Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Laziness

[Stephan Huller]

No one here besides spin, Joe Wallack and DCH has even an idea about what Judaism is and - in at least one case - what is possible within Judaism. How is it that there is a collective agreement that Christianity is a Gentile phenomenon? It's like hearing the following conversation:

A: 'Paris sucks.'
B: 'You ever been there?'
A: 'No.'
B: 'So how do you know?'
A: 'I don't know. That's what I hear.'
B: 'Oh yeah, I guess so.'
A + B: 'Paris sucks.'
C: 'Really you guys ever been there?'
A + B: 'No but that's what we hear.'
C: 'Yeah, me too.'
A + B + C: 'Paris sucks.'

[Ulan]

Laziness in which regard? If I look at the discussions regarding this question, the definitions are often not clear.
1. What is "Jewish"?
2. What is meant when saying "origin of Christianity"?

You can break each of these questions further down, whether you just consider being circumcised sufficient, being of Palestine origin or from somewhere else, maybe being some kind of Jews far removed from customs in Jerusalem? Which in part also includes the question of native language of the movement, Greek or Aramaic or mixed? Cultural influences?

The second question is also somewhat involved. Was there some Jewish Palestine movement that more or less vanished a few decades after the fall of Jerusalem? Maybe just moved to the East, without further influence on development in the Roman Empire? Did Christianity start with Paul, and more or less Paul alone? Where does Judaism end and Christianity start? Is such a distinction useful in the beginning years?

Are these lazy questions? They are certainly not straightforward to answer. Except if you just say "Jewish origin" means "based on the Tanakh". Well, that's an easy one.

[Stephan Huller]

No 'Jewish' = something to do with Israel, something directed at Israelites, something which emerges from the culture specific to Israelites etc.

[Peter Kirby]

If you disagree with someone, you can start by identifying the exact points of dispute and the best possible body of evidence on each side.

Accusations against unnamed adversaries with vaguely referenced disagreement and no reference to points of evidence...

Pretty useless.

[Stephan Huller]

No I've tried that and there is no response. My example of the people who've never visited a place and pass judgment on said place IMO sums up the difficulty. LEARN FUCKING JEWISH RELIGIOUS HISTORY. Don't rely on people like Carrier for instance who are professors of history but know little or nothing about Jewish religious history as the Jewish community still is in essence a failed theocracy. To make up theories excluding a Jewish origin for Christianity merely because (a) you can't read Hebrew (b) dislike in some form the influence that Judaism and Jewish scripture have had on the West for the last 2000 years and/or [notice I am not saying that any one category applies to everyone] (c) want the creative freedom to make up your own shit disqualifies you from having a theory when Christianity is so obvious dependent on Jewish religious ideas and history.

It's exactly like saying 'Paris sucks' without having ever traveled to Paris. Since Paris is amazing and everyone says it is amazing you have to work hard(er) to disprove the general consensus that Paris is amazing by at least going there

[Peter Kirby]

Is your unwillingness to make your case just laziness?

[Stephan Huller]

Honestly I've got to pick up my son at school in exactly 3 minutes. So it's not laziness as much as it is other commitments. He's very cute and actually listens to everything I say (at least for now) which scares me. His favorite thing to say about the Bible is that God didn't create (the) water which annoys my mother in law.

[Stephan Huller]

And now that the clock is clicking down to a minute. What case needs to be made? Paris is amazing. As I said you have to work hard to disprove that near universal acknowledged fact. To argue that Paris is great makes you seem pedantic. It just is ... until someone comes along and actually goes there and disproves that fact (or generally acknowledged assumption). I don't need 500000 Rick Steves extolling the truth about Paris. It just is an amazing place because I've been there and everyone I know who has ever been there has said the same thing (and I am going there with my son for Euro 2016).

[Stephan Huller]

Now waiting in the car. The question still comes down to can someone who's never been to Paris have a meaningful say in whether or not the conventional view that Paris is amazing is actually true or not?

[Ulan]

The question still comes down to can someone who's never been to Paris have a meaningful say in whether or not the conventional view that Paris is amazing is actually true or not?

Yes. There's enough material out there (books, films, internet, paintings, music, etc.) to come to that conclusion. It's a bit more difficult with the accusation that Paris stinks. We don't have media for that part of the question.

But I think you should drop this example, as it doesn't help. As examples go, it's not really fitting.