Well I didn't think it of much interest to the readers but
Gershom Sholem hypothesized that the origin of many of the ideas, particularly the trinity found in the Zohar, was Christian. However, Gafni and other scholars have shown that this is false. It is our own trinity. That did not stop the students of the Ramchal from seeing the trinity in the Zohar and saying the Christians were right and converted. They just forgot to read my emails.

Aryeh Shore

Quote "Again by rational I mean Aristelean rational as defined by the Rambam. If you can not prove it or see it, it is not rational."
What do you consider as proof? Let say George Washington. Did you ever see him? No? Then is it rational to think he existed? Yes? why? Because you can prove it by what where witnessed by others? So why is it more rational to believe some historian than to believe the Bais Yosef himself?

Quote "(and in the absence of someone demonstrating they can talk to angels today, I have no idea to what R. Yosef Karo was talking to."

What difference to anybody what idea you thinks what the Bais yosef seen or didn't? If the Bais Yosef said he saw it, why don't you believe him? Do you think he was lying? It's utmost logical to understand the limitations of your Torah scholarship next to the Bais Yosef's (understatement of the year) that the Bais Yosef was sure of what he saw, so your not understanding is a moot point. Just like the deep jungle man not understanding electricity doesn't make it irrational to believe there is electricity, especially if believable people witnessed it.

Quote "In light of modern psychology, I can come up with a few hypotheses.)"

This is tremendous Chutzpah!!!!!

Quote "That Judaism is what the Jews do is in the Talmud. It is a concept called "go outside of the Bet Medresh and see what the people actually do." "

This is only when there is a Machlokes, which in all other ways are not reconcilable, so the rabanan, for lack of any other way to Machria, the relied on Puk chazi what the prevalent Minhag is (and this was on very few issues. The rational for this is probably like Hillel in Pesachim 66a.) For the most part they tell you Halacha is like this or like him etc. and we do not have Halacha to be whatever the masses decide.

Quote "As for the example given, our definition of Chametz today is far away from that in the Talmud. As for Matzeh, we know for certain that the cardboard Askenazic Jews eat today is nothing like the Matzeh of the Talmud or the Shulchan Aruch."

This is a very bad example. First of all, Rikkikun is a type of Matzeh and the easiest to refrain from making Chametz. In the days of chazal they also made differentiations that not everyone is capable of making Matzah as thick as experts as it is mentioned in Betzah 22b as paraphrased by Kollel Iyun Hadaf

5) BAKING WITH A THICK OR THIN DOUGH

(a) (Beis Shamai) We may not bake a Pas Avah on Pesach (presumably, out of concern for Chimutz). (b) (Beis Hillel) It is permitted.

1. Question: How thick is Pas Avah?

2. Answer (R. Huna): A Tefach (as the Lechem HaPanim were a Tefach thick and was still considered Matzah, not Chametz).

3. Question (R. Yosef): But here are five reasons (listed) why the Lechem HaPanim could permitted while being a Tefach thick which would not apply to any other case!?
see there for the listed reasons that applies to us much more so. So we are Machmer for valid reasons which concepts range back to the days of the Gemarah