Title (and nothing else) is about Noachite laws, which any Gentile (son of Noah) can contribute to. There is no conspiracy about Noachite laws unless some are secretly trying to get the upper hand in how they are legislated; but that describes the state of every power in the world today (everybody wants to rule), so nobody has the upper hand and truth will rout conspiracy. I'd love to discuss how Noachite laws might be regarded as bad in themselves rather than by some separate control game.

Interview of author Michael Hoffman by "VineyardSaker" ("the Saker"): He gets credit for comparing interest of peace (Yevamot 65b) with taqiyya, and some of his statements are more balanced than what has typically appeared here.

Actual text of Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations (aka Hilchot Avodah Zara): "The Canaanites are idol worshipers, and Sunday is their festival. Accordingly, in Eretz Yisrael, it is forbidden to conduct transactions with them on Thursday and Friday each and every week, and, needless to say, on Sunday itself, when transactions with them are forbidden everywhere." Saker cites Avrohom Karelitz that Christianity is special, which is consistent with the fact that Maimonides knows the Christian potential audience and uses the word "Canaanites" instead. This artfully leaves it open whether the reader judges that all, some, or no Christians are Canaanites: kicking the can down the road. The idea that Canaanites automatically means Christians is contrary to text, context, and any other evidence.

Hoffman regards this as teaching that idolatry is permissible, but it only says some 'avodah zarah (foreign worship) is permissible, not 'avad hagillulim (idol worship as in 2 Kings 17:12). He should instead be thankful the rabbis recognize Christianity isn't necessarily idolatrous!

Hoffman believes "Shulchan Aruch however, pinpoints the source of the words min and minim to rabbinic wordplay on a description ascribed to Christians, 'the faithful'". This would probably be "emunah", but AI cannot find any evidence that Shulchan Aruch contains this pun. Rather, "min" (species) meant any partisan or sectarian of any kind, Jewish or not, and in one of the earliest and most definitive texts Rabbi Simlai uses it against a school that sounds not Christian but polytheist, where he defends the unity of God as admitting of diversity in contrast to their view. So, again, decision of whether this includes all, some, or no Christians is left to the reader, kicking it down.

To answer the question, Maimonides recognizes that Messiah has not completed his work yet; that sages testify Messiah has divine character (though he downplayed this); and that sages testify Messiah might rise from the dead. Therefore, like all other rabbis starting from Gamaliel, he kicks the can down the road again and addresses side questions instead of tackling the merits.

The Talmud says nothing about Christmas and Easter. Avodah Zarah 2a actually says, "Three days before the festivals of gentiles: Prohibited to engage in business with them; to lend [lhash'ilan] to them or to borrow from them; to lend [lhalwothan] to them or to borrow from them; to repay them or to collect repayment from them. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may collect repayment from them because this causes distress. Said to: Even though he is distressed now, he is happy afterward." In the first place, Yehuda is a minority and is overruled by the next sentence, i.e. one may not collect repayment; this is the only mention of "distress", introduced to be rejected. In the second place, the general rule is that "A Gentile ... one may not raise and one may not lower" (Sanhedrin 57a), so the point is not to contribute to Gentile festivals. In the third place, the reference to idol worship is in the gloss, not the actual text, meaning it's not that the Gentile is definitely an idolater, it's that the Gentile is accounted unsafe to save investigating the whole question. Kicking it down.

Saker continues by claiming an "official" position that Christ is "magician" and "blasphemer", but I've pointed out Sanhedrin 43a only says Ulla, as the minority, ruled Jesus of Nazareth an "inciter", and the majority did not rule on the rightness of the Sanhedrin's judgment but only that Jesus received all rights due to the accused. Kicking it down. The passages about "Yeshu" and magic clearly pertain to the 2nd century BC and Yeshu the Student. Hoffman continues the narrative that there is no alternative for Rabbinical Judaism except rejection of Messiah; but Romans 11 says otherwise.

The text regarded as permitting pedophilia has long been discussed here and Hoffman continues the mistaken interpretation. No rabbi has ever promoted pedophilia as theologically permissible and remained accepted; I'd love to hear otherwise.

Eli James appears to be tracking satanists from Cainites on, and of course they infiltrate and influence all nations. The fact that Khazars were naturalized into the Jewish people doesn't suddenly make the Jewish line an imposture. Jesus was King of the Jews, an ethnic Jew due to his Jewish mother as ethnicity is derived in Judaism, and a Davidic Jew due to his adoptive Jewish father as rulership rights are derived in Judaism (equal for natural and adopted children).

All these points are available for debate, but they are not done with sound bites. Hoffman seems to appreciate the context much more than average, but he still falls into errors of categorization that misread and change texts, and often doesn't give the rabbis credit for their actual words, assuming bad faith instead. To give good news to Jews it is necessary to understand their culture and to separate true admitted denial of Christ from strong refusal to answer straight questions, especially after centuries of our demands for straight answers were pretexts to persecute them in majority Christian countries.