Talk:Nazarene (sect)/Archive 3

message: A long time ago someone made the suggestion that this page should be merged with Nazarene Judaism. If anyone has time could they do this sizeable job please? There is a lot of redundancy between the two pages.Zestauferov 14:18, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Jayjg 18:02, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: The so-called "merge" on August 9 actually created a third version of the article, with similar information.  Wetman redirected the Nazarene Judaism page not to this article, but in fact to Nazarene Jews, yet another version of the article which you created at the end of July.  I merely pointed Nazarene Jews to Nazarene Judaism instead, since that was the older article which had all the relevant Talk: .  Now all three Nazarene articles point to one place, here, which has the relevant information.  If you have any specific information about the article you disagree with, please raise it here. Jayjg 14:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I'd requested mediation on this long ago, but hadn't made much progress. Jayjg 14:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I haven't changed or disputed any facts in the existing articles, merely re-organized the material into a more logical flow, removed various spelling and grammar errors, removed overly detailed or duplicated material, and re-written certain parts into more neutral terminology (e.g. "the Netzarim movement believes" rather than "Neztarim believe").  If there are any specific items in the copyedits you disagree with, or important facts you feel are left out, please let me know. Jayjg 14:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: What exactly have I "deleted"?  I did my best to merge things from the old articles into the new sections, and make the flow simpler and the article easier to understand.  If I've left out something you view as important, please just let me know what it is. Jayjg 16:42, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: One of the first rules of Wikipedia editing is Be bold in updating pages.  I haven't made many changes to content, or deleted any controversial sections, I've mostly merged, re-ordered, and occasionally re-worded.  Is there anything in particular in the current content that you think does not represent what was in the previous two articles? Or are you just objecting on principle?  Jayjg 18:44, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm not going to keep repeating myself.  If you have any specific changes you question or disagree with, or any additional material you feel needs to be included, please let me know. Jayjg 15:01, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Well I suppose I do have to keep repeating myself. The request was that you explain everything if you do not then the revert war is back on. I have asked you to explain yourself more times now than you have asked for specifics. I have told you where you can find the specifics -EVERYTHING IN RED. I am being specific. Now stop being lazy and deal with the request.Zestauferov 16:58, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Everything in Red" is meaningless; because the article has been re-organized, much of it is now "in Red".  If you have nothing you specifically object to (and as yet you have not been able to name a single specific example), then I recommend leaving the article as is.  Revert wars are strongly not recommended in Wikipedia. Jayjg 17:34, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: You want me to count lines now?  Please use your own common sense. Jayjg 17:53, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The edits are indeed extensive, and re-doing them in the way you suggest would take several hours, not 20 minutes.  However, I have listed all the significant edits I can find below; that alone took 45 minutes.  Some small re-wordings, grammar and tense changes, typo fixes, etc. may have been missed.  Have at it. Jayjg 19:05, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Needed 

message: Notzrim / Nasaraioi (Watchers)
The original Nasoraean/Notzarim sect pre-dated the common era by nearly two centuries but is thought to have eventually exerted its influence over the Yehoshua movement. Epiphanius calls them Nasaraeans (Nasaraioi) distinguishing them from Nazoraeans (Nazoraioi) and confirms the existence of their heresy before the Christian period. From the end of the 1st century onwards, Notzrim came simply to mean Christians. Famous Notzri of the pre-Christian era (who lived during the reign of King Yannai -Alexander Jannnaeus) include a rebellious student mentioned in the Baraitas as Yeishu (Ha-Notzri) and his followers. It is not known if there were ever any Notzrim Paqidim (clerics). In Arabic they were known as Nasara. Epiphanius says it was unlawful for them to eat meat or make sacrifices. According to him they were Jews only by nationality who lived in Gilead, Basham, and the Transjordan. They revered Moses but believed he had received different laws from those acredited to him. They also disparaged the Christian books as fiction. In the Mishnah the are often refered to as Minim and they have frequently been connected with the Mandaeans  and Naaseni/Naasenians/Naassenes but at any rate they were certainly a Gnostic sect. Thesedays however the term is most commonly used to refer to Messianic Jews
This section was moved higher, to be with the rest of the historical information.  Comments? Jayjg 18:24, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I had already removed it entirely (see below), for precisely the reasons you mention. Jayjg 20:13, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: At least one of these has been claimed to have been in existence a century prior to the Christian movement. I've removed this unsupported statement here. Are some modern-day "neo"-Nazarenes making this wishful claim? --Wetman 20:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections concerning "Pre-Christian Nazarenes" moved to historical section 

message: St. Jerome on the other hand wrote that he received permission from the Nazaraeans at Beraea of Syria to translate their "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" into Greek. He criticized their original for containing matter which would be damaging to Christianity. 
This information was moved from the bottom to the top historical section as well, and combined with other information about Jerome.  Comments? Jayjg 18:31, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was just trying to put related statements together.  There really was no "context" for the latter Jerome claims; it was just more of the agenda based material you objected to immediately above.  But in line with your other comments, where exactly does Jerome say this? What exactly does he say?  I don't think he describes the material as "damaging to Christians"; that sounds like more of the agenda based stuff you've already referred to.  By the way, what do you think the "new agenda" is? Jayjg 20:13, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found references for the Theodoret and Jerome quotes, and given them a context. Jayjg 21:30, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerome and "Nazareans" of Syria 

message: "Jesus", "Yeshoshua", "Ribi Yehoshua" etc. all standardized on Jesus.  Comments? Jayjg 18:37, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of how they understand or reconstruct Jesus, the underlying figure represented is still Jesus, and this is the relevant Wikipedia terminology. Jayjg 07:07, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Jesus, in fact, is commonly understood to be a historical figure, and the Jesus article discusses this at some length, including the many different views of exactly what kind of historical figure he was.  The fact that the "Netzarim" movement has its own understanding of the "historical Jesus" comes as no surprise, it seems that just about everyone does.  Nevertheless, the various scholars who discuss these different understandings do not feel any need to come up with different names for Jesus in order to express their understandings.  And the name "Jesus" comes from the Hebrew name Yehoshua, as the Septuagint clearly shows (Yeshua is probably a variant or Aramaic version of Yehoshua); it has no relation to the name Zeus.  There is no "scholastic work" proving that Jesus was a "rabbi".  In fact, the use of that term for the time period in question is anachronistic, and in any event is not relevant to this issue; nor is the fact that Jesus was likely a Jew.  Please review the Jesus article which deals with most of your assertions. Jayjg 16:11, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Again, this is not my edit or addition, but that of the admin Ed Poor.  Please feel free to create a section on this specific sect of Nazarene Judaism as well; if you won't, I'll try to get to it in the next couple of days. Jayjg 07:09, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what you're saying; I haven't "admit[ted] ignorance on where to draw the lines".  To make things perfectly clear, I have not written these articles; rather, I discovered that there were three articles on Nazarenes, each containing substantially overlapping information, and all poorly written.  After requests from people including you, I consolidated the information into one article, and re-organized, copyedited, and NPOVd it.  My thanks for doing this work, which took several hours, was to have it reverted out of hand, though you refused to highlight any specific items in it with which you disagreed.  The subsequent defence of this re-write has taken at least two more hours, and the issues raised so far all reflect problems with the original articles, not with my re-write.  I have also already committed to trying to fix the problems in the articles that other authors introduced, and the only point upon which we are currently disagreeing is whether or not Jesus should be called "Jesus" or "Yehoshua".  My question is, what exactly do you want at this point? Jayjg 16:11, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardized usage changes 

message: Netzarim use the complete and original Hebrew Tanakh & Mishnah. Having rejected the "New Testament" as null, they do however acknowledge the reconstructed Hebrew Matityâhu (in place of the synoptic gospels which they reject) as their only trustworthy guide to the life of the Chasidic Ribi Yehoshua. Besides this they also refer to Ma•avâr the reconstructed Hebrew book of Acts, and the reconstructed works of Yokhânân "Bên-Rōgêz" Bar-Zavdi•eil including Ha-Hitgalut (the unveiling) instead of John and the Apocalypse of John. They do not consider any of theses as "gospel" but rather take a scholastic approach to critically analyse any relevant early Christian writings. They use the Yemenite Baladi liturgy. 
was changed to
The movement uses the complete and original Hebrew Tanakh and Mishnah.  While it rejects the "New Testament", it has created several "reconstructed" Hebrew works, including 
* a Gospel called Matityâhu (viewed as the only trustworthy guide to the life of Jesus),  
* the Ma•avâr, based on the Book of Acts, and
* Ha-Hitgalut, (the unveiling) based on the Apocalypse of John (who they call Yokhânân "Bên-Rōgêz" Bar-Zavdi•eil). 
The movement does not consider any of these works as "gospel" but rather take a scholastic approach to critically analyse any relevant early Christian writings.
The language was tightened and made clearer, formatting improved, some stuff NPOVd, and Yemenite Baladi liturgy information was moved to the area which talks about Rabbis and synagogues. Comments? Jayjg 18:49, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "reconstructed" is one the group uses, but it is not clear what it means, so I merely quoted them. Jayjg 21:02, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Reconstructed means just that. Your English is otherwise very good, If I had realised before it could have saved much misunderstanding. Zestauferov 01:05, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: In any event, in order to accomodate your objections, I've just made it clear that the movement uses this term, and left it at that. Jayjg 02:59, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Reconstructed can mean a number of things; what do you think the movement means in this case? Jayjg 02:10, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: From context it almost certainly means "rebuilt from surviving material, possibly with some addition and interpolation"
Matityahu is a biographical record not a gospel and is not considered such. Why did you feel you had to put that phrase in?Zestauferov 19:11, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: How can it be a biographical record?  The information in it is based on gospel stories, there are no other "biographies" of the life of Jesus. Jayjg 21:02, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: While Q is a commonly held theory, it remains just that, a theory of New Testament scholars.  No actual Q document exists, so it's contents, whatever they may have been, remain speculative.  By the way, scholars do not believe Q underlies the non-synoptic gospel John.  In any event, Q was thought to be a gospel, and it cannot be a "biography", since it doesn't actually exist. Jayjg 02:13, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scripture 

message: "Theodoret wrote that the Nazaraeans were Jews who knew the messiah as a righteous man, and used the "Gospel According to Peter". "
This was deleted, as it didn't make a lot of sense, seemed to repeat other information, and in any event was unattributed (the work and section were not named, merely the author). Jayjg 18:51, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough lets see if we can find a source mentioning something like this on the net. Theodoret Nazaraeans "Gospel According to Peter" in Google should do it.Zestauferov 19:33, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Lets put the immersing back in.Zestauferov 19:33, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why, but O.K. Jayjg 02:06, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: What is the correct meaning, according to the movement?  In any event, there is no record that the Notzrim had all sorts of stuff that modern religious groups had, but these anachronisms should not be inserted into the historical section describing the ancient Notzrim. If you want you could put it into the section describing "Netazrim", though it seems fairly trivial to me.  Jayjg 21:07, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Aside from the claims of the Netzarim movement, why do you think there is any difference? Jayjg 02:04, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: According to which historical document? Jayjg 02:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm still waiting for a response. Jayjg 07:41, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted stuff 

message: Jayig your edits conflicted while I was finishing the clean up. Please enter your minor additions again in the correct places. I am referring to your adding in of a section on Nazirites if it has not already been dealt with and the clarification of the size issue as per your latest evidence. The Theology section which needs a title. The Inclusion of Orthodoxy claims. And your small copyedits..Zestauferov 02:13, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Zestauferov, your edits conflicted so they were unfortunately over-written.  In any event, you still have not raised any significant objections to the text as is.  If you have any please raise them here. Jayjg 02:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Actually, your edits reverted a number of already agreed to edits.  There were no current conflicts with the material that was in there; certainly none that you raised on the Talk: page.  I have already accomodated your views on every point of conflict.  See Talk: above.  If you have any actual issues with the text that is there now, please let me know what they are. Jayjg 02:49, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version Conflict 

message: My edits are easy to see but I will link them here for questions and comments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazarene&diff=5469038&oldid=5468979
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazarene&diff=5469236&oldid=5469038
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazarene&diff=5469322&oldid=5469236
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazarene&diff=5469322&oldid=5469236
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazarene&diff=5469359&oldid=5469322
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazarene&diff=5469515&oldid=5469359
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazarene&diff=5469551&oldid=5469515
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazarene&diff=5469580&oldid=5469551
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazarene&diff=5469583&oldid=5469580
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazarene&diff=5469625&oldid=5469583
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazarene&diff=5469665&oldid=5469625
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazarene&diff=5469710&oldid=5469665
The difference between my last minor edit and the following...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazarene&oldid=5469777
...is very small, but because Jayig pretended to have been working on one monumental edit the whole time I was working on all these (while in fact he was just waiting to revert my efforts) it looks like a big change. There was a version conflict which I imagined was very small since I had been just working on it hence the reversion of Jayigs efforts. Then you can see I followed this by a request for him to re-insert his new changes in the new and final format. This is turning into a farce the issue is simple and it is disgusting to see what it is turning into.Zestauferov 06:29, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please explain your reasoning in making each of these edits, as you demanded of me?  The current situation is that at least three editors are working quite amicably on the current version of the article, which, as a result is in much better shape than it has ever been.  You are the odd man out. Jayjg 02:46, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zestauferov's edits 

message: I have removed previous speculations of other authors that the movement is "very small", and replaced it with the NPOV statement that there exists no evidence the movement consists of more than a few dozen individuals. Comments? Jayjg 02:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no evidence that these movements consist of more than a few dozen individuals; you have been asked many times to produce any, yet refuse to do so.  The point is entirely factual and NPOV. If you have any evidence that the movements are larger, please, as you have been asked repeatedly, bring it forward. Jayjg 02:54, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I have removed all references to the size of the movements. Jayjg 13:24, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size information 

message: I have considerably expanded the theology section, and in particular pointed out where the "Netzarim" movement's theology agrees with and disagrees with those of other faiths.  I have also included its claim that the movement is recognized as an Orthodox Jewish group. Jayjg 02:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The format was already cleaned up, and the points are clearly in the article. Jayjg 02:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: No protest remains; please list any that do. Jayjg 02:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wholesale reverts and major changes are not the same as "easily traceable minor changes".  Since you have continually insisted that all changes should be discussed here before entering them, then you should model that behaviour by doing so.  Anything else would be hypocritical. Jayjg 13:26, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims of Orthodoxy - NPOV 

message: The section now reads:
:The movement finds itself at odds with both Judaism and Christianity. Judaism almost universally rejects the concept that the coming of the Jewish Messiah was realized with the birth of Jesus, while Christianity overwhelmingly regards Jesus as being more than a man (see Trinity and Christology).  And while the movement's combination of Jewish ritual and belief that Jesus is the Messiah is characteristic of Messianic Judaism, most Messianic Jewish groups share Christian theology, and insist that Jesus was God incarnate, part of the Trinity.  The movement's view of Jesus accords most closely with those of Unification Church and Islam, which they support the idea of Jesus' non-Trinitarian humanity along with his claim to Messiahship, yet the affinity remains on the theological level and there are no relationships between these faiths and the Netzarim movement. Instead, Van Nest insists that regardless of its belief that Jesus is the Messiah, the movement is accepted by Orthodox Judaism as a legitimate Orthodox Jewish group.
This section describes both the similarities and differences the movement's theology has with those of other religious movements, as well as its claim to be accepted as Orthodox.  As far as I can tell it is entirely factual and NPOV.  Comments? Jayjg 02:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theology and claims of Orthodoxy 

message: :The term Netzarim (Hebrew) means "Branches" and was rendered Nazoraios in Greek. The towns of Nazareth and Netzarim both deive their names from this meaning. To be absolutely precise, any descendant of Israel's king David belongs to the netzarim, the term being an designation of royal pedigree rather than any religious sub-category. The modern netzarim beth-din in Israel who use this term as a self designation wile acknowledging the facts of the matter. Thus literal netzarim have continually been in existence since the demise of Jechonia upto the present most of whom who are aware of their descent being also still Jewish, and not associated with the Jehoshua Movement. The modern Netzarim have been based mostly in Israel and accept Yehoshua (Pandera) Ben Yosef Ben David (whom they see as the historical personality behind the Christian Jesus) as a Messianic figure and as a legitimate rabbi, but not as God. 
:Epiphanius however was under the impression that the original Netzarim Jews (Greek Nazoraios) should be classified as Christians and he called them Nazoraeans. This has been taken to suggest that a significant body of netzarim Jews had become central to a Jewish Jehoshua Movement who took their self-designation after them. They were evicted from Jerusalem in 135 CE and forced into conformity with the Holy Roman Empre in 333. By 370 CE Epiphanius wrote that only a few rare Nazoraeans were still to be found, and these were in Upper Egypt and beyond Arabia. Thus they may have had some late connection to the Arabic Sabians who preceded Islam and considered themselves to be living in the messianic era. Harvey Falk (NY 1985) argues convincingly that they were nothing more than a Davidic branch of Judaism building on Hillel's Noahide mission to the Gentiles in an attempt to bring about the Messianic Era.
I'm removing this section from the article, as it duplicates and sometimes contradicts other materials on the page, is mostly unattributed (aside from various names), is highly POV, mixes modern day and ancient material, riddled with spelling and grammatical errors, and is fairly incomprehensible.  If there's anything that can be salvaged from it and inserted into the article, have at it. Jayjg 03:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Netzarim / Nazoraios (Branches)

message: I have removed the ==Notzrim / Nasaraioi (Watchers)/ Jewish Christians== section, below:
:The original Nasoraean/Notzarim sect pre-dated the common era by at least a century but is thought to have eventually exerted its influence over the Jesus movement. Epiphanius calls them Nasaraeans (Nasaraioi) distinguishing them from Nazoraeans (Nazoraioi) and confirms the existence of their heresy before the Christian period. From the end of the 1st century onwards, Notzrim came simply to mean Christians. Famous Notzri of the pre-Christian era (who lived during the reign of King Yannai -Alexander Jannnaeus) include a rebellious student mentioned in the Baraitas as Yeishu (Ha-Notzri) and his followers. Epiphanius says it was unlawful for them to eat meat or make sacrifices. According to him they were Jews only by nationality who lived in Gilead, Basham, and the Transjordan. They revered Moses but believed he had received different laws from those acredited to him. They also disparaged the Christian books as fiction. In the Mishnah they are often refered to as Minim and are frequently been connected with the Mandaeans  and Naaseni/Naasenians/Naassenes but at any rate they were certainly a Gnostic sect. Thesedays however the term is most commonly used to refer to Messianic Jews. 
:After the word "Christian" had become established as the standard term for the followers of Jesus, there appear to have been one or more groups calling themselves "Nazarenes", perhaps because they wished to lay claim to a more authentic and/or a more Jewish way of following Jesus.  Descriptions of groups with this title are given by the fourth century church father Epiphanius (flourished 370 CE), and Jerome.  On the basis of their accounts, the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1911 stated definitely that the name Nazarenes specifically identified an obscure Jewish-Christian sect, existing at the time of Epiphanius.
:Epiphanius gives the more detailed, though thoroughly disapproving, description, calling the Nazarenes neither more nor less than Jews pure and simple.  He mentions them in his Panarion (xxix. 7) as existing in Syria, Decapolis (Pella) and Basanitis (Cocabe). According to Epiphanius they dated their settlement in Pella from the time of the flight of the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, immediately before the siege in 70 CE. He describes them as those "...who accept Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old Law."   Epiphanius adds, however, that they recognized the new covenant as well as the old, and believed in the resurrection, and in the one God and His Son Jesus Christ.  He cannot say whether their christological views were identical with those of Cerinthus and his followers, or whether they differed at all from his own. 
:Jerome (Epistle 79, to Augustine), on the other hand, says that though the Nazarenes believed in Christ the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rose again, desiring to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither the one nor the other.  He wrote that he received permission from those at Beraea of Syria to translate their "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" into Greek, and criticized it for containing matter which would be damaging to Christianity.  He said they used the Aramaic Gospel of the Hebrews, but, while adhering as far as possible to the Mosaic economy as regarded circumcision, sabbaths, foods and the like, they did not refuse to recognize the apostolicity of Paul or the rights of Gentile Christians (Jerome's Commentary on Isaiah, ix. I). Jerome's description, taken along with the name (cf. Acts 24:5) and geographical position of the sect, strongly suggest that the Nazarenes of the 4th century interacted with the Ebionites in spite of Epiphanius' distinction.
:These two references are all we know of groups calling themselves Nazarenes in the early centuries of the church. Earlier church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Origen and Eusebius mention groups who, to varying extent, accepted Jesus as Messiah while continuing to observe the Jewish Law.  It is often suggested that these are the same as the groups identified by Jerome and Epiphanius as Nazarenes, but that can only be speculation.  One such group were the Ebionites, referred to in second century writings; Epiphanius draws a distinction between Nazarenes and Ebionites (he is even more disapproving of the latter).  Some scholars have argued that there was no real distinction, but again this can only be speculation since there is no documentary evidence.
As you will note, it essentially duplicates the information contained in the "Patristic" section immediately above it.  It, in fact, appears to be a POV re-write of the original material (the original material was no doubt copied from some public domain encyclopedia).  While the original material is well attributed, giving book names and sections for each of its statements, the inserted material is un-attributed; see, for example, the last paragraph, which mentions the names of authors without quoting or referencing their work.  It also repeats information, makes unsupported claims, contradicts some of the material in the previous "Patristic" section, introduces terminology and idiosyncratic spellings which are nowhere referenced or explained (e.g. Nasoraean/Notzarim, Nasaraeans, Nasaraioi) and in general seems designed to tie the ancient Nazarenes to the modern "Netzarim" movement, and prove that Nazarenes existed before Jesus. Jayjg 16:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have pointed out about, this section is a POV re-write of Patristic References, so the material is still found in the article.  Other objections to this section are listed above.  There is no evidence presented that there were different ancient groups referred to by all sorts of highly similar names (e.g. Netzarim, Notzrim, Nasaraioi, Nazaraioi).  Certainly standard scholarship does not see them as different groups.  Rather, these names appear to be different modern transliterations of the same ancient names, and for some reason the POV author of the insertions prefers to assume they refer to different groups.  This would be similar to the assumption that Chanuka Chanukah and Hannuka and Hannukah are all different Jewish holidays because modern authors transliterate the word different ways. However, a section asserting that these modern variations in transliteration represent ancient differences in sects would be interesting, as long as it provided some sort of attribution and evidence of its claims. I have requested such evidence more than once on this page, and still await it.  Jayjg 02:40, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Notzrim

message: Where is the documented encyclopaedic basis for including any of these sects of uncertain number?
193.63.129.150 14:00, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As I told you, please see our policy on NPOV.  It will make your time here much easier (and probably much more lengthy).  Pakaran. 14:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm a sysop, but I'm not an expert on everything.  However, one of my jobs is to make sure articles are kept balanced.  That includes articles that aren't in my profession, and that I haven't personally verified.  Pakaran. 14:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE TO ADVERTISE MINORITY GROUPS!! 

message: Does it seem odd to anyone else that this topic should have been removed from Category:Christianity? So, who is deciding which followers of Jesus Christ are Christians and which are not? Is this neutral? --Wetman 03:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Christianity 

message: The books are al sourced and published works. The diff links in wiki were designed for a reason It seems to save unnecessary wastes of space is as good as any. Which changes do you find controvercial specifically? Is it because you object to Jesus being called anti-christ? Our own individual sensibilities do not matter. What matters is that we report the facts accurately.81.129.79.125 17:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Works published by the group itself are not externally verifiable.  The Talk: pages were designed for a purpose on Wikipedia, specifically for discussing proposed article content; that is not what the diff links were designed for.  Wikipedia has near infinite storage, please do not be concerned about "over-filling" it by using the Talk: pages for their purpose.  It is quite all right to state that this particular group views the common conception of Jesus as the "anti-Christ", as long as it is stated that that is their POV. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 17:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Why don't you just bring it here first for discussion before trying to insert it, that would be in line with Wikipedia policy. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 01:10, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus the Netzarim Anti-christ 

message: Jayig said 
:"Works published by the group itself are not externally verifiable."
though only the books by Qehilat publishers in Israel cover the beliefs of the group in question extensively, the others cannot be questioned as externally verifying. There are of course more than these but I don't have them. Jayig also said:
:"As far as I can tell, those books are all published by the group itself" 
This is not the case you can check it by ordering them through any major library. 
Here are the ISBNs
0-9676202-4-4 (two volume set)
965-7328-03-9
965-7328-02-0
965-7328-06-3
0-334-02914-7
1-59244-313-3
0-689-70151-9
Be blessed
81.129.206.246 00:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The ones that are about the modern movement founded by Clint Van Nest all appear to be written by him; are there any that aren't?  The other ones appear to be about ancient history. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 01:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: The books you have listed all appear to either be written by the founder of the group, or do not refer directly to the group.  Can you name any sources which were written by an outsider, and refer to the group? Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 16:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, why don't you provide the names of the books and their authors?  That way we won't have to play tiresome games. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 02:42, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Why do you think the current form is "useless"? Jayjg  | (Talk) 17:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources on Netzarim 

message: A troll takes control of a bridge and whenever someone tries to cross it the troll uses forms of ugliness to prevent crossing. 
Reading through the discussions above and looking through the history pages carefully I think there is very obvious evidence of trolling going on here. Is anyone who really knows about the subject able to edit without any agenda so that someone interested like me can simply just read a well sourced fully referenced article about the different types of Nazarene and what they themselves believe? Is it possible to prevent mini dictators from weasling on it after that?
193.63.146.184 17:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review these relevant Wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:No personal attacks Wikipedia:Civility. Jayjg  | (Talk) 17:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: By the way, Internet troll states "An internet troll is a person who sends duplicitous messages to get angry responses". Jayjg  | (Talk) 18:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: The Wikipedia article Internet troll notwithstanding, the essential definition of Internet troll is, "Someone whose primary interest in a subject is to stir up dissension." Everyone knows that. Our anon. User reminds all of us that the true end, of which we lose sight sometimes (and often in this entry), is to produce such an encyclopedia entry "that someone interested like me can simply just read a well sourced fully referenced article." That's the adult point. Many watch here, but currently few dare post. --Wetman 20:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Do you "dare post", Wetman?
Wetman, I tried to post a little, but only about the section I know well about. I included references in my edits and when it was removed without explaination, I provided my sources and invited constructive criticism. But all I got is what you can see above. 81.132.98.143 22:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm still waiting for the names and the authors of the books in question; that's not too much to ask, is it? Jayjg (talk) 00:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps if you could just give the names and titles of the books you mentioned, your spinning head issue would resolve itself. Jayjg (talk) 03:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolling 

message: "the word nazir, meaning separated. There are a number of references to Nazirites in the Old Testament. A Nazirite (נְזִיר) was a Jew who had taken special vows of dedication to the Lord whereby he abstained from alcohol and grape-products, cutting his hair, and approaching corpses for a specified period of time. At the end of the period he was required to immerse himself in water."
This somewhat shortened description of the Nazirite laws hurts the credibility of the article because it is innaccuate wrt the termination of the vow.  Why not just use a link for the word "Nazirites" & end it at the second sentence?  If that is too short, then please kill the forth sentence.  If someone wants details, they should see the entry!
NathanZook 06:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean immersion vs. sacrifice? Jayjg (talk) 07:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just link "Nazarite" 

message: I've already shown from St. Epiphanius that the Nazarene's fled to Pella, I'd like to draw a possible parallel in Eusebius of Caeasarea's Ecclesiastical History. Eusebius writes:
"But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain towan of Perea called Pella. And when those that believed in Christ had come thither from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men." (Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter V, Section III)
Could Eusebius be saying the Nazarene's were Christians?208.95.49.236 (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Nazarenes fled to Pella, Perea