Talk:Judaism/Archive 6

message: The page shows a picture of the Menorah, as being a symbol of Judaism, but then points out that it isn't a truly "kosher" Menorah. So what's the point in putting it there? Was it too difficult to find an image of a "Kosher" Menorah? Loomis51 16:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone have their Talmud handy?  I thought that the shamash having to be higher is a feature of the hannukiah.  Does the same rule apply to the Temple menorah?  The picture of the menorah on the frieze of Titus's arch shows all seven branches being of equal height and at the same level. Is it possible that whoever wrote the comment in question was thinking of a hannukiah and not a menorah? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the Unkosher Menorah?

message: Yoshia, please bring proposed changes to the Karaite section here first.  Thanks. Jayjg 05:40, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karaite section 

message: The article Zoroastrianism claims that Zoroastrianism was an influence on the development on Judaism, but this article has nothing to say on the matter. What gives? Who's right?
:Many historians suggest that Jewish concern with a struggle between good and evil, which emerged in literature written during the Babylonial exile, was strongly influenced if not inspired by Zoroastrian dualism.  I don't have any sources offhand, but I think this is the origin to the claim. Slrubenstein
It is more of an influence on the Essenes and Christianity (eschatology, soteriology, satan, heaven, hell, purgatory, angels, .. the list goes on forever). However, it is suggested that before the Babylonian exile the Jews were more henotheistic than strictly monotheistic (the same kind of criticism exists in the dualism of Zoroastrianism, even though it is primarily monotheistic in nature as well), and that sheol, for instance, was replaced with an eternal soul and an afterlife depending on your conduct in life. But since Moses and Zarathushtra were contemporaries, any ancient pre-Daniel influence would have been mutual, if occurring at all. And it was my understanding  that the משיח if not just 'an anointed one' was a savior of the Jewish people that would deliver them from the Romans (as Moses led his people from bondage), and not a cosmic world savior like the Zoroastrian Saoshyant whom is prophesized to be announced by a star, be born of a virgin, have a halo, perform miracles, and resurrect the dead and renovate the world at the Day of Judgement (Frashegird). Last time I was at the Zoroastrian article talk page there was dispute between the consensus of us and an Evangelical or two. I gave it up, and am instead using my time productively writing Zoroastrian related articles, due to the complete dearth thereof. If I have made myself sound like an ignorant gentile, that's 'cause I am! I came here wanting to ask about the eternal flame of the temple (?) in Judaism because of one of the articles I'm currently writing. And lo and behold, this serendipitous question. Zoroastrianism is sorta my forte, to put it lightly. Please ask me anything you want to know, and teach me what you know! I can give internet resources, book resources, and dig up those good ol' Bible (or Tanakh in this case) passages (if I can remember which source has which reference!). Khiradtalk
: I will have to check my source, but one scholar suggested that Jewish monotheism (especially in the regular recitation of the Shema) emerged as a central element of Judaism in reaction against (perceived) Zoroastrianism dualism.  But here, as in all cases, we have to comply with our Wikipedia: No original research policy.  Please do add relevant material, but only if you can source it and it is not the conclusions of your own research. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zoroastrianism 

message: I think alphabetical is the most neutral way to list them.  However, if they're going to be listed by size (as a recent edit changed it), I'll believe that Orthodox is the largest in the Diaspora (since it accounts for the majority of active Jews outside of Israel and North America), but Reform is larger than Conservative in the US according to the latest NJPS, and the US accounts for the majority of Reform/Conservative Jews, so it's reasonable to say that Reform is larger than Conservative in the Diaspora as a whole. Dreyfus 23:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: These things are hard to know, but Reform is certainly the largest in the U.S. Anyway, the order now is more or less by age of the movement, which is another reasonable order. Jayjg 00:58, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of Diaspora denominations 

message: Hi, welcome the new Wikipedia  Template:Judaism-stub . There is also a new   Template:Israel-stub
. Please use them when coming across relevant "stub" articles.
Best wishes, IZAK 14:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New  "Judaism stub" and "Israel stub" 

message: Isn't the star of david normally blue? Masterhomer 07:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is.  Apparently Ed 2gs changed it last month because he felt as blue star wasn't "neutral".  I've changed it back, as blue is common, and a black star has unpleasant associations. Jayjg 16:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: The Star of David is more of a cultural symbol.  The menorah I'm not so sure about. Jayjg 06:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star of David 

message: I have added substantial text to the The_names_of_God_in_Judaism and need some help in checking the text for accuracy. Any help anyone can offer will be much appreciated. --Zappaz 17:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The names of God in Judaism 

message: As a religious Jew I would like to point out an error. Abraham was NOT a jew. This subject has a huge discussion in the talmud. And the final answer is that he was not a jew. All jews became jewish at the giving of the torah at mount sinai. That event "started" the jewish religion. Everyone present (irregardless of descent, and there were many who didn't descend from abraham) became jewish at that moment.
Additionally Abraham can not be the first jew because it decends via the mother - and if Sarah was a jew then what about eysav (the other son)?
A better way to write this is:
Judaism traces its origin to Abraham, who was the first to recognise a monotheistic god.
:I get your point, but it is somewhat ... wrong.  For one thing, the matrilineal rule didn't start until the time of the Amoraim, although it had earlier antecedants.  Meaning, how a "Jew" is defined today is different from how it was defined int he past.  Also, although I agree with you about the formative importance of the covenant at Sinai, clearly the Torah suggest that this was a formalazation and extension of the covenant made between God and Abraham.  In any event, the reason Abraham was not a Jew is that Jews are descendants of Judah.  It was only after the Northern Kingdom was conquered, and the Judeans emerged as the dominant remaining group, that people started to think of themselves as Jews.  Before then, they were Israelites or Children of Israel. Slrubenstein 01:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean when you say that the matrilineal rule started from the amoraim? Do you have a source for that in the gemara? --Ezra Wax 03:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: A fair question.  Shaye J. D. Cohen 2001 The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties Berkeley: University of Californial Press . By the way, it is possible I meant to write Tannaim, but I am pretty sure I got it right. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  14:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked up your source. It is his opinion that it is a second temple era innovation, but he does admit that there are those who disagree with him. The Haredi view is that matrilineal descent originates from Har Sinai, as can be seen from Rashi on the Chumash. --Ezra Wax 20:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You did mean to write Tannaim. See Tractate Kiddushin (68b), where the rule of matrilineal descent is stated by Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Shimon Ben Yochai. The format of the claim (mina'yin followed by a biblical source) is demonstrative that, at least, these Tannaim were claiming that matrilineal descent is a biblically derived. Furthermore, matrilineal descent is strongly implied in Deuteronomy (7:4). (Rashi was quoting the Talmud, not merely interpreting that the rule is biblically derived). In short: Either the Talmud was telling the truth, and matrilineal descent is a biblical rule (as all Orthodox scholars believe), or the rabbis of the Talmud were disingenuous and made up a rule while claiming it was of biblical origins. HKT 00:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: While your point is technically correct, Abraham is often considered the be the first Jew in Judaism, regardless of what the anon comment above states. See, for example,         etc.  I think that pretty much covers the spectrum of Jewish movements. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 03:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Abraham as first jew

message: Actually, I've read the same thing on more or less reliable mainstream sources, not revisionism type sources, the specifics of which I can't remember; that there is archaeological evidence of ancient settlements around Hebron and Nablus that are somehow identified as the Hebrews (i.e., Abraham's tribe and Isaac's) and there is also archaeological evidence of a large influx of people some time later (i.e. the 12 tribes arrive from Egypt) which identify themselves with those two original tribes, but there is in fact no archaeological evidence at all of the exile to Egypt, the presence of Hebrews in Egypt, or, by extension, any actual linkage of the group 'returning from exile' with the original two settlements other than their claim to be so. However I agree that this info/speculation doesn't fit well in the intro, and maybe not even in this article unless there is some general archaeological discussion I haven't noticed. Gzuckier 05:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archeological evidence for exile/slavery in Egypt, lack of same, deleted from intro today

message: In the historical context of this article, is it really appropriate to link "Persia" to Iran? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:29, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
:Probably not.  And in my experience Persian Jews refer to themselves as Persian, not Iranian. Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran/Persia 

message: Hi & sorry for being a bit offtopic, but would someone please check the article about the synagogue in my hometown both for English grammar and from Jewish point of view? thanks – Alensha 21:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please check my article...

message: "During this stretch of time, Jews have experienced slavery, anarchic self-government, theocratic self-government, conquest, occupation, and exile; ... " Could someone please add more information about this "anarchic self-government"? Guaka 00:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that this is referring to the period of time explained in the Book of Judges, when Israel (the people, not the land or the country) had no government, but was given guidance by a series of disparate judges.  --Spem 06:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarchic self-government?

message: According to both traditional Jews and critical historical scholars, a number of ideas distinguish Judaism from the other religions that existed when it first developed. One characteristic was monotheism. The significance of this idea lies in that Judaism holds that God created, and cares about, humankind. In polytheistic religions, humankind is often created by accident, and the gods are primarily concerned with their relations with other gods, not with people.
While such an association between monotheism and divine concern (and the corresponding association between polytheism and lack of divine concern) is found in some belief systems, there is no intrinsic connection. Aristotle, for example, thought that the Creator (note the monotheism) created the world but doesn't sustain it. Friedrich Nietzsche also believed in a Creator who left the universe to function for itself. By contrast, many polytheistic religions believed/believe in personal, family, and/or national "guardian" gods. This paragraph needs to be revamped - posthaste! HKT 2:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct.  But I think this passage makes it clear that this view of a caring creator is a Jewish view.  If you feel this point can be made more clearly, by all means do so, Slrubenstein   |  Talk  15:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Bravo, HKT. Your explains things much more clearly, and is a lot more accurate in describing polytheism.Putrescent stench 16:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-sequiter 

message: This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view.  In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Announcing a proposal concerning NPOV that may be of interest to contributors 

message: Someone keeps deleting the section on Jewish philosophy.  If this person doesn't give a reasonable explanation, we will have to consider him/her a vandal. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  17:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous user deleting Jewish Philosophy 

message: There is no mention here, of the Ethiopian Jews, whose religious practices are sometimes quite "alien" to what is discussed in this article.  Anyone know enough to write something about it?  Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 16:19 (UTC)
:That should probably be started in the Beta Israel article, then perhaps summarized here. Jayjg (talk) 8 July 2005 17:42 (UTC)
::All I know about the Ethiopian Jews is that they had a mass exodus from Ethiopia to Israel, with El Al planes which had their seats taken out. -- 210.9.188.178 00:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whither Etyopim? 

message: Some of you (even non-Yiddish speakers) might be interested in my half-baked plan to revitalize the moribund (only 121 articles) Yiddish Wikipedia.  Please see my idea at Talk:Yiddish_language#Yiddish_Wikipedia, and thanks.--Pharos 05:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yiddish Wikipedia 

message: I'm going to assume that Jordain's inserting "BC/AD" into this article, against clear consensus not to use that terminology on topics about Judaism, was not a deliberate act of religious hostility. I have reverted it. If the change is repeated, I will presume that my assumption of good faith was misplaced. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC/AD 

message: Urgent: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 18:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew naming conventions  

message: Earlier, I added the following to the Brit Milah section, and it was reverted by user Savant1984 who claimed it was vandalism. I disagree with this, as the information is basic to Brit Milah, covering aspects that are often ignored, to everyone's detriment. This is a topic with which I am seriously concerned, because it has affected me and my loved ones very personally. May I ask what you considered objectionable in my posting? It was as follows:
Brit Milah - "Initiating male babies into the biblical covenant through the violent rite of circumcision, wherein part of the penis is removed, traumatizing the child, disrupting his neurological and emotional development, and creating a permanent diminishment in his capacity for sexual pleasure throughout his adult life. This violent initiation ritual creates a psychological trap for the adult participants, binding them to Judaism, since in order to discard their mental framework of Jewish belief, they would now have to face the fact that, unwittingly, they have participated in an atrocity."
Thank you for any sincere comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.242.171.140 (talk • contribs) .
: Please sign your posts at talk with ~~~~. I reverted your inflammatory text. See WP:NOR and other WP:RULES. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  YAW. To auto-sign, try no tags, just four tildes. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's actually hard to imagine a less appropriate edit, short of deliberate vandalism. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted addition to Brit Milah subtopic 

message: I find the recent shift of part of this to a multi-column format annoying, especially where it is done with prose rather than lists. What do others think? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, typography gone bad. --Goodoldpolonius2 19:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it is annoying, but I can't think of anything better. How about a table? Izehar 19:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about back to how it was? Like the rest of Wikipedia? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The Jewish prophets are the ones in the Bible, of course. Why should they accept a non-Jewish prophet? Do you suggest the article should state explicitly that they only accept the word of the Jewish prophets? Sounds a bit like stating the obvious. JFW | T@lk 05:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-column 

message: I changed the heading from "Religious views" to "Orthodox views."  My word choice may not be perfect, but it is better than the prior version because many Jews reject the claim that the oral Torah was revealed at Sinai or even that God revealed the written Torah at Sinai, and yet consider themselves very religious — and some even observe the law. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 06:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to "traditional", since I think that the section does describe the traditional view -- which one could hold as a member of various Orthodox groups or the Conservative movement (though is probably, admittedly, still most widely held in mainstream Orthodoxy). Savant1984 06:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  orthodox versus religious 

message: This is a very good article and it should be published. -- Zondor 08:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  publication 

message: Would editors knowledgable about the Judeo-Christian ethic or tradition see my comment here: ?  Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  call for help 

message: To this sentence:
:These groups are viewed highly negatively by all Jewish denominations, which typically see them as covert and deceptive attempts to convert Jews to Christianity, a view Messianic-Jewish groups strongly contest in the public, 
someone added
:but which has been shown to be true according to private documents released by ex-Missionaries.
I just reverted.  My reversion hasnothing to do with my own point of view.  But on the face of it, the clause I deleted is admitting that the sources for this claim areunverifiable.  It thus violates Wikipedia:No original research.  If someone can provide a verifiable source for this claim, of course I would have no objection at all to re-inserting it into the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  explaining my revert 

message: Orthodox,Ultra Orthodox,Reform,Conservative,Constructionist,Reconstructionist,Half-Jew(moms side), Progressive,Revisionist,,,,,,,,,,AHHHHHHHHH!
Who is Jewish? There is only one kind of Jew- the Jewish Jew. Halacha says that a someone who has a Jewish mother or Converted Halachically, has a Jewish soul [and is thus Jewish]. Simplifies things a bit, doesn't it?
Jews have one Code of Law. The Shulchan Aruch. Theres no need to spur confusion.
::To say that the Shulchan Aruch is the one and only code of Jewish law is quite disturbing. As a Conservative/Orthodox Jew, I regard the only true source of Jewish law as the Torah, in both its oral and written form. The written Torah is simple to identify, it's the Tanach. The oral Torah is more difficult to describe. It was meant to be oral and continuously debated, but for emergency purposes, facing an imminent diaspora, it was put into writing in the Mishna, which was later elaborated upon in the Gemarrah.
::Still, the oral Torah should be continuously debated. That I believe is how it originally existed before the compilation of the Mishnah, and is what I believe to be the true spirit of Judaism. It is also why, altough raised in the Orthodox tradition, I began to be of the opinion that Orthodox Judaism has strayed too far from the true spirit of Judaism in "closing the book" so to speak, on further discourse. Putting the laws of Judaism down in a code written centuries ago by one Rabbi, and following it letter for letter to me is not the way Judaism was meant to be practiced, and indeed I find it very disturbing that one should state simply: "Jews have one Code of Law. The Shulchan Aruch". It almost seems like some Orthodox Jews are putting the Shulchan Aruch on a higher level than the actual Torah, which is extremely disturbing, as is the fact that Reb made no reference to the actual Torah as being the ultimate source of Jewish Law. All this is not to denigrate the value of the Shulchan Aruch, it is, indeed, a splendid distillation of Jewish Law as it had developed to that point. But to forever close the book and declare it as the authoritative source of Jewish Law is just plain wrong to me. The Torah was meant to be continuously debated, and any attempts to "close the book" on Jewish Law are, at the very least, misguided. Loomis51 16:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a legitimate viewpoint for the most part, Reb, but Wikipedia has to be a bit more impartial than that.  Those "labels" indicate how people think about and apply Judaism -- halacha and aggadah.  What counts as halachic conversion?  These kinds of things are all relevant and controversial.  In particular, saying that the Shulchan Aruch is the definitive code of Jewish law is very controversial.  There are several others one could easily favour -- Rambam's Mishneh Torah comes to mind -- and one can very plausibly reject the idea that there is or can be a universally definitive code.  Finally, I'd point out that under Jewish law, a Jew who becomes a Christian is still a Jew ("a Jew who sins is still a Jew") though certainly an apostate, and his "Judaism" is really Christianity. --Savant1984 00:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Labels Are For T-Shirts, Not Jews" -The Lubavitcher Rebbe 

message: Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.--Fenice 15:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: I deleted an inaccurate and POV passage about "Ultra-Orthodox" Jews that identified them as a subset of Haredi Jews and accused them of "going to extremes". Benami 03:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. It is highly debatable what reach the term "ultra" has. From the POV of the average outsider, most Haredim would be called Ultra anyway. JFW | T@lk 03:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ultra-Orthodox" 

message: I deleted a passage that listed adherence to kashrut by denomination. Since there's already a section outlining in detail the approach of each movement to halakha, I didn't think that every aspect of Jewish practice has to be split into "Orthodox Jews do this, Conservative Jews do this, etc." Benami 19:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kashrut 

message: Why do we give special mention to the Shulkhan Arukh in the opening?  Doesn't it fall under halakha, being merely Caro's codification thereof?  To be sure, it's significant as the definitive code for most Orthodox Jews, but giving it special prominence in the opening here seems denominational bias toward them. --Savant1984 18:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Special mention of Shulkhan Arukh in opening

message: I removed a reference to Yahweh from the Critical development section, since it would have been the only reference to this name in the article. I also think that using it is about as problematic as using one of the older suppositions at how to pronounce Y-H-W-H - Jehovah. Benami 00:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yahweh 

message: I have created the above page: further information welcome. Jackiespeel 17:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Women as theological figures]]

message: Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a thousand faces: 
Persian belief was reorganized by the prophet Zarathushtra according to a strict dualism of good and evil principles, light and dark, angels and devils. This crisis profoundly affected not only the Persians, but also the subject Hebrew beliefs, and thereby (centuries later) Christianity.
"Now it was from this very creed of Zoroaster that the Jews derived all the angelology of their religion...the belief in a future state; of rewards and punishments, ...the soul's immortality, and the Last Judgment - all of them essential parts of the Zoroastrian scheme." From The Gnostics and Their Remains (London 1887) by King and Moore quoted at 607a in Peake's Bible Commentary.
FROM ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA : "First, the figure of Satan, originally a servant of God, appointed by Him as His prosecutor, came more and more to resemble Ahriman, the enemy of God. Secondly, the figure of the Messiah, originally a future King of Israel who would save his people from oppression, evolved, in Deutero-Isaiah for instance, into a universal Savior very similar to the Iranian Saoshyant. Other points of comparison between Iran and Israel include the doctrine of the millennia; the Last Judgment; the heavenly book in which human actions are inscribed; the Resurrection; the final transformation of the earth; paradise on earth or in heaven; and hell." by J. Duchesne-Guillemin, University of Liege, Belgium
:You seem, as do the authors you're quoting, to be laboring under some deeply misguided delusions about the rôle of "satan", "messiah", and a great many other things, in Judaism.  Cheers, Tomertalk 10:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Zoroaster and the Influence on Judism, Thereafter Humanity]]

message: This text (not mine) was wrongly placed by an anon. It may be useful elswhere if there is truth in it and if important enough. 02:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Text from article

message: I have been working on the Forgiveness article. Would someone be willing to take a stab at adding a Judaism heading under the "Religious and spiritual views of forgiveness" heading in that article and trying to concisely state Judaism's view on forgiveness?  Any help would be appreciated.  --speet 04:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for help on forgiveness article

message: I have read that early Judiasm may have been monolatristic - i.e., that they accepted the existence of many gods, but believed that only God should be worshipped. In fact, it is alluded to in the section titled "Critical historical view of the development of Judaism" (as of this post, section 3). Would it be appropriate to mention monolatrism in that, or other, sections? -- 24.225.247.157 06:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be something for the "critical historical" section. It is based on a ridiculously literal reading of the Biblical idiom, but never mind. Do you have a source to support your suggestion? JFW | T@lk 10:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this idea "based on a ridiculously literal reading of the Biblical idiom"? -- 24.225.247.157 14:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you - in the article on monolatrism, there is a link to henotheism; and as their definitions appeared to me very similar, I was unsure which would be applicable. In hindsight, I see that henotheism is already mentioned in the section I was reading! -- 24.225.247.157 14:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the word "monolytheistic," used in the article, supposed to be monolaristic? Or polytheistic? monotheistic? It obviously matters for the sentence, but I can't tell what the right term should be. (And if it is "monolytheistic," what does that mean?) Thanks.  Still A Student 04:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It actually seems quite relevant to the previous paragraph, wihch is about the emergence of monotheism and its interpretation as much as about Rabbinic Judaism. That the evidence is hardly new seems to me an argument for including it in an encyclopedia. I'm not adding it back, because I don't have the expertise. But if the Uggaritic evidence is on this point, it would be helpful to include. Whoever originally added it should clarify. Still A Student 14:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monolatrism 

message: Is in Easteurope a area or a town where a lot of Jews are living today? Simon MAYER
: I assume that you mean "Is there an area or a town in Eastern Europe where a lot of Jews are living today?" It's all a matter of what you count as Eastern Europe (and what you count as "a lot"). Budapest has quite a large Jewish population (I'm not sure of the number, but it's in the low six figures). And there are still quite a few cities in Russia with quite large Jewish populations, but it's harder to get solid numbers. You might find some interesting information at . - Jmabel | Talk 06:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Europe 

message: Would people who regularly follow/contribute to this article please look at  (Primitive Yahwism and the talk page, where I express my concerns?  Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  informal request for comment