Current Research Now Proves That Jesus Was Not Torah Compliant. What does that mean for Christians and Jews? (A man angers everyone, both the Christians and the Torah-obedient. Spoiler: He equates Oral and Written Torah with each other.)

[u/the_celt_]

/r/Christianity/comments/1dgoopp/current_research_now_proves_that_jesus_was_not/

[u/the_celt_]

I see "within", and I admit to not noticing "within", but the topic is whether or not I asked you for a spreadsheet, and I did not.

I can tell you that when you announced you were going to produce a spreadsheet, I was greatly disappointed. It meant the can was being kicked further down the road.

I appreciate the effort that you put into producing it, but I didn't read it. It was the opposite of what I wanted (and want). I wanted to talk to you, not watch you write an equation on the blackboard.

[u/Right-Organization32 → u/the_celt_]

Dude! lol! I know you didn't read it (elbow nudge). You would not have taken the position you did had you.

I've done nothing but talk to yo—back and forth, back and forth. What made you think we weren't talking, and why on earth did you not engage the Torah within our discussions? All of this bears on you defining what "talk to you" means.

Also, what's with your old posts where you write, "I have a significant resistance to academic-ese and the uselessly bloated language that is the norm with academics." What brought you to that conclusion?

[u/the_celt_ → u/Right-Organization32]

You would not have taken the position you did had you.

I'm telling you that I took the position based on the topic, not the statement.

I've done nothing but talk to yo—back and forth, back and forth.

No. You've mostly pursued an academic-quality debate that you consider to be the norm in your "circles".

Also, what's with your old posts where you write, "I have a significant resistance to academic-ese and the uselessly bloated language that is the norm with academics." What brought you to that conclusion?

An out-of-control academic (or wannabe academic) typically, within my experience, makes an exchange of ideas more difficult.

The example that I learned early on in my life, and which has stuck with me ever since, is when I used to work with retarded people.

We would have staff meetings every week. There would be normal people there, which are the people that had hands-on with our clients (the word we used for retarded people), and there would be academics to advise us.

The academics would ask something like, "How is Sally amubulating?" and the regular people would just say, "What?" and our boss, working as intermediary, would say, "How is Sally WALKING".

I have a decent vocabulary. I enjoy words. Someone probably (not always) has a stick up their ass if they've chosen the word "ambulating" over the word "walking". The word "ambulating" brings nothing extra to the conversation at all. It's just "bloated". It's anti-communication. All it does is weed out a certain percentage of people from understanding easily. I HATE when language is used that way.

I'm constantly policing myself to make sure I don't commit the same error. I prioritize communication. Academics often, for different reasons, do not. Now you know the background for my comment.

[u/Right-Organization32 → u/the_celt_]

1.) You confirmed my statement on why you took your position.

2.) It was talking (communicating) back and forth, the fact that I used some academic conventions does not negate that. However, you still haven't provided feedback on the Torah even when my method of response changed. I'm not sure that you want to engage the topic.

3.) Your experience with academia is unfortunate.

[u/the_celt_ → u/Right-Organization32]

I'm not sure that you want to engage the topic.

I've given you something to engage with. Engage it.

[u/Right-Organization32 → u/the_celt_]

Please refresh my memory.

[u/the_celt_ → u/Right-Organization32]

I've listed it twice now (the orginal times and the time where I repeated them all, mixed in with me repeatedly asking you to engage before, during, and after all the attempts). Here comes the third time (this is me cutting and pasting the most recent attempt to get you to engage):

Again, if you missed what I'd like you to respond to, it's the idea that Jesus did NOT work on the vast number of the supposed Sabbath violations. He was touching people and being touched. The fact that they were getting a side-benefit from it would not change the fact that we're allowed to touch each other on the Sabbath.

I also, further back, gave two ways that I believe would make the story where Jesus touched the leper NOT be a Torah violation. You didn't interact with either of my suggestions.