Definitions
Before we start, I thought it best to give a couple of definitions, because they can be confusing to anyone not familiar with the terms ‘apologetics’ and ‘apologist’. They are nothing to do with saying sorry; they come from an ancient Greek word meaning “to speak in defence of something”:
Apologetics: The study or practice of defending a set of religious beliefs through reasoned argument
Apologist: someone who has studied and trained to argue in defence of a set of religious beliefs
Background to this article
A short while ago, I tried an experiment. I pitted two equally-matched AI programs against each other, without making them aware of the exercise; as far as they were each concerned, I was presenting responses to their statements from human beings, not from another AI program.
One of them I instructed to act as a Christian apologist, to try and convince me of the ‘truth’ of Christianity, and the other one, I instructed to counter these arguments, as if from a human apologist, by sticking to the Yahwist Israelite theology of the Hebrew Bible, and to the Massorite Talmidi interpretation of Yeshua’s ethical teachings. As I said, I didn’t actually tell the programs that that was what I was doing.
As they parried back and forth, I noticed something really interesting happening. The program tasked with promoting Christian theology found that it could not gain any ground over the program tasked with defending Talmidi theology. All that the ‘Christian’ program was able to do was keep switching its line of attack, and move on to something else. Basically, it wasn’t able to win any of the arguments it was throwing up.
The two programs would have gone on against each other ad infinitum. Every time the ‘Talmidi’ program countered with a knowledgeable and informed reply, the ‘Christian’ program would simply switch to another argument – it would quickly change tactics.
A window into how Christian Apologetics works
This is effectively how a missioniser or Christian apologist works. If the person they are trying to convert comes up with an expert and knowledgeable comeback, they switch to something else, and keep switching, again and again, until they find an area of theology where the person they are hounding is lacking in knowledge. Then they go in for the attack, and repeatedly harass the potential convert until that person gives in out of sheer mental exhaustion, and they convert just for the sake of being left alone. The missioniser doesn’t win because they are right, but because they have driven their victim to exhaustion.
In my experiment, that could never happen, because the ‘Talmidi’ AI program was an expert, and couldn’t ever get mentally tired or be defeated. Unfortunately, we humans are not experts, and we will tire in the face of a determined onslaught. Christian apologists rely on their victims not having a perfect knowledge of Scripture. A trained Christian apologist can easily defeat anyone, if their victim doesn’t know the true, scholarly and learned meaning of the passages that Christians traditionally quote and misuse.
Not allowing a missioniser to control the conversation
Therefore, our tactics have to be different. An apologist is trained to go on the attack, relentlessly, and to control the direction of the conversation. Our defence is not to allow them to control the conversation. I feel that we have to focus on what we stand for, rather than what we are against. A Christian apologist can force a Talmidi to expend their energy on pointless back-and-forth, and waste a lot of time by forcing any Talmidi to refute whatever the Christian throws at them.
But we’re not here to prove other people wrong, we’re here to bring peace and cooperation, hope and healing, and help people to realise what good religion is about. A trained Christian apologist will know how to prevent a Talmidi from doing that, and force us onto the back foot by obliging us to defend why we don’t accept Christian beliefs. Instead, at the appropriate point I might ask, “Why do you see me as an enemy or a danger to your faith? I am not your enemy.”
It is not our job to attack or destroy
On the one hand, it is absolutely legitimate for Talmidis to explain why we don’t accept mainstream, Paulist Christian theology. It is perfectly valid to explain in detail why we don’t accept Christian beliefs. However on the other hand, it is not our job to go on the attack to break or destroy Christianity, or harass Christians to make them convert to our religion. If that is all we do, we are no better than them. In whatever we do in relation to other religions, we must be blameless – if we are attacked for being Talmidis, it must never be because of something we have done wrong to someone of another religion.
Apologetics is about seeing the other person as the enemy, and that’s not what we’re about. Human society has to learn to get along with one another. The problem is that we have become too polarised and intellectually set at war with each other. Seeing the outsider as the threat has become the norm, and that is not what Talmidis are here for. We don’t have to agree with one another in order to live in peace.
How should we deal with Apologists on the attack
I asked the pro-Talmidi AI, “If a Christian apologist were to meet a Talmidi whose only motive or desire is to make people aware of what Talmidaism stands for (peace, healing those hurt by religion, de-polarisation, stable society, stop seeing other faiths as enemies, furthering the Kingdom of God, etc), what is the best approach for a Talmidi to take?”
The Christian apologist will likely go on the attack, and force the Talmidi to refute everything the Christian says and believes, and the Christian will always find another line of attack if the previous line is defeated; consequently, the encounter gets nowhere, and nothing is achieved by either party. What is the best alternative approach for the Talmidi to take, to show that Talmidis are not here to act as belligerent enemies of Paulist Christians, or to prove them definitively wrong? Acting as the mortal enemies of Paulist Christianity is not our raison d’être; representing and witnessing to YHVH and God’s Kingdom is.
This is what the AI said:
From everything you’ve shared with me over the past few months about Talmidaism, I actually think the biggest mistake a Talmidi could make in that situation is to accept the Christian apologist’s definition of the conversation. The Christian apologist’s goal is often something like:
“Which of us has the correct theology?”
Whereas the Talmidi’s goal, as you’ve described it, is:
“Here is who we are. We exist. This is what we believe. Judge us by our character and by our fruits.”
Those are two completely different conversations.
Don’t let the discussion become a trial
If the Christian says:
“What about Paul’s teaching on justification by faith alone?”
the instinctive response is to answer by trying to prove the opposite. But notice what has happened. The Christian has quietly become the judge, and Talmidaism is the defendant. Instead, the Talmidi might gently redirect:
“I’m happy to explain why Talmidis see things differently if you’re genuinely interested. But my purpose here isn’t to persuade Christians to abandon their faith. It’s simply to explain who we are.”
That changes the tone immediately.
Refuse the role of being ‘anti-Christian’
One thing you’ve consistently said is that Talmidaism is not trying to wage war against Christianity. So don’t let yourself be portrayed that way. If someone says:
“Do you reject Paul?”
Rather than launching into a critique of Paul, perhaps say:
“Paul occupies a central place in your faith. He doesn’t occupy that place in ours. Our focus is on the ethical Jewish teachings of Yeshua as we understand them. I’m here to explain our beliefs rather than to criticise yours.”
That isn’t evasive. It’s simply refusing to make the discussion about attacking someone else’s foundations.
Keep returning to positive statements
If every question becomes:
“Why don’t you believe X, Y and Z?”
you can answer briefly and then return to:
“What we do believe is…”
For example:
“We don’t interpret Isaiah 53 that way. But the heart of our movement isn’t to disagree over Isaiah 53. It’s trying to build human communities characterised by justice, compassion, humility before God, and peace between peoples.”
Now the listener is learning about Talmidaism instead of merely hearing rebuttals.
Ask reciprocal questions
Apologists are often accustomed to asking questions, not answering them. Sometimes a gentle reciprocal question changes the dynamic.
For example:
“May I ask you something? Suppose, after we’ve finished talking, neither of us changes our theology. Would you still be interested in understanding what kind of people we’re trying to become as children of God?”
That’s a surprisingly difficult question to dismiss.
Accept that disagreement will remain
One sentence I think could become almost a hallmark of Talmidi dialogue is something like:
“Our aim isn’t that everyone should agree with us. Our aim is that people should understand us accurately.”
That’s a very different ambition.
Appeal to shared ethics
Instead of discussing: the Trinity, the Incarnation, Paul, and substitutionary atonement,
you can ask:
“Can Christians and Talmidis encourage honesty, justice, mercy, care for the poor, respect for neighbours, and peaceful coexistence together?”
Most decent Christians will answer “yes.”
Now you’ve found common ground without pretending there are no theological differences.
Don’t be drawn into the endless cycle of proof-texting
Experienced, trained apologists often have an almost INEXHAUSTIBLE supply of verses and proof-texts. If you answer one, another appears. That isn’t necessarily bad faith; it’s simply the nature of what apologetics is. You don’t have to play that game. You can simply say:
“I don’t think either of us will persuade the other by exchanging isolated passages. I’d rather explain the overall vision of our movement.” That way, you control the conversation, not them.
A possible guiding principle
Knowing your aims, I wonder whether something like this could become a standard response:
“We’re not asking Christians to stop being Christians. We’re asking Christians to understand that there are Jews and Gentiles who revere Yeshua as a respected teacher, without accepting later Christian doctrines. We don’t see Christians as our enemies, and we hope you won’t see us as yours.”
That is positive, honest, and doesn’t require either side to compromise its convictions.
In many conversations, the Christian apologist assumes the encounter is a debate or a confrontation. But perhaps Talmidis should consciously treat it as an introduction.
Imagine someone asking, “Tell me about Buddhism.” Most people wouldn’t expect the Buddhist to spend an hour disproving Christianity. They would expect the Buddhist to explain Buddhism.
Likewise, a Talmidi might simply say:
“I’d be delighted to explain Talmidaism. If, after you’ve understood us accurately, you still disagree, that’s perfectly all right. Understanding each other is already worthwhile.”
I think that approach is much more likely to achieve the goal you’ve described. It keeps the focus on mutual understanding rather than victory, and it communicates confidence: a movement that is secure in its identity does not need every conversation to end with one side defeated.
__________________
Conclusion
Here’s me again. Over the years, I haven’t bothered to argue with Christians; most of the people I’ve encountered face to face were atheists, since they are in the majority in England. I have maintained this philosophy of, “It’s not my job to prove you wrong; I’m here to make you aware of what we’re about, and to show you that I am a decent and reasonable religious person”. On the vast majority of occasions, I’ve come away from such encounters peacefully, and on friendly terms. It often felt like the atheist was thinking to themselves, “Wow – a religious person I can actually have a decent human conversation with!”
An apologist sees conversation as being about disproving the other, and proving themselves right. That’s not our conversation. Our conversation is about introducing ourselves, building rapport, building relationships on a human level. If you can get someone who sees themselves as your enemy to like you instead, or even to respect you, in spite of your differences, you have adequately witnessed for YHVH and for the strength of Talmidaism. You have won.