Anti-Imperialism & Anti-Humanist Rhetoric of Gilad Atzmon

[barracuda]

Hey, whaddya expect - NewYorkJew and and NorCalDude were wittering about Catholic Atheists to LapsedIrishCatholic. May the Saints Preserve Us.

That's not really fair - I told you my grandfather was from Kentucky. 'Round these parts, that makes me as Irish Catholic as anyone else.

[compared2what?]

Look at all the intellectual dishonest effort you put into lynching Gilad Atzmon for thought crimes, based on stuff you make up. Including this:

The halakhah is not the same thing as the mitzvot. It is, in fact, an entirely different entity.

Really?

At the heart of halakhah is the unchangeable 613 mitzvot (commandments) that G-d gave to the Jewish people in the Torah (the first five books of the Bible). Judaism 101

Yes, really. Try "At the heart of the Eucharist is Jesus' instruction to the apostles at the Last Supper, as recorded in the Gospels."

Is the Eucharist now the same thing as the New Testament? Or are the two still entirely different texts, each with its own author, function, provenance, meaning and purpose?

I know, right?

Well. Same applies to the halakhah and the mitzvot. Because, believe it or not, you can't just say that Judaism is what you want it to be, simply to win an argument! It exists objectively!

Yes, it does exist objectively, and according to the Jewish Virtual Library, the halakhah is the broader system of Jewish laws, which includes but is not limited to the 613 commandments. It is certainly not "an entirely different entity", as you keep insisting, for some reason.

Yes, it is.

Have you really been reduced to arguing that it's not "entirely different" on the grounds that they're both part of the broader system of Jewish laws -- AKA "JUDAISM"?

Please listen to me carefully:

You were wrong. That's frequently a consequence of speaking about stuff you don't know or understand. Learn to live with it.

The word "halakhah" (from the root halakh, "to go"), the legal side of Judaism... embraces personal, social, national, and international relationships, and all the other practices and observances of Judaism.
...
DOGMATICS OF THE HALAKHAH

Sources of Authority

Like other legal systems, the halakhah is composed of different elements, not all of equal value, since some are regarded as of Sinaitic origin and others of rabbinical. Five sources can be differentiated:

THE WRITTEN LAW

According to the traditional concept of halakhic Judaism, the Written Law is not a collection of legal, religious, ethical statutes and the like deriving from separate sources, but a law uniform in nature and content and a revelation of the will of God – a revelation that was a single non-recurring historical event (at Sinai). This law is considered to be a book of commandments, positive and negative, numbering 613 (see *Commandments, the 613). Link

Try "At the heart of the Eucharist is Jesus' instruction to the apostles at the Last Supper, as recorded in the Gospels."

Is the Eucharist now the same thing as the New Testament? Or are the two still entirely different texts, each with its own author, function, provenance, meaning and purpose?

The Eucharist is not a text, or a legal system, but a ritual ceremony that commemorates an event described in the New Testament, which is a text. Obviously, they really are two separate things.

I hesitated briefly over the word "text," actually. Not because it's wrong. I've just never really liked that particular usage. It's unlovely. Speaking of which:

text (tkst)
n.
1.
a. The original words of something written or printed, as opposed to a paraphrase, translation, revision, or condensation.
b. The words of a speech appearing in print.
c. Words, as of a libretto, that are set to music in a composition.
d. Words treated as data by a computer.
2. The body of a printed work as distinct from headings and illustrative matter on a page or from front and back matter in a book.
3. One of the editions or forms of a written work: After examining all three manuscripts, he published a new text of the poem.
4. Something, such as a literary work or other cultural product, regarded as an object of critical analysis.
5. A passage from the Scriptures or another authoritative source chosen for the subject of a discourse or cited for support in argument.
6. A passage from a written work used as the starting point of a discussion.
7. A subject; a topic.
8. A textbook.

Text (literary theory)

A text, within literary theory, is a coherent set of symbols that transmits some kind of informative message. This set of symbols is considered in terms of the informative message's content, rather than in terms of its physical form or the medium in which it is represented. In the most basic terms established by structuralist criticism, therefore, a "text" is any object that can be "read," whether this object is a work of literature, a street sign, an arrangement of buildings on a city block, or styles of clothing. (link

I hope that helps. Sorry for spamming my response with what probably looks like padding, though. Getting back to the text:

The Eucharist is not a text, or a legal system, but a ritual ceremony that commemorates an event described in the New Testament, which is a text. Obviously, they really are two separate things.

Yeah. I assumed that you got that.

In Judaism, the halakhah and the mitzvot are comparably obviously separate. Or "equivalently." Or "similarly." As I said earlier, the liturgy/scripture analogy is not exact. However, we're on terrain that simply doesn't come equipped with the material of which exact analogies are made. So a meaningfully illustrative, instructive, and informative analogy that's appropriately qualified, clear and accurate will just have to do.

I always thought I liked teaching.

[AlicetheKurious]

the halakhah is the broader system of Jewish laws, which includes but is not limited to the 613 commandments. It is certainly not "an entirely different entity", as you keep insisting, for some reason.

We're now onto the second page of listening to an Egyptian Coptic Christian lecturing a New York Jew on the subtleties of Jewish law, as if we'd been transported to Bizarro World.

Not at all: the quote you posted, as are your tiresome ad hominems, was totally irrelevant.

Are the 613 commandments listed in the Torah binding or not, according to the Torah itself? Yes.

Do Orthodox Jews (or "observant Jews") consider them binding across time and place? Yes.

Does the halakha, or Jewish law, include as an integral part of it, the complete and unchanged 613 commandments? Yes.

These are not "subtleties", these are simple statements of fact, which I learned from authoritative Jewish sources, not from my own knowledge. I have provided links to these sources.

Yet, I am being told that they are false, that they are "lies", and that I am "wrong" by people who have not bothered to provide ONE source that actually says so.

You don't have to be an expert on 'the subtleties of Jewish law' to smell bullshit.

[AlicetheKurious]

Whether or not you accept that Jesus was a historical person, there can be no doubt that there was indeed a "message" based on teachings attributed to him, spreading by word of mouth among common people and by traveling preachers under the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero, who ruled from AD 54 to 68, long before there was any Church in the institutional sense.

These are assumptions on your part, Alice. Surprisingly for many, shockingly for some, there can in fact be great doubt about them — and there should be.

Actual evidence from this time — that there was any central "message," except for pre-existent Pagan ones later incorporated into what would become the kerygma of the institutional Church — is troublingly, sometimes appallingly, absent.

That's not true, Simulist:

The first Christians in Egypt were common people who spoke Egyptian Coptic.[5] There were also Alexandrian Jews such as Theophilus, whom Saint Luke the Evangelist addresses in the introductory chapter of his gospel. When the church was founded by Saint Mark[6] during the reign of the Roman emperor Nero, a great multitude of native Egyptians (as opposed to Greeks or Jews) embraced the Christian faith.[5]

Christianity spread throughout Egypt within half a century of Saint Mark's arrival in Alexandria, as is clear from the New Testament writings found in Bahnasa, in Middle Egypt, which date around the year AD 200, and a fragment of the Gospel of John, written in Coptic, which was found in Upper Egypt and can be dated to the first half of the 2nd century. In the 2nd century, Christianity began to spread to the rural areas, and scriptures were translated into the local language, namely Coptic. Link

In other words, by the first half of the 2nd century, Jesus' teachings had already spread from Palestine to Egypt's north (Alexandria), to Egypt's south (Upper Egypt) among the common people, long before the Church existed as a formal institution.

[compared2what?]

When Gilad Atzmon uses the word "religious" in reference to Judaism, clearly, he means Orthodox Judaism, which is the only one based on the explicitly binding and eternal commandments contained in the Torah. You may agree or disagree with his equating "religious" with "Orthodox", but he's certainly not 'lying' -- he's defining 'religious' the way it is officially defined and widely understood in the Jewish state, in which he was born and raised.

If he means "Orthodox" when he says "religious," he should say "Orthodox" and not "religious," if he's at all interested in accurately conveying information to the reader. They do not mean the same thing.

Well, there I agree with you: he should have been more careful to use the term "Orthodox" rather than "religious", which is probably the common usage he's familiar with.

Israelis who are fluent in English speak the same language as we do. The word "religious" is not used to mean "Orthodox" in Israel any more commonly than it is anywhere else.

des·per·ate
   [des-per-it, -prit]
adjective
1.
reckless or dangerous because of despair or urgency: a desperate killer.
2.
having an urgent need, desire, etc.: desperate for attention.
3.
leaving little or no hope; very serious or dangerous: a desperate illness.
4.
extremely bad; intolerable or shocking: clothes in desperate taste.
5.
extreme or excessive.

____________

Though, apparently, it's not so unusual; the Wiki article on Orthodox Judaism mentions that "Orthodox Jews are also called "observant Jews". ("Observant" means the same as "religious", right?)

No, I wouldn't say so. In an anecdotal context, you could use one or the other to convey more or less the same general thing. But that doesn't make them synonyms. It just makes them two means to the same general end for anecdotal purposes. At the end of the day, an observant person is not necessarily a religious person and a religious person is not necessarily an observant person.

But the whole question seems like kind of a frantic diversion, if you ask me. Because he didn't actually use the word "religious" anywhere in the relevant portion of the TEXT we're discussing:

Unlike Christianity and Islam, Judaism is a non-reformist religion. In Judaism there is no room for a single change or even minor modification. Judaism is a sealed list of 613 commandments (Mitzvas) that must be followed strictly.

True, he uses it in the next sentence:

From a Judaic (i.e. religious) point of view, to depart from Judaism is in practice to form a new Church.

But there's no need for those who wonder what he means by that usage to turn to his fans and channelers to supply them with a gloss. Because it already is a gloss. Evidently, it means "Judaic."

Even more than that, though, it's utterly, totally, and completely irrelevant whether he meant "Orthodox" when he didn't use the word "religious." This...

Unlike Christianity and Islam, Judaism is a non-reformist religion. In Judaism there is no room for a single change or even minor modification. Judaism is a sealed list of 613 commandments (Mitzvas) that must be followed strictly. From a Judaic (i.e. religious) point of view, to depart from Judaism is in practice to form a new Church.

...defines Judaism as "a sealed list of 613 commandments," which it isn't, for the Orthodox -- who are not a monolithic group -- or anyone else. It states that the 613 mitzvot "must be followed strictly," which is so absurd as to be almost meaningless, tbh, in light of what the mitzvot actually are. And that's true no matter who he's talking about. Because:

There are NO JEWS who follow the (unsealed list of) 613 commandments to which he's referring strictly, with no room for a single change or even minor modification. That would be literally impossible, even if it weren't antithetical to the Judaic (ie, Judaic) approach to religious understanding, which is both inherently interpretative (ie, subject to interpretation), active (ie, dynamic, ongoing) and -- to a greater or lesser extent -- progressive (ie, subject to change over time, according to circumstance.) And that applies to every extant (and, afaik, every now-defunct) form of Judaism there is. Including all Orthodox schools. And not excluding the Haredi, who do believe that the progression inherent to their faith is in abeyance at the moment, but who do also confidently expect it to resume.***

Nobody (ie, NOBODY) who had grown up Jewish and knew what Judaism was could possibly, imaginably, conceivably think that it was true, fair or accurate to define or characterize the Jewish religion as Atzmon does. Because that definition/characterization does not remotely resemble any real practice or belief. In fact, it conflicts with all of them. Anybody (ie, ANYBODY) who did characterize or define Judaism this way...

Unlike Christianity and Islam, Judaism is a non-reformist religion. In Judaism there is no room for a single change or even minor modification. Judaism is a sealed list of 613 commandments (Mitzvas) that must be followed strictly. From a Judaic (i.e. religious) point of view, to depart from Judaism is in practice to form a new Church.

...would therefore either have to be a witting, intentional liar, or literally incapable of coherent thought and expression. And while I do try to be charitable, in Atzmon's case, that means:


__________

*** This might be a little too nuanced for your newly low threshold of comprehension, but the reason they've called a halt on changes to the Mitzvot is actually that they see that as the swiftest, surest means to the resumption of progress.

[compared2what?]

Come to think of it, even leaving what I said aside, that wiki entry actually shows Atzmon's assertion to have been false and unreliable on more general grounds, all on its own. Doesn't it? Weird that it didn't register with you, huh?

Anyway. Long story short. Atzmon is L-Y-I-N-G. He's a lying, lying liar. Telling lies. Lyingly. You can look it up.

That's ridiculous: the wiki article describes different strains of thought and emphases within Orthodox Judaism, but nowhere does it contradict its own (not my or Gilad Atzmon's) statement. This is the direct quote:

Orthodox Judaism's central belief is that Torah, including the Oral Law, was given directly from God to Moses and applies in all times and places. Link

Nowhere in its discussion of diversity within Orthodox Judaism does it say that any branch of Orthodox Judaism disputes the binding and eternal validity of the 613 commandments, contrary to what you keep insisting is true, as part of your effort to malign and discredit Atzmon.

I'm not making an effort to malign him at all.

I am making an effort to discredit him. But that's because he's discreditable, objectively. It's not, like, out of some kind of personal vendetta.

As I've said from the start, he's pushing a line of demonstrably false and destructive propaganda with a very long pedigree of being lethally dangerous to those implicated by it. What's the point in denying it? As a direct consequence of the bullshit Atzmon's peddling -- and however irksome it may be to admit that some groups are historically more at risk than others -- the Nazis really did lose more than the Allies, in terms of life and liberty. A lot more. And that shit's permanent. Or at least very long-lasting.

I take that seriously. Never again, and so forth. It's not about anything as petty or personal as malice. You're making a grave mistake. I seek to correct it, as a matter of moral imperative. That's really why I'm being so tenacious about it. Pathetic though it is to admit.

[compared2what?]

the halakhah is the broader system of Jewish laws, which includes but is not limited to the 613 commandments. It is certainly not "an entirely different entity", as you keep insisting, for some reason.

We're now onto the second page of listening to an Egyptian Coptic Christian lecturing a New York Jew on the subtleties of Jewish law, as if we'd been transported to Bizarro World.

Not at all: the quote you posted, as are your tiresome ad hominems, was totally irrelevant.

Are the 613 commandments listed in the Torah binding or not, according to the Torah itself? Yes.

Do Orthodox Jews (or "observant Jews") consider them binding across time and place? Yes.

Does the halakha, or Jewish law, include as an integral part of it, the complete and unchanged 613 commandments? Yes.

These are not "subtleties", these are simple statements of fact, which I learned from authoritative Jewish sources, not from my own knowledge. I have provided links to these sources.

It's that last part where the problem is. Because they're simple statements of fact that don't mean the halakhah and the mitzvot are the same thing. And it would be irrelevant even if they did. Atzmon never even referred to the halakhah. That was your error. Besides which, there is nothing (ie, nothing) that makes this...

Unlike Christianity and Islam, Judaism is a non-reformist religion. In Judaism there is no room for a single change or even minor modification. Judaism is a sealed list of 613 commandments (Mitzvas) that must be followed strictly.

...remotely true. No amount of footnoting or explaining what he really meant could possibly achieve such an end. Unless you could use it to argue that by "Judaism," he didn't mean Judaism; that by "a sealed list of 613 commandments (Mitzvas)" he didn't mean the mitzvot; that by "non-reformist," he didn't mean non-reformist; that by "strictly," he didn't mean strictly; and so on -- that by "change," he meant "banana"; and that by "modification," he meant "area rug," etc. -- that's just a ludicrous, laughable and false statement, which nobody who wasn't stone ignorant of the subject would either make or believe.

It's a lie. And that's just a simple statement of fact. Sorry.

You don't have to be an expert on 'the subtleties of Jewish law' to smell bullshit.

No. You really don't. It's pretty elementary.

[compared2what?]

Yet, I am being told that they are false, that they are "lies", and that I am "wrong" by people who have not bothered to provide ONE source that actually says so.

That's funny. It honestly didn't occur to me to provide a source. The distinctions that we're talking about are such basic, non-arcane matters of universal and commonly acknowledged fact -- and so undisputed by anyone -- that they don't rise above the level of vocabulary, really. There's no more reason to source them than there is for you to provide links to pictures of a missal, the act of Holy Communion, and the bible when speaking of the Eucharist and the Last Supper.

I mean, as you say, they're obviously separate things.

That's my point.

[compared2what?]

C2W? wrote...

as we went about our rigorous little task of ascertaining whether Jews are as monotonously and monstrously self-regarding and unreflective as some say they are or not –

What I read into this is that you consider that Gilad and by extension, those polarized into his ‘camp’, are suggesting that Jews as a group lack introspection.

Nah, I meant Atzmon. And originally, I wrote "Atzmon." I changed it to "some" to avoid repetition in some mad, heedless moment of forgetting that I lived in a world the beauty and richness of which would be significantly lessened if it did not include your discerning readership.

No wonder you are offended.

I'm not, really. My concerns with Atzmon are a lot more extensive and fundamental than the question of whether anyone's feelings might be at risk of being hurt. I don't really aim to avoid hurt feelings, above all other things. I mean, naturally, I aim to avoid unnecessary hurt feelings, in the usual way. But the truth sometimes hurts. And when that's the case, there's nothing better to be done about it than address them as hurtful truths. But it's not the case, wrt 99 percent of what Atzmon says. Because they're not truths. Meaningfully.

Gilad would suggest that third category Jews are racist and on that account that portion of Jews lack some introspection. Not all Jews.

I stand by the fairness and adequacy of my characterization of his views.

This usage of Philip Roth here is nicely illustrative of a focused critique, versus one with superfluous and unnecessarily incendiary elements.

One small point, perhaps justly to be lost amongst bigger issues, is that influential thinkers are oftentimes incorrect in regard to major specific elements but they still come to be respected because they influenced the reframing of a particular problem in a way that caught on with the general population.

Thankfully this is not something to fear in regard to TG/AD at least.

Synchronistically enough I did work this week and last for a Jewish couple from South Africa where the husband is a philosophy prof. (working on political transitions) and the wife is a politically informed and astute (unemployed) art prof. I enjoyed so much hearing about their views and path in life.

Disagreement on a certain point in no way tainted our goodwill toward each other as this was far outweighed by items of mutual interest and agreement. The husband’s impression was that my thing was all on about the ‘obscurity of motivations’ and pragmatism. Both seemed to listen well as I explained my advocating for guerrilla ontology.

(The wife expressed support for the Zionist project, although of a weak variety, so while we disagree, she presented her reasoning and I can see that she simply applies her introspection in a different direction.)

The give and take of face to face engagements is so much more fluid and respectful than what is found on this interweb, that I do sometimes wonder if this is useful at all.

It has its pros and cons, if only because written language does relative to spoken language, and vice versa. But I guess I agree with the gist of what you just said more than I disagree with it.

[AlicetheKurious]

That's funny. It honestly didn't occur to me to provide a source.

Oh, dear! It honestly didn't occur to you to provide a source to back up your claim, about which we've been arguing for pages now, which contradicts the sources I did provide, provng that the 613 commandments, complete and unchanged, form an integral part of halakha?

Well, now it should occur to you. Provide a credible source that says different.

The distinctions that we're talking about are such basic, non-arcane matters of universal and commonly acknowledged fact -- and so undisputed by anyone -- that they don't rise above the level of vocabulary, really.

Really? For barracuda, they constituted "the subtleties of Jewish law". Either way, I provided sources to back up my claim, so it should be a 'cakewalk' for you to provide at least one credible source to back up yours.

[Simulist]

Whether or not you accept that Jesus was a historical person, there can be no doubt that there was indeed a "message" based on teachings attributed to him, spreading by word of mouth among common people and by traveling preachers under the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero, who ruled from AD 54 to 68, long before there was any Church in the institutional sense.

These are assumptions on your part, Alice. Surprisingly for many, shockingly for some, there can in fact be great doubt about them — and there should be.

Actual evidence from this time — that there was any central "message," except for pre-existent Pagan ones later incorporated into what would become the kerygma of the institutional Church — is troublingly, sometimes appallingly, absent.

That's not true, Simulist:

The first Christians in Egypt were common people who spoke Egyptian Coptic.[5] There were also Alexandrian Jews such as Theophilus, whom Saint Luke the Evangelist addresses in the introductory chapter of his gospel. When the church was founded by Saint Mark[6] during the reign of the Roman emperor Nero, a great multitude of native Egyptians (as opposed to Greeks or Jews) embraced the Christian faith.[5]

Christianity spread throughout Egypt within half a century of Saint Mark's arrival in Alexandria, as is clear from the New Testament writings found in Bahnasa, in Middle Egypt, which date around the year AD 200, and a fragment of the Gospel of John, written in Coptic, which was found in Upper Egypt and can be dated to the first half of the 2nd century. In the 2nd century, Christianity began to spread to the rural areas, and scriptures were translated into the local language, namely Coptic. Link

In other words, by the first half of the 2nd century, Jesus' teachings had already spread from Palestine to Egypt's north (Alexandria), to Egypt's south (Upper Egypt) among the common people, long before the Church existed as a formal institution.

Well, that article certainly proves something: it proves that Wikipedia is about as reliable as those who get their stuff on it. (And that those who get their stuff on Wikipedia seem to believe pretty much everything they were told in Sunday School.*)

But more to the point: even if everything in that travesty of an article is true, it does nothing to shore up your claim that there was "a message" (not several messages, each competing for acceptance within the many evolving forms of the institutional Church, but "A MESSAGE") based on “the teachings attributed to Jesus” and that this “original message” existed as far back as 54 CE.

But if you want to believe that there was, there are three things I will say: (1) you have a whole lot of company, (2) all that company put together will not be able to prove this claim, and (3) believing what you want is your right, and theirs.

[As modern scholarship continues to indicate: there appear to have been many “Jesus messages” circulating at that time — and several starkly different, each from the other — and many forms of the institutional Church, all of which were evolving. It is not possible to separate these evolving messages from the evolving forms of the institutional Church from which they budded forth.]

_________
* Oh. And that footnotes on Wikipedia may look all “scholar-like,” but they are often both spurious and sometimes even link to nothing whatsoever.

[barracuda]

Really? For barracuda, they constituted "the subtleties of Jewish law". Either way, I provided sources to back up my claim, so it should be a 'cakewalk' for you to provide at least one credible source to back up yours.

I gave you several sources, including a horse's mouth or two. You didn't like them, so you probably didn't even read them.

Not at all: the quote you posted, as are your tiresome ad hominems, was totally irrelevant.

Actually, neither the quote I provided nor the non-frivolous ad hominems I furnished for your edification and amusement were irrelevant. They are both entirely relevant, as well as startlingly on point. That you don't understand why simply makes you look like a dork as far as I can tell. Just for a refresher, I believe this is the conversational snippet being referenced here:

Look at all the intellectual dishonest effort you put into lynching Gilad Atzmon for thought crimes, based on stuff you make up. Including this:

The halakhah is not the same thing as the mitzvot. It is, in fact, an entirely different entity.

The statement of compared2what? being what you continue to dispute. My quote:

Halakhah is interpretation of scripture with ideas and descriptions on how to live out the commandments. It is a way of application of Torah to everyday life. Halakhah may differ from teacher to teacher and from family to family.

...seems relevant to me. But feel free to point me to an actual halakhah which supports your disputation, as I did.

You don't have to be an expert on 'the subtleties of Jewish law' to smell bullshit.

That's for sure. Somethin's been wafting over from Alexandria since the quite early on in the thread. Not just bullshit, though. There's some other, more sinister, odiferousness mixed in there too.

[compared2what?]

Whether or not you accept that Jesus was a historical person, there can be no doubt that there was indeed a "message" based on teachings attributed to him, spreading by word of mouth among common people and by traveling preachers under the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero, who ruled from AD 54 to 68, long before there was any Church in the institutional sense.

These are assumptions on your part, Alice. Surprisingly for many, shockingly for some, there can in fact be great doubt about them — and there should be.

Actual evidence from this time — that there was any central "message," except for pre-existent Pagan ones later incorporated into what would become the kerygma of the institutional Church — is troublingly, sometimes appallingly, absent.

That's not true, Simulist:

The first Christians in Egypt were common people who spoke Egyptian Coptic.[5] There were also Alexandrian Jews such as Theophilus, whom Saint Luke the Evangelist addresses in the introductory chapter of his gospel. When the church was founded by Saint Mark[6] during the reign of the Roman emperor Nero, a great multitude of native Egyptians (as opposed to Greeks or Jews) embraced the Christian faith.[5]

Christianity spread throughout Egypt within half a century of Saint Mark's arrival in Alexandria, as is clear from the New Testament writings found in Bahnasa, in Middle Egypt, which date around the year AD 200, and a fragment of the Gospel of John, written in Coptic, which was found in Upper Egypt and can be dated to the first half of the 2nd century. In the 2nd century, Christianity began to spread to the rural areas, and scriptures were translated into the local language, namely Coptic. Link

In other words, by the first half of the 2nd century, Jesus' teachings had already spread from Palestine to Egypt's north (Alexandria), to Egypt's south (Upper Egypt) among the common people, long before the Church existed as a formal institution.

Unless you take the Gospel of John as a conveyance of Jesus' teachings that was somehow more original than itself in the 2nd century, I'm not sure what bearing its having been extant then really has on the question at hand. It's a canonical gospel and -- doctrinally speaking -- the most generally institutional-hierarchy compatible of the four, as well as considerably the most subsequent to events -- ie, the Passion, etcs -- of the four, wrt date of authorship.

I'm not trying to be quarrelsome, however. I just like ecclesiastical history. So. If your point is historical, and it's that there's evidence that Christianity was widely practiced -- albeit in some form that's not certainly knowable in the present, with any precision -- in the period before the formal institution of the church, I definitely agree. If it's that there's evidence that a form of Christianity that was truer to the original teachings of Jesus than that incorporated by the church at a later date, I guess I'm just confused. (And, possibly, also shocked.)

I could be wrong about this, and if so, I request correction and elucidation. But I've always understood the foundation of the church by Mark the Evangelist to be (a) an article of faith in the Coptic Church, not otherwise conclusively attested to by history; and (b) considerably prior to the 2nd century. Mark is the earliest gospel, isn't it? He was (per Christian belief, at least, but possibly also the historical record, such as it is) an apostle, wasn't he?

Or are we talking about a different Saint Mark?

[Simulist]

Mark is the earliest gospel, isn't it?

Mark is thought to be the earliest canonical Gospel. A subtle difference, but an important one.

The Gospel According to Thomas may in fact predate Mark.

(Thomas also presents an altogether different "message" of Jesus, more closely resembling, say... Zen Buddhism than what has evolved now to become Christianity.)

[AlicetheKurious]

My quote:

Halakhah is interpretation of scripture with ideas and descriptions on how to live out the commandments. It is a way of application of Torah to everyday life. Halakhah may differ from teacher to teacher and from family to family.

...seems relevant to me. But feel free to point me to an actual halakhah which supports your disputation, as I did.

Please, since I am such a "dork", show me how that refutes my argument that the 613 commandments are an integral part of the halakhah, rather than an entirely separate and different thing, as c2w claims.