Check your PM's if you haven't already. I do not desire to make public my reasons for narrowing the scope of this conversation, but I nevertheless feel that you deserve to know them.

For the sake of clarity, I will restate my challenge as clearly as possible and with as few rhetorical bells and whistles as I can manage - something I have not done particularly well up till now, I concede.

-----

A. "The 244 commandments concerning temple service are currently (August 2018) a part of Israel's covenant with G-d."

B. "The 244 commandments concerning temple service are not currently (August 2018) a part of Israel's covenant with G-d."

Prima facie, the above statements are logical negations of one another. Moreover, no one here has presented an explicit third option.

I. Now, if A is true, we have a problem. For...

1. If the 244 commandments are still a part of Israel's covenant with G-d, then the Jewish community is obligated to obey them.

2. But without a temple, it is logically impossible for the Jewish community to obey them.

3. Therefore, if the 244 commandments are still a part of Israel's covenant with G-d, then the Jewish community is obligated to do the logically impossible.

'3' runs headlong into into a foundational principle of moral logic: "ought" implies "can." No one can be obligated to do the impossible. Thus, A appears to be absurd.


II. Now, that leaves us with B. But if the 244 commandments are not still a part of Israel's covenant with G-d, then the terms of Israel's covenant have changed!

This seems to be contrary to the Torah in several ways, but on closer examination, this is not the case.

For one thing, the various statements that this or that article of the Torah will be binding "forever" could equally well be translated as asserting that said articles will be binding "to indefinite futurity" or "for an age."

Likewise, the various commands that Israel never add to or take away from the terms of the covenant are not broken if it is G-d

ficino wrote:

Most pertinent to Roman Joe's OP is this from page 447: Segal says it's not likelty that a crucified criminal would be buried.

Somebody should have told that to whomever handled the burial of Yehohanan son of Hagakol. 

To be less flippant, "not normal" doesn't mean "unlikely." 

p. 448 But the real scandal is that no one saw Jesus arise. (n. 8, p. 762: "This fact seems to me to pass the criterion of dissimilarity and argue strongly for the historicity of the person Jesus. No one would have made up a story of a savior who was resurrected and then neglected to narrate it. On the other hand, it does nothing for the historicity of the resurrection itself.") "This [i.e. fact that no one saw Jesus arise] is a critical difficulty for the early mission of the church. The empty tomb tradition does face, then finesse the issue that no one saw Jesus rise.That does not firmly argue against its historicity, but it tends to make a historian suspicious. What can be demonstrated historically only is that no one actually saw Jesus' resurrection. Had there been witnesses they would not have been left out. 

Lolwat?

One does not spend time in an enclosed space with a dead body in a Mediterranean climate. Just... no.

I agree with Ludemann that the original experience of the risen Christ must have been visionary appearances after death and that they must have started, as tradition has it, on the first day after the Sabbath..."

Segal goes on to argue that Paul has no need to explain lack of witnesses to Jesus' resurrection because he believes that the risen Jesus appeared to *him*. But the tomb story answers needs of missionary hearers and explains why no one actually witnessed the resurrection,

Since when was Paul not a missionary?

Since when does inventing an idea that goes against every instinct of even moderately sophisticated people in your audience "answer needs of missionary hearers"?

Since when does one have to specify

119 wrote:

Dave wrote:

Look, the question right now is whether or not G-d Himself ever acts miraculously - which is to say, by His primary causality - to establish falsehood. Now, I suggest that false signs are always caused by creatures, in an attempt to draw us away from G-d. That I personally happen to believe that the creatures in question do this as an act of rebellion against the Creator is of secondary importance. Even if they're on His payroll, the point remains the same - there is no evidence that G-d Himself ever gets His hands dirty. This simple fact tells us that your interpretation of Deuteronomy 13 is questionable at best.

You look, if it’s such a “simple fact,” demarcate primary causation from secondary causation when none of the secondary layers have an autonomous free will.

Secondary causation is just another way of referring to instrumental causation - the stick that moves a stone because it was moved by the hand. The sun is a secondary cause. The wind is a secondary cause. Trees are secondary causes. I dare say that most secondary causes of which mankind is aware lack autonomous free will. Blaming G-d for evils caused by Satan is (on the theory you've espoused) a bit like blaming Him for evils caused by falling trees.

 HaSatan is just a messenger doing his job. How does giving a command to a being that has no free will absolve G-d of responsibility? I look forward to seeing the primary-secondary causation flowchart, and the moral theory where all responsibility vanishes in the secondary cause.

The distinction between primary and secondary causes is fundamental to Classical Theism. Maimonides himself used it for the purposes of theodicy, asserting that "it cannot be said of God that He directly creates evil, or He has the direct intention to produce evil: this is impossible." (Guide to the Perplexed, Part III, Chapter X) 

Your p

…