Talk:Judaism/Archive 10

message: Judaica redirects here.  There is no mention of it in this arcticle.  It should be its own page or the word judaica should be mentioned Epson291 16:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Judaica redirect

message: ===>Messianic Judaism As discussed earlier, I feel that the current structure of the article is POV. This point-of-view is an unjustified bias against Messianics as not being real Jews or even an alternative form of Judaism, while at the same time considering controversial groups such as Karaites and Samaritans or even syncretic groups like Jubus as Jews.
*This article cannot take any position on who the Jews are and remain NPOV.
*To claim that Messianics are syncretists is POV, as Messianics do not consider themselves syncretists; according to them, recognizing Yeshua as the Messiah is a natural consequence of historic Judaism and the proper understanding of the Tanakh.
*To insist that Judaism and Christianity are somehow mutually exclusive is unfounded and at the very least difficult to prove. It creates a difficult task for the editors of the article to determine when and how Christianity and Judaism became two distinct phenomena. This is not the scope of this article, nor is it appropriate for a neutral source of information to take a stance on an issue like this.
*Excluding Messianics while including the other groups listed is a blatant contradiction that is apparently baseless.
*Since the defintion of who is a Jew and what constitutes the Jewish community is partially ethnic, there can be no denying that people who are ethnically Jewish are still Jews regardless of their beliefs (hence, humanistic Jews and syncretists are listed here under alternative forms of Judaism.)
*Even though an attempt has been made to create a new section on syncretism, this is equally problematic as the group Jewish Renewal is still under "alternative forms of Judaism" even though it is influenced by New Age, and again, the Messianic commmunity themselves do not understand the Messianic movement to be syncretist, so labelling it as such is POV.
*Consequently, the only NPOV, appropriate structuring of the article is to include discussion of all non-mainstream Jewish groups together, with no bais toward who is and isn't really Jewish, or which groups are or are not syncretists (unless they are self-identified as such, or clearly rely on an entirely unrelated system of belief.)
*As a caveat, I would like to mention that I personally have no vested interest in defining who is really Jewish, and I don't object in principle with discussion of why mainstream Judaism sees Messianics as outside of the Jewish community, why they could be labelled syncretists from third-party sources, or how Messianics differ in theology and/or practice from mainstream Jewish denominations. These explanations should, as always, avoid weasel statements and be sourced (which shouldn't be hard, considering the controversy of groups like Jews for Jesus.) -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 04:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, I missed the New Age sentence. For the time being, I have moved that with the others. -- Avi 04:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: However there is the fact that the mainstream Jewish movements do NOT believe in Messianic Judaism.  In fact, one of the main principles of Judaism is that there is only one god, therefore if we accepted Messianic Jews to be true Jews, we would be violating our own religion.  From my community, we had some objections to seeing Messianic Judaism being labeled an offshoot of Judaism.  Messianic Judaism is only an attempt to make Christians out of Jews by Christians while making them think that they are still Jewish. By violating the first and second commandments, Messianic Jews do not fall under any of the Jewish denominations --Mistressblaed 17:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is about Judaism. How is the Messianic movement for Jesus relevant to this article? It is a movement of people who believe in an Old Testament leading to a New Testament, just like the other Christians. They often call Jesus and these books by Hebrew names, but that clearly does not change a thing. I do not think Judaism is the right place to discuss Christianity or - if it does not like this the label - a new religious movement (which it is in any case). There are separate articles for these. gidonb 07:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  This article is about Judaism the religion, not Jews the people.  Faiths that call Jesus Messiah and God are "Christianity", not "Judaism". Many Jews have converted to Buddhism, but that doesn't make Buddhism Judaism. Jayjg (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: First off, to state the obvious, how you feel about the article is a POV, namely "yours".  You fail to state how the article's structure gives an "unjustified bias against Messianics".  Our article on Messianic Judaism makes quite clear, as discussed above and on Talk:Messianic Judaism, that that article has a systemic bias in favor of presenting messianism in Judaism as being solely the purview of Jews who believe Jesus is/was Mashiach.  Hello pot, meet kettle.  As others have pointed out, this article is about Judaism, not about Jews.  Karaites are problematically considered Jews by rabbinical Jews [because of their rejection of matrilineal descent], and neither rabbinical or karaite Jews consider Kuthim to be Jews, they are only so-considered by non-Jews.  The article does not take a position on who is or is not a Jew, it presents the rabbinical [i.e., authoritative, as far as Judaism is concerned] view, and shucks the details and disagreements off to Who is a Jew?.  As for "controversial", neither Qara'im nor Kuthim are "controversial" in anything even remotely approaching the sensationalist sense in which Jewish converts to Baptist Christianity are.  Even JuBus aren't so controversial, since, unlike the Jews for Jesus and related groups, they don't claim to be practicing Judaism, real, recovered, fulfilled or otherwise.  They honestly and openly admit that they are Buddhists who, as it happens, are Jews.
The claim is not that Messianics are "syncretist", unless the term is being used by someone who fails to understand the meaning of that word.  Messianics are unequivocally not syncretist.  They are wholly and unquestionably Christians, regardless of how much they try to obfuscate that simple truth.  The closest any Messianic groups ever come to "syncretism" is by blending Jewish appearance with their Christian beliefs and practices.  Having a pesach seder and explaining the meaning thereof, in abject defiance of Torah, as a remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice, is Christian evangelicalism, not Judaism.  Calling such practices "syncretist" is foolish.  "Coöption" or "usurpation" is a far more accurate description of such nonsense, which is nothing more than a blatant expression of supersessionism.  If Jewish converts to Christianity feel like such emptied ritual observances connect their new religious beliefs with the religiously void lives they lived as children, that's their own loss...it's not "syncretism", however, it's nothing more than a bizarre [and obscenely offensive to anyone who knows anything about Judaism...not just because its practitioners are Christians, but because it stands everything that pesach is about on its head, glorifying human sacrifice when pesach is a rejection of the acceptability of a belief system that makes human sacrifice acceptable] redefinition [contrary to Torah] of the commemoration of the divine Act that led to the foundation of Judaism.  That said, claiming that the claim that Messianics are syncretist is not POV, especially not because "Messianics do not consider themselves syncretists"...one can certainly state that Messianics don't consider themselves to be syncretist, but their self-conception is quite irrelevant when it comes time to actually analyze their beliefs and practices.  Christians, Mormons and even many Hindus consider themselves to be monotheists...but none of the definitions of "monotheism" any of those religious systems subscribe to are compatible with Judaism's view of what it is to be a monotheist.  Saying so is not "POV", it's "statement of fact".  In the same way, if Messianics consider recognition of Jesus as Mashiach, it's not POV to point out that nothing about any interpretation of Judaism outside of the 1960s-on Messianic "movement" agrees with their view.  The Messianics' assertion that Jesus is Messiah cannot be demonstrated anywhere outside of Christian literature [some of which in recent years has been written by Jews who happen to be Christians, admittedly], as either a natural consequence of historic Judaism [whatever that might mean] or as a result of a "proper" understanding of Tanakh.  
Insisting that Judaism and Christianity are mutually exclusive is neither "unfounded", nor even remotely "difficult to prove".  Judaism insists on uncompromising unitary monotheism and has, as its very basis, a contract, spelling out who must do what, etc., between God and the Jews.  The basis for what Greco-Roman "Western" civilization regards as the "religion" of Judaism, is purely ACTION.  Christianity, on the other hand, begins by dispensing not only with the terms of the contract [Torah observance], but also with the symbol of rembrance of the contract between Abraham and God [circumcision], AND, completely replaces Judaism's basis in ACTION with an exclusive requirement for a prescribed BELIEF.  Judaism has always given room for the believer to return to God's good graces after committing a wrong ACT, but never bothers to address the utterly frivolous idea of how someone who constantly does good deeds [i.e., in accordance with the terms of the aforementioned "contract"] should return to God's good graces for having fallen prey to an incorrect BELIEF.  Christianity, on the other hand, exhorts the believer to be good, but offers blanket immunity for indiscretions, so long as you believe the right thing.  That song about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions should be adopted by modern hip [country-western loving] Jews as a blanket response to Christianity.  That said, the objection "insist[ing] that Judaism and Christianity are somehow mutually exclusive is unfounded and at the very least difficult to prove" points up a potential failure to understand here, again, that we're talking about the religious aspects of Jewishness, not the ethnic-identity aspects.  Nobody's claiming that the Jewish adherents of Messianic "Judaism" aren't Jewish [except for the Israeli Interior Ministry, which is responsible for interpreting the bounds of Israel's Law of Return...], rather, the relevant point is simply that being an adherent of Messianic Judaism or a member of a Messyantic congregation does not make a person a Jew, in the same way that the fact that circles are ellipses and squares are rectangles does not make an ellipse a circle, nor a rectangle a square.  If this still doesn't makes sense, let me put it this way...A non-Jewish Christian woman who insists that she will receive bountiful rain if she tithes from her orchard and makes sure to follow the regulations of niddah would be rejected as a Judaizer by every mainstream Christian denomination.  A Jewish adherent of Christianity in that scenario would be called a "backslidden Christian", for keeping Torah instead of abandoning it!  A non-Jewish man who chose to get circumcised in order to ensure that he and his offspring would be heirs to the covenant with Abraham, would be called seriously deluded, "lacking understanding of those things that are essential" by Christianity, while by Judaism, he would be regarded as deluded only if he did so w/o simultaneously making a statement to abide by the rest of the subsequent covenants between God and the descendants of Abraham.  The two views are not compatible.
As for whether or not it's appropriate to discern the incompatibility of Judaism and Christianity, I think you are very wrong.  On the other hand, I must agree with you that better coverage of how the two religious communities developed such incompatible worldviews deserves better coverage on WP...that point, however, is not a good reason to mischaracterize pointing out the incompatibility as "POV".  Also, WP is not taking any stance on this "issue", nor any other, as I said earlier, by simply stating matters of fact, so that assertion is, again again, a mischaracterization.
I have no problem with excluding all groups that aren't practicing anything remotely approaching Judaism...and for that, I draw an arbitrary line around Reconstructionism as the "outer limits" [by which I mean "far out in left field"]...  Jubus aren't practicing Judaism, nor are Judeo-Pagans, nor are Muslim Jews/Jews for Allah, nor are Jews for Jesus/Messianics.  As I've expressed elsewhere, I think the whole Alternative Judaism business is a crock...everything listed there is nothing more than a collection of movements or support groups w/in other religions, the membership of which happens to be primarily Jewish.  That said, there is no need to include ANY such groups here, since none of them are practicing anything remotely recognizable as "Judaism".  They are, simply, "Jewish practitioners of religions other than Judaism".
I agree with you, that Jewish Renewal's proponents are not practicing Judaism, and should be excised/excluded from any serious discussion in this article, as should "Messianic" "Judaism".
After all that, I must fundamentally disagree that the only NPOV structuring of the article is to include discussion of all non-mainstream Jewish groups...rather that, since they're not practicing Judaism, a link should be made to Alternative Judaism, which should be renamed Non-Judaism religious groups comprised primarily of Jews.
As for the assertions about "or else Christianity would never have happened in the first place" demonstrates an abject ignorance of the history of Christianity.  The vast majority of the early Jewish adherents of Jesusism were slaughtered wholesale long before the thoroughly gentilized Christianity became the Religion of the Empire, and their influence was far from "complete" even within NT times.  Cheers, Tomertalk 05:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Justin (koavf) [mostly] et al.

message: It would look nice if the author would disist from trashing another religion. In this quite short reply the author demonstrates not only intollerance to other peoples belief but also a stunning ignorance of the same's belief. In addition, the author hasn't payed much attention to history lessons as well (f.ex. forgetting that the christian communities had left Jerusalem before the roman assult (I assume that is what is hinted by the strange claim of early christians being "wholesale slaughtered") and forgetting the jewish diaspora in the roman empire that formed much of the breeding ground for "extra-palestine" early christianity. 
There are several factual errors or, to put it nicely, Very personal POV concerning monoteismen or  whether or not Jesus can be said to be  the prophetized messiah, from relevant OT scriptures.
When that is said I don't understand Justin's claim that christianiy should be included as a form or variation of Judaismen. The Pauline (another former jew) stance is quite clear on the subject: "a new covenant and a new people". The two form distinct religions both in own self-understanding as well as in content, structure of belief and view on "God". --85.82.169.61 23:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment 

message: Reform Judaism exists. It is legitimately Judaism, it is legitimately part of Judaism, it is not apostacy, and it is not Christianity or non-Judaism.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 02:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  And what does this have to do with anything?   Tomertalk 22:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does one call a movement that does not affirm belief in anything and yet still claims to be a religion? Paradoxically, irreligious Reform has become the opium of the masses. 68.198.237.151 03:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Post nationalism you mean. Kakugo 01:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reform Judaism 

message: (Moved from top) I always thought that hinduism was the oldest known religion:S
:Indeed (according to Hinduism) it is, but Hinduism is not the oldest monotheistic religion. Walkerma 01:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Judaism is pseudoscientific —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.5 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 26 July 2006  (UTC)</br>
WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT --<SMALL><B><U>Shaul avrom 21:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment 2

message: Miriam now refers to a disambiguation page. Unfortunately, the link to the Miriam in the Tanach is self-referential, it's a link to the disambiguation page. If the original content on Miriam still exists, I couldn't find any way to get to it. Is there a way to untangle the self-referential linking, or has the content on Miriam actually dissappeared and in need of reconstructing? If so, what name should the article get since the original now refers to the disambiguation page? Miriam (Hebrew Bible)? Also, there's an article on Snow-white Miriam which refers to the episode over Miriam getting Tazriah. I don't why there should be two separate articles since this was simply an episode in the Biblical Miriam's life. Once there is a main Miriam article, I want to propose merging, and it looks like it needs some going-over. (The article's not mentioned in the disambiguation page). --Shirahadasha 03:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently fixed. - Jmabel | Talk 00:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miriam's Dissappeared

message: Not a single mention of Zoroastrianism's role in the development of Judaism... Why the bloody hell not?!
:Good Q. Urbach has written about this.  I do not have the sources on me but we could have some discussion of his in the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zoroastrianism

message: It should be noted that Hanukkah is a minor holiday in relation to it's mention in the Bible and other texts, but in reality, it is up there with Passover in modern times. Even Orthodox find these holiday especially relevent. Masterhomer  04:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hanukkah - a minor holiday? 

message: Someone just added a good deal of content.  It is interesting, but seems to violate Wikipedia:No original research.  Can the contributor or someone follow our policies and add verifiable sources?  Otherwise, we may have to delete it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted it. Firstly, it is WP:OR. Secondly it follows neither WP:V nor WP:RS. Thirdly, this is not the article for it. Should enough properly verified and reliable information come from secondary sources, it belongs in its own article, with at most a minor blurb here under the heading "Jews around the world" or the like. Notice, there is NO mention of "Jews in Israel" and "Jews in the US" which comprise the supermajority of Jews in the world. There are, and always have been, very few Jews, relatively speaking, in Ethiopia (I've met some who made aliyah), albeit the history does seem to date back to the first temple era. As such, the placement, volume, and non-substantiated nature of the information is completely out-of-scope for this article, and in my opinion should be reverted as vandalism. -- Avi 15:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judaism in Ethiopia 

message: NEW: On Wikiversity there is now a "Jewish Studies School." Will it become a "duplication" of many things on Wikipedia? What should it's goals and functions be? Please add your learned views.  Thank you. IZAK 09:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish WIKIVERSITY 

message: the lead claims (without citation) that Judaism has always been monotheist in theology, but I've seen scholars dispute this claiming lots of evidence of Iron age Jews being monolatrists or henotheists.  See the henotheism link for some of the arguments.  M.S. Smith is a good example of someone on this side, arguing about the Asherah stuff.  In fact this page mentions the issues a little further down, why make the contentious claim, without citation in the lead?  Bmorton3 15:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are NOT monolatrists or henotheists. Halochoh requires that we destroy other peoples false "gods". I would like to also note that, as a Yid myself, I would like to note that, we, as monotheists and as Yidden, also, we know not to hold by henotheism. Have a Git Gebentched Yor. --Shaul avrom 00:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jews ARE NOT monolatrists or henotheists, but they WERE in the iron age - that's what the GP is claiming, and that is what most scholars believe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.13.136.214 (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Monotheism and Henotheism

message: I put the viewpoints tag there because each of the blends mentioned has a varying degree of acceptance within different parts of Judaism and it should be discussed. Especially with the madness happening on the Messianic Judaism article right now. It just needs some attention and work.
:Actually I think the whole section sucks.  "syncretic" is a term that is going out of fashion but the proper use is not to lable some religions as syncretic but ratehr identify syncretic elements within religions (e.g. Christmass trees, the coincidence of Jewish pilgramage festivals with pre-Israelite agricultural festivals). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viewpoints in syncretic Religions 

message: Isn't Zoroasterianism the one? Babub→Talk 19:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Virtually all Jewish historians at least consider Zoroastrianism as dualist.  Indeed, many historians suggest that dualistic elements in Judaism (e.g. the war between Gog and Magog) were intriduced as a result of Zoroastrian influence.  Urbach also argues that Jewish monotheis (as opposed to henotheism), especially in the form of the elevation of the Sh'ma, was a reaction against Zoroastrian dualism.  This is certainly the Jewish POV.  If Zoroastrians have a different POV I hope that is explained in the Zoroastrian article.  I also wonder what other historians say.  The rise of Christianity and Islam as globally dominant powers has led many people to be really dismissive of polytheism, manachiism, and dualism, and I wouldn´t be surprised given what things are like now in former Persia if there are Zoroastrians claiming Zoroastrianism to be monotheistic.  Hey, it´s their religion, and up to them.  But whether Zoroastrians 2400 years ago believed the same things that Zoroastrians do today is an entirely separate issue. We would need evidence that Zoroastrians back then explicitly claimed to be monotheists (or rather that critical scholars make this claim). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Said by whom?  I am always suspicious of the passive voice.  Be that as it may, I have no idea how a scholar could tell what Cherokee religion was prior to the conquest, or to what extent post-conquest views were uninfluenced by Christianity. If their agricultural practices were influenced by Europeans, why not their religious beliefs?  In any event, let's drop this as this is not the Cherokee article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First Monotheistic religion?