Talk:Ezra/Archive 1

message: A user named Securehope has deleted the better part of a paragraph that describes the redaction of the Hebrew Bible and marked this edit as "copyedit, mostly punctuation."  If this is an accident, then Securehope should remember to use the sandbox page, which lets users see how their edits will affect an article before executing the changes they have made.  If this is not an accident, then Securehope should read the article "NPOV" to learn more about how and why Wikipedia strives to cultivate a neutral point of view, rather than a point of view that assumes the direct receipt of the Hebrew Bible from God.
130.132.231.50 01:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Securehope's "copyedit" 

message: In the intro sentence, the Arabic script for Ezra is given, and lacks an /r/, or the Arqabic equivalent thereof. Is this correct, the Arabic equivalent for Azriel really is something like Azeel? Someone who knows more than me might check this out. PiCo 06:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic 

message: According to the second paragraph under Relation to the Book of Ruth, that book may have been written in response to Ezra in defense of marrying converts. Yet it's only stated that Ezra opposed Jews marrying gentiles who did NOT convert. Where's the conflict? And what is meant by "Ezra's reform"? The prohibiton against marrying non-Jews is mentioned already in the Torah and in the prophets and neither is it presented as an innovation in the book of Ezra itself. It seems all Ezra does is enforce the law, which had been ignored by many for some time.
Shajats Itel 08:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruth and acceptance of converts 

message: reorganized and retitled the section, also removed duplications. Separated Jewish take on Islamic view of Uzair. Removed answering-islam.org quote as it has been nominated as extremist site on Wikipedia. Read extremist websites ~atif Talk 15:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ~atif Talk 06:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ezra (Uzair) in Islam 

message: *Organization
**#1st part talks about Reference in Quran and scholar's view of the Islamic view.
**#2nd part debates from the Jewish perspective
**#3rd part again quote Quranic reference (no citation though).
** I have organized as:
***1st part talks about Islamic view of Ezra, supported by scholars.
***2nd part includes the Jewish perspective
*The Title should say "Ezra (Uzair) in Islam" as he is considered as prophet through Islamic traditions (not Quran).
*Cannot use Abraham's book if it is posted on extremist site. You can refer to other WP:RS.
*The 2 paras are saying the same thing, hence removed duplication:
** "Of note is that Judaism believes that God, as the creator of time, space, and matter, is beyond them, and will not be born, die, or have a son. Judaism teaches that it is heretical for any man to claim to be God, part of God, or the literal son of God."
** However, no known Jewish text makes the claim that Ezra is the son of God.  states that Ezra is the son of Seraiah. Judaism holds the idea of any person being God, or a part of God, or a mediator to God, to be heresy, and no branch of Judaism is known to make Ezra a son of God.
::~atif Talk 06:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's discuss the content/format 

message: Can somebody get citation for resurrection verse. ~atif Talk 07:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation for Resurrection 

message: see Messianic Judaism While Messianic Jews practice their faith in a way that they consider to be authentically Torah-observant and culturally Jewish, their Jewish identity is attacked by [2][3][4][5] Jews,[6][7][8] Jewish denominations,[9][10][11][12] and many Christians.[13][14][15][16] do not consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Judaism. Messianic Jews are also not considered Jewish under the State of Israel's Law of Return. [17]
alsos see Jews for Jesus
Jews for Jesus is a Christian[1] evangelistic organization that focuses specifically on the conversion of Jews to Christianity. 
Identification of Jews for Jesus as a Jewish organization is overwhelmingly rejected by Jewish religious denominations,[4] [5] secular groups[6][7] and the State of Israel[8]
Some Christian churches see Jewish religious practice as valid in and of itself and thus object to evangelizing Jews.[54][55]
The Interfaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington, an umbrella organization that includes Muslims, Jews, and church groups from the Roman Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran and Presbyterian churches, has condemned Jews for Jesus as promoting activities "harmful to the spirit of interreligious respect and tolerance." 
The Rev. Clark Lobenstine, a Presbyterian (PCUSA) minister and executive director of the Conference, has stated that his group condemns Jews for Jesus and other messianic Jewish groups by name because they "go beyond the bounds of appropriate and ethically based religious outreach."[56]
The Board of Governors of The Long Island Council of Churches, a group that is opposed to proselytizing of Jews in general, voiced similar sentiments in a statement that "noted with alarm" the "subterfuge and dishonesty" inherent in the "mixing [of] religious symbols in ways which distort their essential meaning", and named Jews for Jesus as one of the three groups about whom such behavior was alleged.[54]
Roman Catholic leaders have also spoken out against singling out Jews for conversion. In August 2002, the U. S. Bishops Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious affairs declared that the "evangelizing task no longer includes the wish to absorb the Jewish faith into Christianity and so end the distinctive witness of Jews to God in human history. Thus, while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also believes that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God. "... The distinctive Jewish witness must be sustained if Catholics and Jews are truly to be, as Pope John Paul II has envisioned, “a blessing to one another.”"[57]
Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Holy See's Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, stated in November 2002: "This does not mean that Jews in order to be saved have to become Christians; if they follow their own conscience and believe in God’s promises as they understand them in their religious tradition, they are in line with God’s plan, which for us came to its historical completion in Jesus Christ."[58]
Christian denominations that have issued statements criticizing evangelism of Jews include the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church USA, which said in 1988 that Jews have their own covenant with God. In 1996, Pope John Paul II said Jews shouldn't be targeted for conversion.[59]
Jews for Jesus is a member of numerous evangelical Christian groups
In 1993 the Supreme Court of Israel, in a case involving a couple affiliated with Jews for Jesus, ruled that Jews who adhere to the Christian beliefs are regarded by Israeli law as "members of a different faith," and are not eligible for the automatic citizenship that Israel grants Jews. 
"During my time with the mission, I found Jews for Jesus to be a Christian ministry (or Messianic, if you prefer) with a passion for the good news about Jesus..." Pastor Lev Leigh. Hope Baptist Church. Richmond, CA (Letters From JFJ Alumni) 
"... Jews for Jesus and other Christian groups who hold to the uniqueness of Christ." (Jews for Jesus Leader Contradicts American Catholic Bishops. Jews for Jesus, Press Release. August 19, 2002) 
"Clothed in colorful shirts with large writing identifying their Christian group, Jews for Jesus has been keeping up with the 24-hour-running city, handing out tens of thousands of literature and promoting their evangelistic campaign – Behold Your God – through media outlets." (Christian Post.[1]) 
"There is virtual unanimity across all denominations [of Judaism] that Jews for Jesus are not Jewish." (Kaplan, Dana Evan. The Cambridge Companion to American Judaism, Cambridge University Press, August 15, 2005, pp. 139-140). 
"Thirdly, there is Jews for Jesus or, more generally, Messianic Judaism. This is a movement of people often of Jewish background who have come to believe Jesus is the expected Jewish messiah... They often have congregations independent of other churches and specifically target Jews for conversion to their form of Christianity." (Harries, Richard. After the Evil: Christianity and Judaism in the Shadow of the Holocaust, Oxford University Press, August 2003, p. 119.) 
"Jews for Jesus, the leading organization dedicated to converting Jews to Christianity, has long been a concern because of its aggressive proselytizing with a deceptive message: that Jews who accept Jesus as the son of God and their savior remain Jewish." Jews for Jesus: Targeting Jews for Conversion with Subterfuge and Deception, Anti-Defamation League, August 27, 2004, retrieved September 11, 2006. 
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/trinity.htm says"http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/trinity.htm
"Today, Jewish counter-missionary movements like "Jews for Judaism" seek to educate Jews about why belief in the Trinity is incompatible with Judaism."
Jews for Jesus" is a primarily Baptist missionary group whose sole focus is converting Jews to Christianity.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mess_jud.htm, "Baruch Maoz, "Judaism is not Jewish: A friendly critique of the Messianic Movement," Christian Focus Publications, (2002)."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.115.102.13 (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Messianic Judaism

message: pls use consensus on Talk page, before removing sourced material. references are taken from Encyclopaedia Judaica and A History Of The Jews Of Arabia, which also happened to be published on islamic-awareness.org. Moreover, Encyclopaedia Judaica and Newby are reliable sources, read WP:RS for more info which you need. If you think otherwise, try to get a consensus without disruptive editing. thanks ~atif Talk 19:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is Islamicawareness (an extremist site) used these sources supposedly but they may have taken them out of context or not exist in the text itself.--Java7837 21:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There needs to be some independent witness--Java7837 21:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source cited is not any extremist site but a book which you should be able to verify. We do not remove sourced material just because someone else who may be unreliable has used it also. → AA (talk) — 23:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  exactly ~atif Talk 02:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruptive edits by [[User:75.43.79.38|75.43.79.38]] 

message: just like islamic-awareness.org, rim.org is also extremist site and cannot be used for reference. ~atif Talk 13:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  extremist sites 

message: The above article, Islamic view of Ezra, is the proper place to discuss Islamic views of Judaism's perspective. It is too far out of scope in this article. Using summary style, the  tag at the top of the section points the reader to the proper place, so I have removed the tangential discussion. -- Avi 19:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is Islamic view, irrespective of what it talks about. In this case,if it talks about Jewish exaltation, does not mean you remove the Islamic view because it talked about Jewish exaltation. I will recommend creating a new article Jewish view of Ezra, rather than disrupting here. ~atif Talk 01:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Avi, I'm not sure that the addition of this single sentence "The Quran mentions his resurrection (Qur'an 2:259) and asserts the Jews exalted him as a "Son of God," (Qur'an 9:30, Qur'an 9:31) a statement that, read literally, contradicts Judaism's fundamental belief in an indivisible and single diety. This has been interpreted in different ways.[5]" really violates WP:SUMMARY, whether or not there is a subarticle.  Kaisershatner 19:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is Islamic view and summary should highlight the view.It does not violate the WP:SUMMARY ~atif Talk 02:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Atif, I think what Avi is saying is that mentioning Islam's reverence of Ezra is sufficient without including the specific detail about Jews "worshipping" Ezra.  That specific point is discussed in the main article "Islamic view."  I am also open to this viewpoint, because in my opinion, if we include the specific text references that allege the Jews revere Ezra as the son of God, then I think we need to include the explanation that this is not typical of Jewish practice, and then we are driving toward a much longer discussion than we might want in this article.  On the other hand, I think the simple two sentence version we had before might work.  I'm a bit undecided on it. Kaisershatner 14:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kaiser, I agree with you that you are still "undecided" and agree with your edit before as it DOES include that it contradicts typical Jewish views.Moreover, the typical Jewish view is a small part of the article "Islamic view of Ezra", hence 2 sentences in summary will definitely suffice. Avi is pushing to remove it, which is definitely POV pushing ~atif Talk 17:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I am confused about your POVs all the while, you are talking about an article called "Islamic View of Ezra" and you are asserting it is not Islam's view of Ezra - what are you saying?? It is Islamic view about him - be it an aspect of Judaism's treatment of Judaism's prophets or Christ is not a Son of God or anything else - at the end it is Islam's view! Secondly, if main article has this content, then summary should have the highlight of what is in the article - and that's what Kaiser's edits had. Sorry, your views are paradoxical and I do not agree ~atif Talk 01:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Syed, what does Islam believe about Ezra? Does the Qur'an state that Ezra is divine? When the Qur'an discusses how it interpreted Jews felt about Ezra, that belongs in Islamic view of Ezra, not here. -- Avi (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I think some may be treating the Qur'an's opinions as a polemic. It is not. Muslims derive much spiritual guidance from Qur'anic verses. Most scholars would agree that the stories told in the Qur'an (or the Bible for that matter) have far more spiritual value than political or historical value.Bless sins (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Translators of the Qur'an as well as Qur'anic exegesis (see [tafsir]]) identifies him as such.Bless sins (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Uzair|Islamic view of Ezra]] 

message: I think once the "Hebrew Bible" section is sourced, the article can be nominated for GA. Any comments? --Aminz (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From my limited experience at reviewing GA nominated articles, I'd say this article is rather short. Ofcourse, since I've contributed to this article, I can't review it (though I'd love to). other than that this article is well-written and sourced.Bless sins (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *Note: the above should not be interpreted as my opposition to this article being a GA. It was a comment that observed certain aspects of the article, and was not meant to influence the final decision on the topic.Bless sins (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, but the article is at least longer and more informative than its Britannica's version :) --Aminz (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article nomination 

message: Hi Avi,
Here is the quotation from Britannica:
Hebrew  'ezra'  religious leader of the Jews who returned from exile in Babylon, reformer who reconstituted the Jewish community on the basis of the Torah (Law, or the regulations of the first five books of the Old Testament). His work helped make Judaism a religion in which law was central, enabling the Jews to survive as a community when they were dispersed all over the world. Since his efforts did much to give Jewish religion the form that was to characterize it for centuries after, Ezra has with some justice been called the father of Judaism; i.e., the specific form the Jewish religion took after the Babylonian Exile. So important was he in the eyes of his people that later tradition regarded him as no less than a second Moses.
--Aminz (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Avi, would you please let me know why you think Britannica's statement is not appropriate. Are there any sources that disagree with it? If not, I'd like to restore the original formulation while somehow keeping yours at the same time. Thanks --Aminz (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that it is explicitly sourced to the Britannica I agree it should remain. By the way, nice work fleshing out the article. -- Avi (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Avi, I don't have any strong opinion on this. We don't have to necessarily follow Britannica if you can find another source showing/explaining why the statement is not appropriate. In the very least, we can move that from intro to another place in the article. Cheers, --Aminz (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britannica 

message: Hi Shirahadasha, 
Some points: 
1. The Britannica article used is not 1911. It is the most recent one. The article on Ezra is written by "John Bright, Professor of Hebrew and the Interpretation of the Old Testament, Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, Virginia, 1940–43; 1946–75. Author of A History of Israel and others. " The article further is at least post 1965 (please see the additional reading section). 
2.Britannica says:"Since his efforts did much to give Jewish religion the form that was to characterize it for centuries after, Ezra has with some justice been called the father of Judaism; i.e., the specific form the Jewish religion took after the Babylonian Exile. So important was he in the eyes of his people that later tradition regarded him as no less than a second Moses." Britannica says the later tradition regarded him as no less than a second Moses. That he is called the father of Judaism (and that there is some justice in it).
Cheers,--Aminz (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britannica Again 

message: May I suggest that instead of quotes we should paraphrase the various views? Specifically I'm talking about Ezra#Historicity, but this would apply to some other sections as well.Bless sins (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good suggestion.--Aminz (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: Did you ever think Ezra was a girl's name? I did until I found out it was the name of a biblical priest. ~~formerly Cbsteffen  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.115.61 (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gender of the Name

message: Unfortunately the POV tag on the article shows it Hasn't reached GA criteria yet. Therefor I failed it on the basis of the Quick fail process.(See number 2) --Seyyed(t-c) 03:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is quite disappointing that an article as good as this should fail the GA criteria (esp. since Islamic view of Ezra is a GA). This article should be renominated for GA once the POV and relevancy issues have been resolved.Bless sins (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick fail

message: Beit Or, "Our knowledge of Ezra comes from the Book of Ezra, Book of Nehemiah and Apocryphal Book of I Esdras" - I believe it is perfectly reasonable to explain these books and mention what they say of Ezra --Aminz (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be perfectly reasonable to mention what this apocryph says on Ezra. It is entirely unreasonable to dwell on the book itself, which happens to have its own Wikipedia entry. Beit Or 12:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this should be summarized further. The reason I added some details was to clarify who considers its content regarding Ezra as apocryph and who considers it authentic. But as you mentioned, the paragraph can be significantly shortened. --Be happy!! (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Esdras 

message: Hi Java,
Please do not remove this section. If it is difficult for you to find sources, I and some other editors can do that and I sincerely assure you that I will not remove the tag before making a good effort to present the range of the views. --Be happy!! (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of historicity section by Java 

message: Personally, I prefer that just the first paragraph is brought here, without reference to Islams's view of the Jewish view, and both are discussed in more detail in the proper article. However, if Islam's view of the Jewish view is mentioned here, then the explanation of how it is a fundamental misunderstanding must also be brought here, to keep the article WP:NPOV. -- Avi 20:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: its a "fundamental misunderstanding" from Jewish view, the article is about Islamic View of Ezra . So summary talks about the main content, not Jewish views ~atif Talk 04:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. You are incorrect on at least three counts, Syed. This article is about "Ezra". There is a separate article about the Islamic view of Ezra. Secondly, what you are bringing is not the Islamic view of Ezra, but the Islamic view of the Jewish view of Ezra. Thirdly, bringing one point of view about an issue without bringing other significant points of view in the body of the article is a violation of WP:NPOV. -- Avi 19:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Atif, I think that if we include such an interesting statement from the Koran regarding the practices of Jews then at minimum it should be pointed out that this is patently opposite from the practice of mainstream Judaism.  I agree with you that the paragraph should not focus on this, since it is about Islam's view of Ezra, but if "Islam's view" is that Ezra was worshipped as the son of God by Jews, a comment about the accuracy of this should be made, in my view. Kaisershatner 14:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kaisershatner, I agree with you and your earlier edit. thanks ~atif Talk 14:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic view and Jewish response 

message: The Hebrew Bible section appears to include text written from the perspective of two differnt time lines. The second paragraph references Artaxerxes I, which corresponds with a view that Ezra arrived earlier than Nehemiah, but then includes the line "No record exists of Ezra until we find him at the reading of the Law which took place after the rebuilding of the wall of the city by Nehemiah" in the third paragraph, corresponding with a view of Nehemiah arriving in Jerusalem prior to Ezra. As the discussion between differing time lines is documented later in the article, it would appear to me that the Hebrew Bible section would benefit from clearly identifying the time line perspective from which it is written and maintaining a single perspecitve throughout, then directing the reader to the time line discussion below. Giving an extensive discussion of Ezra's journey to Jerusalem and then saying that "no record exists of Ezra..." is potentially confusing to many readers who do not already have some detailed knowledge of Ezra. Thoughts? Thank you.Civilengtiger (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of time lines in Hebrew Bible section

message: In Chapter 8 page 159 "Who Wrote The Bible?"  he states-
In the Bible only Moses and Ezra are known as lawgivers
Ezra returned to Judah in 458BCE
He was an Aaronid priest and a scribe
He brought the Torah of Moses (probably the full Torah -the 5 books of Moses- as we know it) 
AND a letter from Artaxerxes giving him authority in Judah
His authority was to teach and enforce the law
His authority was shared with Nehemiah the governor. At this time Judah was a province of the Persian empire and Ezra and Nehemiah were the emperor's designated authorities.  
Should any of this information be added to the Academic View section. or elsewhere?96.227.80.48 (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Elliott Friedman 

message: The most recent incarnation regarding the Islamic viewpoint continued to violate NPOV. It stated that "current" Jewish sources do not support the view that Jews believed that Ezra was the "Son of God." To be honest, there is no historical documentation that Jews ever believed that Ezra was the "son of God." Further, the references to a theory about Jews believing that Ezra was an angel are unsupported by citations to quotes from the primary sources for easy verification of their accuracy and veracity. If one desires to make radical claims about Jewish sources, please provide citations to the sources, not to unknown, possibly biased writers of questionable scholarship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  Yosefsimcha  (talk • contribs)  13:06, 18 August 2009 
According to Jewish tradition, the phrase "B'nei Elohim" means "sons of rulers". The attempt to imply that Jews believed in divinity apart from God is inappropriate and does not reflect historical, normative Judaism. If you wish to leave the untranslated Hebrew transliteration "elohim" to suggest the possibility of varing interpretations without endorsing one, this seems to be a neutral point of view editorial choice.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosefsimcha (talk • contribs) 22:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Son of God"/angel claims must be better sourced