation as society evolves. This is called the "Elastic Clause", in case you forgot. What is true for the US Constitution is also true for the Tora- Exodus 18 provides for the establishment of a judiciary and Deuteronomy 16:18 further expounds this appointment of a judiciary, the rulings of which form binding Halakha because the authority of the judges derives from Mt. Sinai.

jewish observance of torah from sinai, in every instance, has resulted in spectacular failure with a capital "F". the rabbinic enterprise is another shining example, which not only frequently contradicts the tanakh, but also often contradicting itself. is that a bug or a feature? and conversion - where in the talmud does it say converts have to perform observance of mitzvot? it doesn't. so, not only do the rabbis admittedly ignore the tanakh, they can't even follow their own "steeped in the words of the tanakh" oral tradition "from sinai". it'd be funny if it weren't so sad. another question: any particular reason you changed the subject and avoided the original discussion?

muslims build mosques ON TOP OF JEWISH TEMPLES, christians build churches ON TOP OF TEMPLES - shame on both!

So I guess if we are to fast forward into the future a couple thousand years and they dig up the Aksa mosque they can chirp on like idiots about how well the Jews and Muslims "got along" due to the fact they had a huge abomination planted on the Temple Mount.