Talk:Judaizers

message: How is this edit  which removes your personal christian pov considered to be anti-christianity as a whole?  I'm christian and I don't agree with your interpretation of the bible, so if anything his/her edits are pro-christianity because they don't exclude anyone.  Also you need to participate in this discussion, not just revert people.  Refusal to discuss your edits could be considered vandalism, if your interested in bettering the wiki page then you need to participate in the discussion, otherwise please leave. --164.106.214.221
--------------------------
The Catholic Encylopedia entry on "Judaizers" mentions "circumcision" or "circumcised" about 20 times. This was a very important issue. In contrast the Wikipedia mentions it no more than 3 times. I don't think this overemphasizes the issue. Truthbomber
:It's very important to the Catholic author of that Catholic Encyclopedia article; that doesn't mean it was the crux of the original dispute. Jayjg 01:56, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The American Medical Association report Neonatal Circumcision says, "Ritual circumcision is common in the Jewish and Islamic faiths, but uncommon altogether in Asia, South and Central America, and most of Europe."   Since most people in South and Central American and Europe are Christians, I think it is accurate to say most Christians are not circumcised.  The exceptions are the United States and to a lesser extent other English speaking countries.  Circumcision is not an issue in South and Central American and Europe because male circumcision was never part of their culture. However in my opinion attitudes of modern Christians regarding circumcision are not relevant to this article. -- DanBlackham 07:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is attributing the cause of the circumcision rates.  Are they uncircumcised because they are christian?  Or is it because circumcision just isn't a common practice that is given any thought in their region?  If it's the former then the statement that most christians are uncircumcised belongs in the article, if it's the latter then the statement does not because, while it may be statistically true, it's irrelevent to the article's topic and to put the statement in implies a causal relationship with christianity.  Unless a survey specifically considering the reasons for circumcision status can be produced (which I don't believe there is one), then it's POV to include the statement in the article.  It looks like you and I agree that this isn't relevent to the article.  In the interests of not causeing a revert war I would really like truthbomber to chime in so we get a consensus on this before a change is made. --Starx 17:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: In my opinion circumcision is not an issue for most parents in South and Central American and Europe because circumcision is not part of their culture.  However the reason that circumcision is not part of their culture is because early Christian leaders decided that circumcision is not a requirement for Christian males (Acts of the Apostles chapter 15).  That decision was in response to the Judaizer's claim that Christians must follow all the Jewish laws, including male circumcision. -- DanBlackham 00:21, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Truthbomber and 207.69.139.**

message: The anon has a point.  Unless you're directly quoting the bible not everyone of a particular religion is going to agree with you.  Also I don't believe that the statement that most christians are uncircumcised is accurate, I don't think the issue is of much importance in the modern versions of christianity.  But I'm not going to revert, I don't think we need to start a revert war.  Truthbomber, do you have any sources commenting on the percentage of christians of the world who are uncircumcised (sources that aren't blantantly anti circumcision)?  Because if you don't then I can't see how that comment is anything other then POV.  PS, I like how the edit history of the article calls me obviously pro-christian.  For the record I'm athiest. --Starx 03:20, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The American Medical Association report Neonatal Circumcision says, "Ritual circumcision is common in the Jewish and Islamic faiths, but uncommon altogether in Asia, South and Central America, and most of Europe."   Since most people in South and Central American and Europe are Christians, I think it is accurate to say most Christians are not circumcised.  The exceptions are the United States and to a lesser extent other English speaking countries.  Circumcision is not an issue in South and Central American and Europe because male circumcision was never part of their culture. However in my opinion attitudes of modern Christians regarding circumcision are not relevant to this article. -- DanBlackham 07:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is attributing the cause of the circumcision rates.  Are they uncircumcised because they are christian?  Or is it because circumcision just isn't a common practice that is given any thought in their region?  If it's the former then the statement that most christians are uncircumcised belongs in the article, if it's the latter then the statement does not because, while it may be statistically true, it's irrelevent to the article's topic and to put the statement in implies a causal relationship with christianity.  Unless a survey specifically considering the reasons for circumcision status can be produced (which I don't believe there is one), then it's POV to include the statement in the article.  It looks like you and I agree that this isn't relevent to the article.  In the interests of not causeing a revert war I would really like truthbomber to chime in so we get a consensus on this before a change is made. --Starx 17:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: In my opinion circumcision is not an issue for most parents in South and Central American and Europe because circumcision is not part of their culture.  However the reason that circumcision is not part of their culture is because early Christian leaders decided that circumcision is not a requirement for Christian males (Acts of the Apostles chapter 15).  That decision was in response to the Judaizer's claim that Christians must follow all the Jewish laws, including male circumcision. -- DanBlackham 00:21, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical interpretations 

message: I've done my best to turn this Sunday morning anti-Judaizing circumcision-obsessed sermon into a NPOV encyclopedia article.  It would benefit from information about later Judaizing trends as well, particularly among the conversos/marranos of Spain. Jayjg 01:52, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job, but I would keep the article on your watchlist, IYKWIMAITYD. --Viriditas 01:58, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed I do.  The POV warriors have already attempted to slip in a bunch of irrelevant POV stuff under a deceptive edit title. Jayjg 02:51, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a mess 

message: I see a lot of revert back and forth on the subject of puritans, but no discussion of it here.  Please do not revert to any version without explaining your reasoning a little here.  — Chameleon 18:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explain please 

message: Puritans were optimistic Judaizers of recent times, in a belief that the Roman Catholic Church had somehow become apostate without the Jewish customs that Saint Paul of Tarsus worked to extricate from the Faith. A return to Judaic rituals was a large part of the sense of "purifying" the Church from "gentile paganism", a sort of role model for modern people to live and worship as the Judaic Christians were persecuted by pagan Rome. The Puritans believed that they were already living the experiences of the elder people, as they viewed the RCC to be corrupt from within as the old Roman Empire "was". They compared Popes to Roman Emperors. They were the first modern group to allow Jews back into Christendom, in the belief that it may help Puritans meet God easier by having the "Chosen people" among them. See also: Whore of Babylon, Christian Zionism, Fundamentalist Christianity.
:The above can well be reworded, but seems worth including. Sam Spade 01:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does it seem worth including, Sam?  Is any of it accurate or sourced?  It looks like pure POV/conspiracy theory to me. Jayjg (talk) 14:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an exploration into history of the Puritan ancestors on my grandmother's side who died young and I want to know more about them, so I contribute more of what I know and am willing to learn about.  This is a hallmark of the wikipedia, regardless of your Spin (public relations) profession.  ScapegoatVandal 15:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puritan 

message: I can't make any sense of this sentence: "Paul publicly condemned Peter for his seemingly ambivalent reaction to the Judaizers, embracing them publicly in places where their concepts were popular while holding the private opinion that the teachings were erroneous, for example ."
In every Bible I have, Paul is talking about himself in those verses, saying that he obeyed Jewish law when he was among Jews, because he thought that was the best way to gain as many converts as possible.  I think the sentence should probably be deleted. -- 70.171.52.50 12:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Paul publicly condemned Peter ... 1 Cor 9:20–23." ??? 

message: This is one of the most slow-burning summaries I've seen on Wikipedia.  I like having oblique intro material in a book that I have committed to reading, but I like getting a nice synoptic nugget right off the top when I look up a word I don't know in an encyclopedia...  Eleven even (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: The opening sentence is misleading. The definition of Judaizers is Displacement theology. Non-Jewish Christians who call themselves "Spiritual Israel' and adopt Jewish practices like the so-called "Jews for Jesus" are classic examples of Judaizing as defined by the Church fathers. Why has this meaning been totally changed?82.6.29.26 (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judaizers: Definition 

message: I agree. Jews for Jesus are perfect examples of Judaizers.82.6.29.26 (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there is no other discussion, tag procedure was not followed, and the merge tag does not now appear at "Jewish Christians", I am dropping the merge tag here also. First sentences are essentially correct, though a bit POV, and make clear the difference of topic. "Judaizers refers to those who teach the necessity of obedience to the Torah Laws by Christians, which is normally considered a requisite only for the followers of Judaism, the parent religion of Christianity." "Jewish Christians (sometimes called also "Hebrew Christians" or "Christian Jews") is a term with two meanings, a historical one and a contemporary one. The historical term refers to Early Christians of or attracted to Jewish culture .... The contemporary concept simply refers to individuals of certain Jewish ancestry or heritage, who is an adherent of some form of Christianity and not Judaism." Anyone can Judaize (verb), but only a Christian with Jewish roots can be a Jewish Christian (adjective, noun). Very clearly different concepts. The only reason for merger would be the position of some, mostly Jewish, that Jewish Christians (today) always Judaize, by definition. However, most Jewish Christians in either era, especially including most Jews for Jesus, do not teach necessity of Orthodox-style obedience to Torah for Jews, let alone Christians; many teach grace-based growth into Torah for all. JJB 22:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: This: "Judaizers describes a type of Christian Heretic by Orthodox Jews and Orthodox Christians" is simply not a well-crafted, clear sentence.  I have not edited this page and am no expert on the topic so I will not presume to screw around with the first sentence.  I just ask active editors here to pause and think about the first sentence a bit.  Try to pretend you know nothing about the word or the world in which is is used.  I think you will se then what an awkward sentence it is.  I am not commenting on the content, I am not asking anyone make a major change.  But I suspect that this sentence should either be reorganized or broken into two or three sentences to better introeuce the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:20050921circoncisionB.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: I think the section Distinct uses of the term "Judaizers" is WP:OR. It doesn't have any secondary references, it is some-places far-fetched, such as calling adherents by Gentile Christians to Torah Laws intended for Gentiles, "judaizers" – never ever heard of such a usage: Torah Laws intended for Gentiles is an empty list, unless you interpret it through the Talmud eye-glasses, which Christians never do. I think it should be removed to the discussion page and shrinked till it is true sourceable. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Most Christians accept some of the Laws of Moses, such as the prohibition of murder, see Supersessionism, but there is a vocal minority that advocates for the total Abrogation of Old Covenant laws. 75.0.12.220 (talk) 06:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "Distinct uses" section

message: Are there no Christian scholars working on this article? It's terrible. 46.11.96.62 (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christians needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Judaizers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050428062710/http://www.earlychristianwritings.com:80/text/josephus/war-2.htm to http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/josephus/war-2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Judaizers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6AS7rgB7f?url=http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/canon to http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Canon%20Law/ElviraCanons.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808051655/http://www.bartleby.com/65/ci/circumci.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/ci/circumci.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Judaizers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Canon%20Law/ElviraCanons.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714120454/http://www.gatesofeden.org/pdf/GOE%20Volume%2007.pdf to http://www.gatesofeden.org/pdf/GOE%20Volume%2007.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060613184451/http://www.gentiles-and-circumcision.info/ to http://www.gentiles-and-circumcision.info/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians!
There was a lot of info on Fray Luis in the "Inquisitions" subsection.
I deleted a paragraph that was completely irrelevant to the subject of the article. The rest I left in place, but it seems highly POV, so more editing is needed. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant info about Fray Luis