Talk:Nazarene (sect)/Archive 2

message: Okay, is everyone happy with the version of 18:15, 26 Jul 2004? --Uncle Ed 21:26, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not.  I very much prefer the pre-24 July version, which has, I recognize, its POV-flaws and factual inaccuracies.  It is, however, fixable.  I would very much prefer a detailed, scholarly article (the pre-24/7 version) to the practically informationless-stub that exists now.  I have seriously considered reverting the article and then NPOVing it, but I will not go against consensus here.  In short, I think the pre-24/7 version needs to be fixed; the current version needs to go altogether. David Cannon 11:06, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the first question (which I've asked before) is how much of an article a group of a few dozen (or perhaps a couple of hundred) people need.  As well, the POV stuff was fairly overwhelming, and had spilled over into a number of other articles.  Also, as you can see, the debate about factual inaccuracies led to a revert war.  A detailed scholarly article would be great, but is there anyone who really knows anything about this group, aside from the claims they make on their website? Jayjg 16:27, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with quoting POV, provided that we are not stating it.  There is a difference between the two.  To quote from Nazarene Judaism's website is okay, IMO, provided that we make it clear that we are not endorsing their beliefs.  But you are right, we need somebody with factual knowledge.  I did come across a piece about this - someone on the web (a Christian theologian) published some correspondence he had with one of the leaders of Nazarene Judaism.  I will try to find it again, and if successful, will ask for permission to reproduce part of the correspondence, or at least quote from it, here. David Cannon 21:30, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with quoting POV stuff (although the article should not just be a website for promoting the sect's views).  I do have a problem with stating POV as truth. Jayjg 22:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Unlocked

message: I have discovered why Zestauferov has been silent on this page, and on the issue of mediation, for so long.  On July 31st he created an article called Nazarene Jews which contained his favorite version of the information here.  To be frank, I think this whole thing needs to be cleaned up; between the articles on Nazarenes Nazarene Jews Nazarene Judaism Talmidaism Messianic Renewed Judaism and Messianic Judaism#Torah Pole this whole subject is a mess. I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place for each of these tiny, highly similar groups, to spread their own particular versions of their message. Jayjg 21:01, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There are all sorts of tiny Messianic Jewish movements like this group, and few or none of them are "denounced" by Orthodox groups, partly because Orthodox groups generally don't bother with them, and mostly because they are not even aware of these miniscule sects.  I understand that you believe that this particular Messianic sect is valid, and all the others are invalid; your edits and comments on this page and others (like Talmidaism) make that clear; but promoting one of these sects as valid over another is simply POV.  As for the rest, I don't plan to "leave it", but actually plan to clean up this mess of a bunch of tiny Messianic sects, each with their proponents claiming their validity, each contradicting the other, and all cluttering up and subverting the intent of Wikipedia. Jayjg 04:36, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Zestauferov, I state again that I'd very much appreciate any evidence of your statements above, other than your claiming that they are true, and insisting that I "check them out" myself.  From what I can tell, they consist primarily of a former Baptist Minister and his wife and their daughter (who claim to have converted to Orthodox Judaism), and a website filled with these and many other claims.  One of the claims is a relationship with Yemenite Judaism; I hope you understand that Yemenite Judaism is not in any way shape or form "Modern Orthodox Judaism". In any event, they are a group founded by (former) Christians which claims Jewish practice but allegience to Jesus and at least parts of the New Testament; as such, regardless of any other claims, by definition they fit squarely in the "Torah pole" section of the Messianic Judaism movement. Jayjg 16:41, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Regarding the first half and much of the rest of your paragraph, it is personal, ad hominem, and irrelevant.  Regarding providing evidence, a good start would be pasting into here a copy of any e-mails you have received on the subject.  Regarding "the Yemeni Jew Yirmeyâhu Bên-Dâvid", a gentile American convert by definition cannot be a Yemenite Jew.  Regarding Yemenite Jews, your claims that they are "the most pristine and unchanged pharisaical Jewish tradition in the world" are both inaccurate and highly POV; in fact, they tend to follow Maimonides' Mishne Torah, a work written by a Spanish Jew in the 12th century, over 1,000 years after the last Pharisee disappeared.  Regarding "Torah Pole", please see Messianic Judaism#Torah Pole. Jayjg 04:58, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I've listed a number of Ad hominem statements below.  In general, if one avoids bringing up any argumentation relevant to the person, but instead focusses solely on the issues, ad hominem argumentation can be avoided.  Regarding your claims about Yemenites being "closer" to Pharisees, and "most unchanged", this is a POV which is not supported by any credible historians.  The Orthodox Rabbis I have discussed this with have never heard of this group, and insist that considering Jesus as the Messiah is not compatible with Orthodox Judaism. Jayjg 20:23, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mystery solved 

message: Jayig and Zestauferov, sorry to butt in here, but I think its only fair to ask both of you to provide sources for your claims and counterclaim.  Sources could include web pages, letters/emails, newspaper references, etc.  I've been lurking while the two of you have been debating.  Please note, I think it's good to be debating, as there's no better way to thrash out an NPOV position than by vigorous debate.  'Please' don't get too personal in the debate, however.  I understand the passions that religious issues can arouse, as I, too, am a religious man, but I do hope that both of you - and any other interested parties - can deal with this issue on its merits without getting personal.  There's always the Mediation Committee if either of you want it, but I personally think they should be brought in only as a last resort.  I would much rather we resolved this issue among ourselves - which should be possible, provided we debate the issue, not the protagonists.  BTW, I, too, think there are several articles here that NEED to be amalgamated.  We can't have a multiplicity of articles on topics that differ only marginally, all contradicting one another.  We have to go through the articles and sift the truth from POV, establish accuracy, and amalgamate the articles accordingly.  It would be good if we could get the perspective (POV though it is) of Messianic insider. David Cannon (administrator)  ,    (UTC)
The principle source for stating that the Netzarim are not the same as the Notzrim (who are regarded as apostates by Judaism) is that the Netzarim Paqid is a Jew in good standing with the board of the Orthodox Yemenite Beth Kneset in Raanana, Israel. Documentation is also available from the Netzarim Judaica Shoppe in the Mall on the netzarim website here http://www.netzarim.co.il/Mall/NetzShop/NetzShop.htm#Netzarim_Papers. Think about this, it is impssible to be in good standing if one is the heretic leader of an apostate movement. His picture is on his website wouldn't, if his synagogue regarded what he was up to as suspect, they ensure it was impossible for him to offer such documentation? Paqid Yirmeyahu's (and his wife Karen's) conversions are also independently confirmable having been thoroughly documented by Orthodox rabbis and Orthodox batei-din (in Florida and Raananah Israel but once more fees may apply). The book, "Who Are the Netzarim?" ISBN 965-7328-03-9 also includes a photocopy of a letter from the Office of the Chief Rabbi of Israel extending the then-Chief Rabbi's blessings to Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David with wishes for his success. You can also post any questions to them here http://www.netzarim.co.il/MisrQlit/CntcQlit.htm. Though sadly internecine slandering and impugning has become rife throughout the Orthodox Jewish community, including certain irresponsible Orthodox rabbis slandering and impugning other Orthodox rabbis with impunity (e.g. accusations against Chareidi & Chabadnik) it is frequently the case that as long as the details are presented accurately to the Rabbis they will not make such mistakes which are usually a result of being presented with false facts to start with. When this is not the case they will certainly be up for a possible reprimand by their superiors if the evidence presented against them is sound. PLEASE NOTE that Reform Counter-Missionary stances cannot be taken as valid in an Orthodox debate which would be comparable to scientologists attempting to make their voice heard in an orthodox Christian in-house debate. We need ORTHODOX SOURCES from Jayig against the netzarim for him to proove his case. My claim is that they belong to orthodox Judiasm as indicated above several times so we need orthodox sources speaking out against either them or their specific beliefs (and it must be proven that they believe such here is a good place to start the comparison http://www.netzarim.co.il/Jewish%20Message.htm .) Thus the literal presentation of the question as well as the answer which came with it would be good. Bare in mind that Netzarim make up just a fragment of those who have had the Nazarene term applied to them in history which is what this article should be about.Zestauferov 16:44, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi David.  Their main webpage states that Jesus (who they call "Ribi Yehoshua") is the Messiah.  Any group which claims to practice Judaism, and considers Jesus to be the Messiah, is (by definition) a form of Messianic Judaism.  What we do know are they they claim to be a form of Judaism, and they claim that Jesus (as they understand him) is the Messiah.  The burden of proof that they are accepted as a legitimate Orthodox group therefore rests with those who make the claim.  Zest.'s many arguments boil down to this: 1) The founder had a legitimate Orthodox conversion. 2) No Orthodox groups have said that they are not Orthodox.  Point 1) has no bearing on whether or not the movement is Orthodox.  Point 2) is irrelevant, since Orthodox groups do not go about condemning any of these small Messianic groups.  Zest. has replied to this by saying "Oh, if these groups claimed to be Orthodox, then the Orthodox establishment would surely come down on them", but, as I said above, this is merely a varition on the No true Scotsman logical fallacy. Jayjg 20:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I have never made the claim that "no Jew can believe any man is the messiah".  You have yet to provide any actual documentation, only claims that it exists, and statements that I should send this group e-mails.  Please review No true Scotsman. Jayjg 03:14, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was summarizing and paraphrasing (or are you the only one who is allowed to do that?) At least I was not putting it in speech marks as if to put words into your mouth. Ok if it was wrong then you admit that there is nothing wrong with a group of Jews believing a particular man is a messiah. Good, then we are agreed on the heart of the matter and the case is closed.Zestauferov 16:16, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Jews can believe whatever they want; I certainly have no say in the matter.  However, this is irrelevant; the point remains that combining the rituals of Judaism with a belief that Jesus is the Messiah is by definition Messianic Judaism. Jayjg 02:09, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I was summarizing and paraphrasing your lengthy ad hominem arguments. Jayjg 03:14, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Any more irrelevant points are brought up will be immediately placed under this section for discussion. 
==Wikipedia Etiquette==
Jayig used the frase "shocking breach of Wikipedia etiquette" and from his eksampliary postings above, I realise now that he is indiid the living word on wikiket. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Nazarene_Judaism&diff=4766600&oldid=4765580 for an example of how he never does what he is so shocked about. Could you tell me where eggsactly I could find the reference you wish for me to imurs my very being with in the steps to achieving your level please? Thankyou in advance.Zestauferov 16:15, 12 Aug 2004(UTC)
:See Wikipedia:Wikiquette Wikipedia:No personal attacks Wikipedia:No legal threats.  Also please review Ad hominem and Poisoning the well. Jayjg 16:30, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, changing the title of a section to make it more informative is nothing like editing a person's Talk: comments. Jayjg 03:08, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words "It is alright for me to do it but no one else can". Who is making up all these rules I wonder?Zestauferov 03:35, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the actual words were "changing the title of a section to make it more informative is nothing like editing a person's Talk: comments", which means something else entirely.  The Wikipedia community as a whole makes up all these rules; I have referred you to a number of relevant pages in the past.  Please see earlier comments. Jayjg 03:43, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I have not implied that I am a Reform Jew, nor am I upset about being mistaken for one; however, I again strongly protest your use of this accusation to "Poison the well", as well as your continued liberal use of ad hominem statements throughout your arguments.  Please stick to discussing the issues, and leave me, my status, and my beliefs out of it. Try to make an argument for your position regarding "Nazarene Judaism" that does not use the word "you" at all.  As for the sophistry and dissembling in the above statements regarding legal action, I have little more to say. Jayjg 17:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I have not implied that I am a Reform Jew, Jayjg 17:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, you're right, I don't like having you edit my statements, or break them up.  Copy them below if you must, but stop editing them and breaking them up.  I'm not the first person on this Talk: page who has complained about that.  Regarding your point, please do not waste any more time discussing my personal beliefs or your own religious beliefs regarding my actions.  Stick to the issues. Jayjg 02:47, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: nor am I upset about being mistaken for one; Jayjg 17:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I have a strong objection to ad hominem statements.  Please do not waste any more time discussing my personal beliefs or your own religious beliefs regarding my actions. Stick to the issues. Jayjg 02:51, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I have a strong objection to ad hominem statements. Please do not waste any more time discussing my personal beliefs or your own religious beliefs regarding my actions. Stick to the issues. Jayjg 02:52, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant issues section

message: Jayig used the frase "shocking breach of Wikipedia etiquette" and from his eksampliary postings above, I realise now that he is indiid the living word on wikiket. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Nazarene_Judaism&diff=4766600&oldid=4765580 for an example of how he never does what he is so shocked about. Could you tell me where eggsactly I could find the reference you wish for me to imurs my very being with in the steps to achieving your level please? Thankyou in advance.Zestauferov 16:15, 12 Aug 2004(UTC)
:See Wikipedia:Wikiquette Wikipedia:No personal attacks Wikipedia:No legal threats.  Also please review Ad hominem and Poisoning the well. Jayjg 16:30, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, changing the title of a section to make it more informative is nothing like editing a person's Talk: comments. Jayjg 03:08, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words "It is alright for me to do it but no one else can". Who is making up all these rules I wonder?Zestauferov 03:35, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the actual words were "changing the title of a section to make it more informative is nothing like editing a person's Talk: comments", which means something else entirely.  The Wikipedia community as a whole makes up all these rules; I have referred you to a number of relevant pages in the past.  Please see earlier comments. Jayjg 03:43, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I have not implied that I am a Reform Jew, nor am I upset about being mistaken for one; however, I again strongly protest your use of this accusation to "Poison the well", as well as your continued liberal use of ad hominem statements throughout your arguments.  Please stick to discussing the issues, and leave me, my status, and my beliefs out of it. Try to make an argument for your position regarding "Nazarene Judaism" that does not use the word "you" at all.  As for the sophistry and dissembling in the above statements regarding legal action, I have little more to say. Jayjg 17:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I have not implied that I am a Reform Jew, Jayjg 17:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, you're right, I don't like having you edit my statements, or break them up.  Copy them below if you must, but stop editing them and breaking them up.  I'm not the first person on this Talk: page who has complained about that.  Regarding your point, please do not waste any more time discussing my personal beliefs or your own religious beliefs regarding my actions.  Stick to the issues. Jayjg 02:47, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: nor am I upset about being mistaken for one; Jayjg 17:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I have a strong objection to ad hominem statements.  Please do not waste any more time discussing my personal beliefs or your own religious beliefs regarding my actions. Stick to the issues. Jayjg 02:51, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I have a strong objection to ad hominem statements. Please do not waste any more time discussing my personal beliefs or your own religious beliefs regarding my actions. Stick to the issues. Jayjg 02:52, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Etiquette

message: :I have not implied that I am a Reform Jew, Jayjg 17:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right, I don't like having you edit my statements, or break them up.  Copy them below if you must, but stop editing them and breaking them up.  I'm not the first person on this Talk: page who has complained about that.  Regarding your point, please do not waste any more time discussing my personal beliefs or your own religious beliefs regarding my actions.  Stick to the issues. Jayjg 02:47, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Was the assumption that Jayig was a reform Jew justified?

message: :nor am I upset about being mistaken for one; Jayjg 17:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a strong objection to ad hominem statements.  Please do not waste any more time discussing my personal beliefs or your own religious beliefs regarding my actions. Stick to the issues. Jayjg 02:51, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Was Jayig upset about being mistaken for a reform Jew?

message: however, I again strongly protest your use of this accusation to "Poison the well", as well as your continued liberal use of ad hominem statements throughout your arguments. Jayjg 17:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a strong objection to ad hominem statements. Please do not waste any more time discussing my personal beliefs or your own religious beliefs regarding my actions. Stick to the issues. Jayjg 02:52, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does Jayig think being a reform Jew is an ad hominem attempt to "poison the well"

message: As for the sophistry and dissembling in the above statements regarding legal action, I have little more to say. Jayjg 17:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: No more sophistry

message: I'm sorry I wasn't able to keep up with what was going on yesterday - I had to go out of town on a trip that took longer than expected.  Zestauferov, when I apologized for accusing you of deleting comments from talk pages, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.  I hope I was not mistaken in doing do.  Your editing of another user's comments does little to allay my misgivings about your apparent attitude, and I hope you will show greater tact from now on.  If Jayig misinterpreted what you said, then point that out, but please refrain from editing his - or anybody else's - comments.  It's not fair to everybody else if all and sundry can reword any comments they don't like.  I'm still waiting for you to address the issue at hand - and I'm still waiting for the e-mail you said you were going to send me.  There's no hurry, but it might shed some light on the points of disagreement.  Anyway, I have to go to work again this afternoon; I will try to get back tonight or tomorrow sometime.  Anyway, what I said to you, I also say to everybody: deleting or editing other users' comments in talk pages is inappropriate.  Talk to you later. David Cannon (administrator)  ,    (UTC)
I have sent you several emails already. have you checked your hotmail recently?Zestauferov 04:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catching up