Talk:Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Sources and claims on Idolatry 1.1 Civility 2 Potentially Useful on-line resource 3 Gentiles becoming Jews are seen as Converts ?? 4 Sources 5 Atheism 6 Religious 6.1 Sources for "religious" 7 Halakhah 7.1 Sources 8 Resurrection 8.1 Defining resurrection in the article 8.2 Gospels/Quran 9 Sourcing biases on the web 10 Another crack at Shittuf 11 "Christian Bible" 12 Back To Bible Article Please , talk page # 34 13 Fig Tree 14 AfD results 15 Edit Warring 16 Requested move 17 Figs and NPOV 18 A reminder 19 my edit 20 AfD 21 Huh? 22 Helping and talking with people 23 Christians and Gentiles

[edit] Sources and claims on Idolatry

continued from above - but topic has switched Egfrank (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Correction: this is the diff [1]. Note that the comment on the page was added ("sometimes" to "caused confusion"), but that the actual changes included deletion of a source. You might also want to ask why Egfrank gave you the wrong link for the diff. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, Egfrank's contention that a major Jewish view regarding Jews who convert to Christianity are committing idolatry should be removed from the cell on "apostasy" because it does not contain the word "apostasy" (a fairly archaic term, and one which would not be expected to be in use in most modern publications) is a clear example of Gaming the system. I have placed protection tags on the article for dispute and for vandalism. Let the admins decide. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Are we doing this again? First, I never deliberately deleted a Kaplan quote, and if I did, it was not my intention. I've always regarded Kaplan to be a valid source for a Jewish view, just as Martin Luther is a valid source for a protestant view. That being said, John Wesley is ALSO a valid source for a protestant view. Whether they cite previous sources in any work, they remain notable protestants. IF I deleted a Kaplan quote, it would have been once, if ever. However, I believe you have deleted, and deleted, and deleted, and deleted a Telushkin quote contrary to Kaplan, and insist that ALL Jews hold the Kaplan view. This is simply vandalism. I'm trying to source the page. Others are trying to source the page. The closer we get to satisfying the concerns of other editors and reviewers here, the more aggressive your vandalism becomes -- and now you're going to lock this in? Most fascinating. For the record -- I have no problem with the Kaplan quote. I understand that another editor does, but I don't. My concern is your vandalizing a CONTRARY Jewish view and then claiming no such contrary view exists within Judaism after you have deleted it. That's, for lack of a better word, -- bizarre.Tim (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim, the Telushkin quote is in there. Note 32. But I object to you presenting the view of one Jew, whether he holds the title of "Rabbi" or not, as the Jewish view. Or even as a Jewish view. Telushkin adduces no sources for his radical statement, and since it is a statement which is at odds with statements that are sourced, it is invalid.

Surely you can find a source put out by a major Jewish group that says Christianity is not idolatry for Jews, no? Or one put out by an individual, but sourced. If you can't, the claim does not belong on Wikipedia. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight -- a writer is only a Jewish source when he is Jewish and cites another Jewish source. In theory one could quote someone who is quoting Telushkin, then. Look -- may I ask your criteris for "Who is a Jew" before I go on a wild goose chase for you? I mentioned Novak's historical story (and he cites a large number of sources for the entire history of Judaism). There's also Sarachek's survey of the Sages. There's Rabbi Goldenberg's "The Nations that Know Thee Not." I could go through my entire library -- but if you're going to invalidate a view unless it quotes another view -- then I need to know, who are the names of people who qualify in your POV of being "Jews" or having Jewish views? If not Rabbis, who? I'm not going to read 18 books and have you vandalize the sourcing and then deny that a notable Jewish Rabbi who has a view qualifies for having a Jewish view? Please, for everyone here -- tell us, who is ALLOWED by YOU to be a "Jew" since Judaism and Smicha mean nothing to you here.Tim (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like for you to get this straight, Tim. What you are doing is called "dropping context". In the context of claims as to what the Jewish perception is, valid sources will cite Jewish sources themselves. It doesn't matter whether the citing is being done by Jews or non-Jews, so long as there is legitimate provenance for the claims. The personal opinions of an individual do not constitute a valid source for Wikipedia.

Let me give you a few examples. Steve Greenberg is a man who received Orthodox rabbinic ordination and has since come out as gay. He wrote a book called Wrestling with God and Man, in which he claims that Orthodox Judaism does not consider anal sex between men to be forbidden. Do you think it would be legitimate to post in a Wikipedia article a statement that "Orthodox Judaism does not consider anal sex between men to be forbidden"? Or worse, "The majority view in Orthodox Judaism is that anal sex between two men is forbidden"? But you posted that the majority Jewish view is that Christianity is forbidden for Jews, eliminating the fact that it is not merely forbidden, but idolatrous, based on the views of Joseph Telushkin, who is an individual, just as Steve Greenberg is.

Ronald Goldman has written a book called Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish perspective, in which he opposes circumcision. Not only is Goldman a Jew (and a Ph.D.), but the very title of his book contains "A Jewish Perspective". Would it be correct to state in a glossary of terms under "Circumcision" that "Jews are opposed to circumcision", using Goldman as a source?

The fact that Orthodox Judaism (and Conservative as well, if I'm not mistaken) view a Jew who converts to Christianity as an idolator is of inestimable importance to a page purporting to show the different views between Judaism and Christianity, particularly when the focus is on a group (MJ) which is made up mostly of Jews who have adopted Christianity as their religious belief system. To eliminate that view is wrong. To try and obscure it by whittling "idolatry" down to "forbidden" is wrong as well. I can understand how someone interested in interfaith dialogue might want to do it, so as not to raise hackles, but it's dishonest and highly POV. And if you don't believe you did it, I suggest you look at your edit in which you claimed to be merely adding a single word. I can't think of any way you could have made all of those changes by accident. If you can show me one, I will apologize to you publically on every page involved in this dispute. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Lisa, [2] shows the wording I created in that cell "Orthodox Jewish authorities hold that it is indeed idolatry, and therefore forbidden for Jews, even if they profess themselves to be Christian". Now, after reviewing the links, it appears that I did delete your vandalism of Egfrank's hours of work. I didn't realize that this quote was part of your vandalism of his work. Again, I have no problem with Kaplan (but I am coming to understand Egfrank's concern with its applicability in that cell). My problem has been, and still is, your own use of quotations that say something to the effect that trinitarianism "is idolatry for Jews, but not for Christians." That's just unintelligle to anyone who isn't Jewish, because by everyone else's understanding of the word "Christian" it means something like "anyone of any ethnic group who believes in Jesus." Well, Jews are one ethnic group. Although you do not intend a non-sequitor there, you are creating one by using the term that way without some kind of explaination. What you meant is that it is "idolatry for Jews, but not for Gentiles." Not everyone who reads this page is Jewish, and they'll read something entirely different from what you mean. What SOME of them will read is something like "trinitarianism is idolatry in Judaism, but it is not in Christianity". Although that is a true statement, this is NOT what the quotes are saying and it is far below the significant point you are trying to make. I spent hours the other day trying to help you say EXACTLY what you intended to say in a way that everyone else on the planet would understand it. And the wording in your cell needs to relate to the wording of the cited source in such a way that EVERYONE has a chance to make the connection you are trying to convey. Instead, you resort to further vandalism.Tim (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why this is a big deal. From the other article (which is sourced), again:

• Some rabbis in the Talmud view Christianity as a form of idolatry prohibited not only to Jews, but to gentiles as well...Other rabbis disagreed, and did not hold it to be idolatry.
• A small number of modern Jewish theologians...suggested that perhaps only the Israelites were forbidden to worship idols, but perhaps such worship was permissible for members of other religions....Most Jewish theologians disagree, saying that the original meaning of the text was to condemn idolatry in total.

So we have:

• Christianity is idolatry and no one can have idolatry.
• Gentiles can have idolatry but not Jews.
• Christianity is not idolatry but Jews can't have it for other reasons like Failed Messiah.

So just list these views. I'm not sure whether we're trying to pick our favorite ones here or what, but that was a big complaint of those voting for deletion, so don't do that. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, Bikinibomb saw fit to delete the following comment I'd left here:

::Tim, I will happily accept your edit of that cell from [3]. With no reservations. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No Jewish view says that Gentiles can have idolatry. You just made that up. The question is whether shituf is idolatry for Gentiles. It is for Jews, but it's debatable whether it is or is not for Gentiles. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove your comment, if you look in history Jeffpw did, ask him why.

Why would I just make it up when I said from the start it is sourced from that other article I posted earlier here in Talk? Again...why are we still screwing around with you wanting your own personal POV/OR to say what's what and not relying on sourced info for all the views, especially after this big AfD fiasco when editors said DON'T DO THAT?

Lisa: No Jewish view says that Gentiles can have idolatry. (?)

Jewish views of religious pluralism A small number of modern Jewish theologians such as Yehezkel Kaufman and Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz have suggested that perhaps only the Israelites were forbidden to worship idols, but perhaps such worship was permissible for members of other religions. (Yehezkel Kaufman, "The Religion of Israel", Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960; J. H. Hertz, "Pentateuch and Haftorahs" Soncino Press, 1960, p.759). -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In the first place, they say "perhaps". They are theorizing, and have not concluded that this is, in fact, the case. In the second place, they are speaking about the Bible, and not about Judaism. If you'll go and read an article on Judaism, you'll find that only the Karaite sect bases themselves entirely on what's written in the Bible. So what they're talking about isn't even relevant here. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! I had completely forgotten about the Karaites! There aren't that many, but they definitely have historical importance. In fact, the Masoretes, who are responsible for the preservation and presentation of the text we use today, were Karaites. As Lisa said, they are a distinct group, not even clumped together with Orth/Cons/Ref -- but definitely something to keep in mind when we are doing the edits.Tim (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The Masoretes were not Karaites. See the talk page on the ridiculous Ben Asher article. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Although it is not absolutely certain that the Masoretes were Karaites, it is very strongly believed by textual critics, but Christian and Jewish (including Emmanuel Tov). This isn't an important point to debate on the talk page. What IS a point, however, are these blanket statements such as "no Jews..." and "all Jews..." and now "ridiculous." If there is a source that you disgree with, find a different source and add this view into the range of views. Now, I modified my statement on Karaites to be closer to a Wiki type statement. If it's important I can find page number and quote -- but that will be queued up after I do two things: 1) list at least one source on unsourced cells, and 2) research who said what with whom regarding the shituf issue and give a bazillion citations on the talk page so we can hammer down cell statements together that include the full range of thought. My Rabbi also suggested Berger's book on Chabad, but I wasn't able to find his precise discussion last night.Tim (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As long as there is debate it is false to say that No Jewish view says that Gentiles can have idolatry. You can have your opinion here in Talk but if you want to say that in the article it's another story, you need to cite it. To factually state this in the article you need to say something like "the majority Jewish view is that idolatry is ok for neither Gentiles nor Jews." since from all I have ever heard and read from Jews (cited below not just my OR), there are two camps. One like the Hasidics who say no idolatry no matter what, Noahide all the way for Gentiles. Then others who say some forms of idolatry, like Christianity where there is a partnership with Hashem, are acceptable for Gentiles but not for Jews.

You're playing word games. Those who say that shituf is okay for non-Jews say that it isn't considered idolatry for them. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Most recent authorities agree that Children of Noah are forbidden to believe in a partnership. But even according to these, the Children of Noah are permitted to swear by the name of an idol in combination with God (to swear by the Lord of Hosts and a Hindu deity, for example).Idolatry

The point being? The rabbis give a reason for that exception. It's because usually when a person swears, they aren't really thinking in terms of religion. It's a formality. That's why this exception is made. But so what? It doesn't change anything about whether shituf is or isn't idolatry for non-Jews. Some say it is (majority), some say it isn't (minority), but all say that it is for Jews. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What if people are thinking about religion when they swear and want to tell the truth to honor another god besides Hashem? If it is allowed for whatever reason, aren't you still worshiping another god and isn't that a type of idolatry which is allowed for non-Jews in some cases? -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The rabbinic view cited above assumes that in the general case, they aren't really thinking in terms of religion. It's a legal presumption. If a specific case is an exception, and is proven to be so, then other rules would apply. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not just say it's not acceptable to swear casually either since no one knows if you are swearing sincerely to an idol or not if you do it at all? Somehow that doesn't make sense, I'll have to see if there are other sources about it. -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Too funny! I've been reading a volume of the Talmud lately and you sound JUST LIKE it! "Why not just say..." You could have been born Jewish talking like that. ;-)Tim (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, over the last twenty years since I started getting interested in religion I've probably talked to more Jews than either Christians or Muslims especially on the interfaith forums since the '90s. In my experience there are usually equal numbers of Jews and Christians, very few Muslims, but Christians often just pop in to post prefab essays and split. Jews usually hang around more to discuss and debate. That's just how it is as I've seen. I also know Lisa from elsewhere online and trying to just discuss only what may go into articles, not to make this a general debate forum with her since it's easy for me to slip into if I don't watch it. -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Do tell. You have me at a disadvantage, then. Hatrack, maybe? What name would I know you by? Because "Bikinibomb" doesn't ring a bell. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah there's no disadvantage, but there's also no point in debating if conclusions aren't going into an article somehow.

So in other words, you don't want to say who you are or where you know me from. I don't recognize the names Bikinibomb, Asmo or Drumbo. I lived in the Santa Cruz area for a few years, but I can't think where I'd know you from there. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really, I think that's like a violation of privacy or something, to give out specific non-Wikipedia details about you. My point was that I didn't want to continue debating as if it was a heated religious forum since someone will eventually tell us to knock it off. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

So what's the conclusion here for the Jewish view, is it that idolatry is never acceptable for Gentiles either, and only the appearance of it is sometimes allowed for them because they aren't really thinking about religion when they do it?

No, it's that idolatry is never acceptable for anyone, period. You can spin it however you want, calling the rabbinic position that they can swear by the names of their gods without it constituting outright idolatry "the appearance of it is sometimes allowed", but it's probably better if you refrain from reformulating what the position actually is and injecting your personal POV into it. If your problem is that it's hard to boil it down to the size of a table cell, maybe that's a fundamental flaw with this whole article. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really trying to spin it, just verifying what you already said. Swearing an oath sincerely to Vishnu is definitely idolatry, but not swearing sincerely but only as a legal convenience isn't idolatry, right? So the Jewish view is that when such swearing is done by Gentiles, you are supposed to assume it's all business, even if it appears to be a religious oath. Is that way off from what you said? -Bikinibomb (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As a side question of curiosity are there any rulings about Jews swearing on a Bible containing the NT, do they usually do it, usually not, ? -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Jews aren't allowed to swear in that way at all. Obviously a Christian book would be worse, but we're not permitted to swear on a Tanakh, either. The couple of times I've had to testify in court or serve on jury duty, I've affirmed, rather than sworn, and not on a book, either. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Why not just say"? Because that's not what the rabbis decided. Sorry if it doesn't make sense to you. -LisaLiel (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That page was already marked - the only one so marked - with a golden cord. The Hertz speaks of "the seven commandments given to the children of Noah." It refers to Deuteronomy 4:19, concerning the mere created things, stars and planets, that God seems to have "allotted" as objects of worship to gentiles. Rav Hertz does not say that "idolatry is OK" but he does show that God has suffered Noahides to worship false gods. He calls their idolatry a "stepping stone," part of the nations' path to God. Idolatry -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Right. He bases this on Maimonides oft-censored statements about the fact that God is capable of using even Christianity and Islam to further His plans for the world. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

This talk page is rather heated, and I would remind editors to read WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIV to remember how to interact. Posting that vandalism has occurred and using a content dispute as an example is not helpful , and just makes editors dig deeper into their positions. I think a lot of mistakes are being made out of good faith attempts by newer editors to improve the article, but a clearer understanding of policies here would do a lot to reduce tensions. Jeffpw (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potentially Useful on-line resource

The American Jewish Committee has put together a multi-part curriculum described as follows:

This volume contains material about many of the central beliefs and teachings of Judaism and Catholic Christianity, with points of clarification about differences and similarities between the two religions, and the often troubled history of Catholic-Jewish relations. The Curriculum Guide has been designed to be used as the primary resource for educators participating in the Catholic/Jewish Educational Enrichment Program (C/JEEP), and it therefore focuses on clarifying misperceptions and communicating basic ideas which should be addressed by the C/JEEP educator. (from preface)

• Preface
• Goals, Objectives, and Lesson Plans
• Choice and Preparation of Schools and Teachers
• Stumbling blocks and stepping stones
• What Jews and Christians should know about each other
• Jewish Beliefs about God
• Christian Beliefs about God
• Setting the Record Straight
• A Jewish View of Jesus
• Teachings and Practices of Judaism
• Teachings and Practices of Christianity
• Anti-Semitism, the Holocaust, and Reconciliation
• Israel and Jerusalem
• Mission and Witness
• Building Bridges
• Glossary
• Evaluations
• Resources and Bibliography

Hope this helps, Egfrank (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick glance at some PDFs, but I'd give it two thumbs up as a resource. I especially see the benefit that they worded it in terms that are comprehensible to both groups.Tim (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of it may need to be checked out and clarified before using, like in What Jews and Christians should know about each other it gives a mainly Catholic perspective on infant baptism and Eucharist. -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I get asked all the time, "So you were a Baptist Priest?" Of course, there is no such thing -- but it's a charming demonstration of the fact that we know surprisingly little about each other on a lot of basic things. There was another time the daughter of my chairman of deacons (when I was still a Christian) visited a Reform Temple during Simchat Torah. I happened to be there because I was buddies with the Rabbi. She had been assigned to visit different religious places for a college class she was in. "So, Pastor, what are they doing tonight?" "They read through the Torah each year and this is the night they celebrate finishing and starting again in Genesis." "What's the Torah?" "The first five books of the Bible." "So... when do they read the New Testament?"Tim (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read them all yet but I'm getting the impression that while they may be fine for the Jewish view, using them for the Christian view should be avoided or be done very carefully. Like in Christian Beliefs About God it says Jesus probably never referred to himself as Messiah and basically that his followers just constructed that image of him. So I'd object to using that based in part on: John 4:25-26 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he. -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The point about Jesus never referring to himself as the messiah can be found in christian sources as well. Its a common observation of biblical criticism of the NT accepted by the majority of liberal Christianity (but not by fundamentalism of either the Catholic or Protestant variety). Critical scholarship divides the NT into the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) and John. In the main only the synoptic gospels are used to construct the historical Jesus. John is understood as a homeletic (rather than historical) source that reflects Christian post-ressurection understanding of Jesus (kerygma) that was developing at the time of its composition. Egfrank (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Further information about usage and authorship (some from acknowledgement section of preface)

• this curriculum was originally created for use in Los Angeles Catholic highschools - including the Christian sections (preface). As of 2005 it was currently active in NYC[4], as well as schools in Chicago[5], San Franciso[6], and Philadelphia[7], Los Angelos[8], Pittsburg and Washington DC[9].
• it was prepared by a joint Jewish/Catholic team: Catholic members included Sister Audrey Doetzel (from preface)
• The jeep program is taught by both rabbis (in Catholic schools) and Roman Catholic sisters/priests (in Jewish schools)[10].

Egfrank (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gentiles becoming Jews are seen as Converts ??

1., Does this apply to all Gentiles regardless if that conversion required a denouncing of a prior faith ( becoming an apostate to the prior religious faith ) ??? ........... or , 2., would this only apply to Gentiles who had not accepted any prior faith ?? ........... 3., re-phrase , can an Gentile apostate become a Jew by conversion ?? ......... Please, no bickering , a simple yes or no to the questions would be sufficient at this time .......... Pilotwingz (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Apo" in Greek means "away from". Apostasy deals with LEAVING a faith, not for coming into one. English follows this etymological connotation. A convert into a faith is simultaneously an apostate away from a previous one -- the word applied depends on the perspective of the respective faith involved, whether the losing or receiving one.Tim (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea , thanks Tim,, I fully understand apostasy means a falling away from ......... but I am asking about a Convert to Judaism ......... so, does Judaism allow a Gentile to convert to Judaism if that Gentile will become an apostate to a prior faith in the process ?? ........ or would the apostate requirement under those circumstances , disqualify that Gentile from being allowed to Convert to Judaism ?? ........ Pilotwingz (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sort of what I am asking is , " does Judaism accept Gentile apostes into Judaism , or does Judaism only accept non-apostate Gentiles into Judaism ....... maybe that's a bit more clear way to ask this question ...... thanks .. Pilotwingz (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it depends on their previous position. An atheist isn't an apostate from anything if he becomes a monotheist (i.e. there's no religious group to complain). If someone were born "Noachide" then the same would apply. I think some eastern religions/philosophies have no actual deities to renounce. For those with a deity other than the God of Israel -- or a concept of the God of Israel that is incompatible with the Jewish view (such as Trinitarians) -- then yes, he would have to leave the previous religious perspective before they would even allow him to become Jewish. The whole falling away terminology begs the question. NO convert from anything to anything feels as if he has really lost anything, but rather grown.Tim (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's leave this discussion temporarily ( put on hold ), and open new discussion about atheisim ..... Pilotwingz (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed ( i.e., atheist ) from the end of question 2., used for a qualifying example , as Atheism has now been qualified as a faith by definition of Humanistic Judaism practices ....... Pilotwingz (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Pilot, Judaism doesn't consider other religions when a person comes to convert. Conversion isn't a matter of leaving some other religion; it's a matter of taking on ours. That means that things which aren't permitted in ours aren't permitted period, whether that conflicts with a prior religion or not. A convert is seen as having become an entirely new person. In a technical sense (though obviously not in a social one), a convert isn't even related to his family any more. Even if another family member converts as well, they are technically unrelated. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Lisa , so what would have to be called , prior religious beliefs and faith in that belief , are not taken into consideration when a person comes to convert to Judaism ........ that answers yes to original questions 1. and 3. ...... it would make no difference whether the canidate who wishes to convert comes as " denouncing Christian " , an atheist by any definition of the term who is denouncing atheism , or any other possible conception of faith the canidate may have believed prior .......... the canidate for conversion is considered as becoming a new person " literally " when the conversion requirements are fullfilled , and conversion becomes official ........ that's beautiful ......... you know , Christians are suppose to see their fellow sisters and brothers in that same light when they become Christians ....... an intirely new person , as if the person they were before has died and a new person now exist with no connection to the other dead person ....... unfortunately , not all Christians treat their brothers and sisters that way ,, many will discover things about their Christian brothers and sisters that were from the past of the dead one , and persecute them for it ......... seems some who say they are Christian have limits as to what they will forgive and what they won't ........ a Christian is suppose to forgive all sins of others just as Lord Jesus has forgiven them ......... Pilotwingz (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Pilot -- if it helps -- I was never asked to "denounce" anything. I was merely asked about my views and practices on certain subjects to make sure I was Jewish. Then some externals, and I really was.Tim (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Right now I'm focusing primarily on Berkhof for the Christian views, Telushkin for the Jewish views, and Stern for the Messianic views. I'm doing this as a START, not a final word -- for two reasons: 1) we have to start somewhere, and 2) there has been discussion regarding picking and choosing sources based on their agreement with the POV of the Wikieditor on that particular cell. I've picked three popular, notable writers who cover a very broad range of subjects. If someone else has a better source, feel free to add it. I will as well -- once I finish the first swipe. Also, please take note that some of the information in the cells is changing. Stern is more orthodox (Christian) than some other Messianics, and will eventually be supplemented (and sometimes counterbalanced) by other writers. The same holds true for Telushkin and Berkhof.Tim (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally, keep in mind that my choice dealt with the best single example to start with for the broad spectrum of the entire table. That doesn't mean they were the DEEPEST resources available, but the BROADEST. In the case of Stern and Berkhof, they are both on the deeper end. Telushkin has been challenged on that count, but he's the broadest Jewish writer who writes in intelligible English that non-Jewish readers can make sense of. For instance, he does not indiscriminantly call Gentiles "Christians" but uses both terms in their normal (i.e. distinct) meanings. Kolatch and Blech are also able to write in common English, and are next on my list. Some more restrictively Jewish writers may need rephrasing to be comprehensible to non-Jews (and that's not the fault of the Gentile audience, but simply an accident of the fact that the only people expected to be interested in the original writing were Jewish). Rather than rephrase such writers, I've reserved them for last in case there are cells remaining after the first tier.Tim (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a good strategy, but I think we may need to consider multi-sourcing some statements and having definition (1), (2), (3), etc for others.

Christianity.Within the Christian community, there are often distinct differences between Catholics and Protestants, with Anglicans and Lutherans often falling in-between the two, sometimes going one way, sometimes going the other. (e.g. Anglicans and Lutherans are both sacramentally oriented (more like Catholics) and tend to view post NT tradition as part of the debate rather than as second-order scripture (more like Protestants). As a result, in the cells I've sourced I've tried to make sure I quoted at least one standard Catholic and one standard Protestant source. From time to time we may also need an Anglican or Lutheran source, or multiple protestant sources as well.

Judaism Within the Jewish community there are several different paradigms for translating Torah into a set of actionable mitzvot:

1. Shulchan Aruch + most recent g'dol trumps: various streams of orthodoxy
2. Shulchan Aruch + older (and wiser) source trumps: various streams of orthodox, some right wing conservative
3. Historical-critical approach + very close reading of text, precedent trumps values: some modern orthodox, some right-wing conservative
4. Historical-critical approach, very close reading of text, values trump precedent: some left-wing conservative, some right-wing reform
5. Community consensus informed by tradition, values trump precedent: some US Reform, most US reconstructionist
6. Individual choice informed by tradition, values trump precedent: some US reform, some reconstructionist (arguing that community needs courageous leaders)
7. prophetic and some parts of rabbinic tradition defines values, values trump precedent: some US reform, left-wing conservative, reconstructionists

In the realm of beliefs, Judaism tends to be more coherent with three major viewpoints

1. Current perceptions of traditional interpretations are only "true" interpretations (little historical study to see full range of traditional interpretations from biblical to modern period and great distrust of historical-critical approach; often general opposition to developmental approach to Judaism - Torah is eternal)
2. Historical-critical: Judaism has had a range of beliefs over time, some which have continued to be accepted, some which periodically get revived. All are Jewish however if they were endorsed by a significant group of the community and never wholesale rejected (as was, for example, the idea that Jesus is the awaited Messiah)
3. Spiritual-homeletic: Acknowledgement (from time to time) of the range of beliefs, but an emphasis on those that seem spiritually current and effective for touching peoples lives (interestingly this view does not line up with halakhic method - Chabad, Renewal, Reconstructionist, and some Conservative and US Reform focus on this approach).

The various halakhic and philosophical paradigms don't seem (in my experience) to line up exactly with denominations. All the same, many people see the world through the denominational lens, so in other articles I've tried to have citations from standard sources in all US denominations or else relied on academic/Jewish studies works like the Jewish Encyclopedia, Gershom Scholem/Moshe Idel (Kabbalah), sociological surveys of religious identity, actions and belief etc.

The main thing though, I think, is to stick to sources that actually define the term involved (or at least use it). Most reasonable people are going to see WP:SYNTH with a big S if we attempt to argue "well, the source doesn't exactly define the term, but...its implied!" (by whom?, what outside knowledge allowed you to conclude it? can a non-theologically/jewishly trained reader see the association? how do we know that?). Kol tuv, Egfrank (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, agreed, agreed, agreed, and agreed (let me know if I left anything out). Although on a number of occasions the options will be clean cut and vital (like the Christian cell for "Christian Bible"), whenever possible we should state the range and give a good source that at least covers either end. If the range leans heavily on one side a source should say so. Also agreed that the content of the cell should speak about the term at hand. We tend to associate certain terms as being essentially connected with other terms, but they should still be broken down into separate terms. For instance -- to beat an undead horse while it's still screaming in agony -- the Jewish cells for Apostasy and Avodah Zara. There is still some information in the Apostasy cell that belongs in Avodah Zara (and maybe even some of that in a third classification). There's also the problem of fact. WHO IS A JEWISH SOURCE? Are we at Wikipedia to stick to a narrowly defined halakhic set of standards, excluding all Reform, Conservative, and even a lot of Orthodox Rabbis? Obviously we cannot. At the same time we cannot accept any Jew's statement about what Jews believe. We have to be true to both reality and Wikipedia standards. I've reviewed your concerns, Egfrank, about those cells and the applicability of their content to the SUBJECT of the cell -- and you are exactly right. The fact that we KNOW that the information in those cells is untrue is also a concern. There are some statements out there that say "all Jews...." and "no Jews...." and a lot of those are simply (and obviously to any Wiki reader) not true. Right now I'm using Telushkin as a starting source for reasons I stated above -- but we've had incredible disruptions about his being Jewish. I've asked my (yes, ORTHODOX) Rabbi about the issue, and he insisted that Telushkin absolutely qualifies as a Jewish source.Tim (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

For Wikipedia's view of reliable sources, please see WP:RS. There are no formal criteria for religion, but any academic source is considered reliable within their field of expertise, especially if published in peer reviewed academic journals e.g. PhD or published academic writers in religion, theology, jewish studies, talmud, bible.

As for the specific issue of Judaism - we can't take positions here on a complex debate within the Jewish community any more than we can side with Catholics and Protestants - both of which have some sub-groups claiming that they are the "one true Christianity" and everyone else is a heretic. To quote from WP:SOURCES:

All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.

Those who identify themselves as orthodox in the US comprise only 10% of American adult Jews (23% of synagogue members) vs. the 69% of American adult Jews (72% of synagogue members) who identify as one of the non-orthodox denominations (Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist)[11]. Even if every other Jew in world were haredi (which they are not), the non-orthodox Jewish position is more than notable enough as a Jewish religious position and according to WP:NPOV must be documented. (see also WP:UNDUE).

As for the specific issue of reliable Jewish sources: I would assume that in addition to the academics, any ordained rabbi (and especially one teaching at a rabbinical school) is perfectly acceptable as a spokesperson for their denomination unless they have been explicitly disowned or there is evidence of a public consensus that a particular work is "out of bounds" and just their personal opinion. The same would apply to a noted author or teacher regularly found in book lists on Judaism.

Telushkin definitely falls into these two categories. Aside from being an orthodox rabbi, he is on the reserve shelf at HUC and a pretty standard book on "learning about Judaism" lists - it would be ridiculous to claim that he is not notable as a Jewish source. If this really is in question, we can always ask for outside input and there is even a place to ask questions and advice should we have disputes: see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Egfrank (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism

Who would be considered an Atheist by Judaism determinations ?? ............ Is atheism considered a form of secular religion ?? ...... Pilotwingz (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Humanistic Judaism is considered by many to be a religion even though it rejects a literal Biblical God. -Bikinibomb (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK , since Humanistic Judaism allows for denial of any supernatural deity , that could be qualified as atheism , and in that case answers "yes" to the question of atheism as a form of secular religion , because Humanistic Judaism is obviously a convention that has all the organization and overtones of traditional religions ...... ps., I really choked and was a set back as I read the section Egalitarianism ....... Pilotwingz (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Anouncement , I think I am going to become a Lisa on this one , in that I don't give a damn to hell that they attach Judaism to their title and have rabbi, they aren't Judaism !!! ....... so , who would be considered an Atheist by Judaism determinations ?? ...... is not yet answered ...... Pilotwingz (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Back when I was in college, I read a book by Alistair MacIntire (sp?) called The Religious Significance of Atheism. I don't remember the book so I can't summarize it (read it over 20 years ago), but I think the point of the book was that a well meant atheism is in fact a deeply religious statement.

Speaking here personally (I don't have time right now to look up sources), I'd point out that Israel="he who wrestles with God". Although Jews at various points in times have tried to summarize their beliefs, Judaism has never had a creed. From the Jewish point of view, wrestling with God is more important than checking off a set of beliefs.

The question then is - can one wrestle with a God one says one doesn't believe in? The answer of course depends on the point of view. To the atheist's eyes, of course not - God is a word the atheist has rejected as being empty of meaning or as a useless category. But, to my eyes, and the eyes of many Jews, we remember that Jacob wrestled with God in the dark of night and thought he was fighting with a man or angel.

According to Jewish tradition, God also cares more about the wrestling than being acknowledged by name. According to our tradition God is the kind of God who would say "Would that my people forget me, but remember my Torah". God wants us to act, even more than God wants us to believe. God's Torah is God's expression of compassion for the world, so it more important to God that it get done than it is that God gets the glory. This is really an amazing thought - God who is omniscient, omnipotent and deserving of all honor will happily give it all up, if we will just do what God wants.

Torah is a big word. Some people think it only means a list of do's and don'ts, but it also contains all the deep important questions of life: "what is my purpose?", "why should I care?", "who and what should I put first? when? why?". As long as a person continues to wrestle with these question and looks to Jewish texts or at least fellow Jews for the answer to these questions and then acts on the answers they find, they are still functioning as a religious Jew - even if they don't call what they wrestle with God. Hope that helps, Egfrank (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Pilotwingz in Judaism an atheist is still one who lacks belief in God, with all its variations. A lot of Christians might argue that Humanistic Judaism is no different than other forms of Judaism that deny Jesus, so by 1 John 2:23 all such Judaism is an atheist religion, leaving Messianic Judaism to be the only true Judaism if you want to put it that way.

But nevertheless most Christians are as shocked as you are to learn that God is often not a requirement in Judaism, or to learn that some Jews don't believe in God, they just assume they are all God's Chosen and believe. To this day a few Christians even assume that all Jews believe in Jesus which is amazing too. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In the sermon on Saturday the Rabbi spoke of a secular Jewish family in which the son announced that he was in love with a Catholic girl and converting to get married. The father bristled, "Understand this -- there is only ONE GOD (and we don't believe in him)." Point being that even secular, there is something "Jewish" about these people. Do they represent "Judaism"? Of course not. We have to draw the line somewhere. But they do represent "Jews."

In the same light a man was taking a tour in Ireland. The tour guide pointed to the left and said, “The Catholics live there.” He pointed to the right and said, “The Protestants live there.” A boy raised his hand and asked where the atheists lived. The tour guide pointed to the left and said, “The Catholic atheists live there…” But, of course, we’re no longer talking religion, but politics. This second example is obviously a farce – while the Jewish one (above) isn’t.

By "Judaism" I'd suggest no qualifier when dealing with a religious subject that doesn't have disagreement in Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox. All three reject "non-religion" as an expression of "religion." Atheist "Judaism" then, isn't Judaism. But atheist "Jews" are Jews.

I think that's the trouble Pilot is having. Compare what I just said with the same statement regarding Christianity:

Atheist "Judaism" isn't Judaism; but atheist "Jews" are Jews.

Atheist "Christianity" isn't Christianity; but atheist "Christians" are Christians.

Most Jews will agree with BOTH statements. Most Christians will disagree with BOTH statements. Some Christians and Jews understand that the first one is true, but the second one isn’t. But Christians know that the final statement is nonsense. And Jews know that the first statement is true.

A “Christian” with no modifier pertains to a person who would not disagree with the Nicene Creed. That’s the self definition of “Christianity” that was hammered out and agreed to after hundreds of years, and is still recited in Catholic and Mainline Protestant churches. Eastern Orthodox have their own variation (i.e. the filioque clause). Evangelicals may not recite the creed, but they’ll brand ANYONE who would disagree with it as a heretic – such as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. So we at Wikipedia have a question. How do we use the word “Christianity”? Do we call everyone who calls himself a Christian a Christian? No. We don’t – at least not without some kind of modifier. Fortunately “Mormon” and “Jehovah’s Witness” are recognizable terms. “Christian” is another recognizable term. It’s both accurate and acceptable to contrast “Christians” with “Jehovah’s Witnesses” because most people understand it – unless we are in a subject area in which Jews are present, because Jews normally can’t tell the difference between Catholics and Baptists, much less between Nicene Christians and excluded groups. So then we need some kind of modifier like “Trinitarians” – but that term should be used sparingly, lest readers get the impression that this is some special kind of Christian instead of the litmus test for Christianity itself.

A “Jew” with no modifier pertains to anyone with any view or any religion who was either born Jewish or validly converted. An atheist “Jew” is a Jew, but does not represent a “Jewish” view. Tim (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled at the statement that an atheist Jew does not represent a "(religious) Jewish view". I'd certainly say that applies to some atheists, but not all - doesn't it depend on how the Jew engages with Jewish tradition and the Jewish community?

I'm curious how you would react to this essay on the difference between secular humanism and religious humanism?[12]. Also what about Mordechai Kaplan. I think the consensus is that reconstructionism is a religious form or Judaism, though Kaplan and many of its active members either are atheist or have a very philosophical/existential definition of God. Egfrank (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. Since I was addressing Pilot I used "religious" with the Christian connotations. I forgot this was a mixed audience! You're right, the way Jews use the word "religious" traditional Reconstructionist atheists can be more "religious" than fervently believing but non-observant "Orthodox" Jews.Tim (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am still here and have been hearing and listening and relating intently ......... the Christian must wrestle with God in the very same manner ......... we believe we have help and inspiration and encouragement to face up to this perpetual wrestling match with God , even knowing in advance we shall be destroyed in the process , and emerge changed and healed ........ our help is the Holy Spirit who will convict us of sin, of righteousness , of judgement ......... we shall meet on the cross and perish with Lord Jesus , and in such a death we are born ......... I love all the things you all tell me about God , you and I are not unalike , we are more alike than you may know ......... I am always listening intently , thank you .... Pilotwingz (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religious

And now to show Pilot that two Jews never agree: :-)

1) "A state of practice according to halakhic standards."

• Works well as an orthodox definition (unless you are one of the more liberal pluralistic modern orthodox), but I doubt reconstructionist, reform, or the more pluralistic conservative Jews would find this wording fit their understanding. Reform, reconstructionist, and the left of the conservative movement would all state that "tradition has a vote not a veto" and so would not use adherence to a specific (halakhic) checklist as a measure of religiosity.
• On the other hand... the word halakha is being recovered by various progressive Jewish movements around the world: US, UK, Israel - but with the broader meaning of a disciplined process for translating Torah into mitzvot jointly appropriate to our time and our historic relationship with God. (my definition - do not use - there are some more appropriate sources out there).

  Still "halakha" is not in common use outside of the most highly educated segment of the Reform community, and classical US reform (perhaps wrongly) insisted it was non-halakhic. Personally I'd say "post-halakhic" since they viewed traditional Shulchan Aruch halakhah as "right for that time, but not ours" and hadn't yet come up with a satisfactory process that would allow them to account for tradition and modernity - most of the splits among the 19th and early 20th century reformers reflected differences about how one managed the relationship between tradition and modernity. Egfrank (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

ROFL! I think I was using "halakha" in the more open ended way you were (i.e. the reform responsa functions as their halakha). I think we're like the logical positivist corner of Wikipedia. What do words mean? Depends on who's using them. Even the definitions need definitions!Tim (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

RROFLAL! I guess despite my best efforts I still have a bit of the old "classical" knee-jerk reaction to the word halakhah ... which means even one Jew never agrees! Egfrank (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually though US reform Jews probably would not measure "religiosity" in terms of obedience to reform responsa - the US reform movement's attitude to religious authority is pretty complex. Eugene Borowitz, a leading Reform theologian, sums up the post modern's religious position this way:

Many post moderns believe, with classical religion, that God's behests of people were verbally communicated and institutionalized, resulting in secure communities that lived in God's discipline. Many others agree only in part, persisting in the Engligenment belief that the self finds its fulfillment through God-oriented, community-guided personal choice....they carry something of modernity with them - dedication to autonomy - even as they seek to transcend it...For all my insistence on a somewhat curious "independence" of the self, I know that it derives its value from and is subordinate to God. Primacy can never be in serious doubt here since the One creates and the other is created." (Borowitz, Renewing the Covenent, 30-31.

Alas, he does not use the word religious. Egfrank (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Some sources:

• "[those] who have a strong God concept, attend synagogue, perform Jewish rituals, have a strong sense of the role and destiny of the Jewish people in history and, perhaps most important, commit their lives to the Judaic concepts of justice and mercy"Appel, Stephen. "Who is religious?" in The Jewish Week. Nov 28, 2007 Egfrank (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

HMM... well... (I'm getting rusty with the Evangelical stuff...) "religious" is also a negative word to Evangelicals. It implies something we do to earn God's favor, which, as imperfect beings, is the fastest way to hell. "Religion can't save you! Only Jesus can!" So, I suppose that BOTH Christians and Jews have multiple takes on the word as either a faith or a practice. "What's your religion" gets a predictable response. "Are you religious" doesn't.Tim (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So what do we do with the religious entry? Should we try to source it? Give up? Egfrank (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think if everyone used the term "Judaic" to describe things about Judaism and "Jewish" to describe Jews regardless of belief there would be a lot less confusion. Like this article title should maybe rather be Terms in Judaism, Christianity, and Messianic Judaism or something more accurate. This was like my first concern when I came on board these articles. Same stereotyping problem exists in pop culture with assuming that/referring to all Muslims = Arab and all Arabs = Muslim since Muslims can be of any race and Arabs can be of any religion. -Bikinibomb (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should keep it, but give some sources. Telushkin deals with the term. I'll look up Berkhof's use as well. Don't know what to do with Messianics. I can see what Stern has to say.

BB, I hear you. There are certainly problems with terms... which is a good argument for the page. If terms are such a problem that even NAMING a page is an issue, then we definitely need to document the usage of those terms! And maybe when the dust clears, a renaming will be clear (as mud) from the table! ;-)Tim (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep the term Religious , perhaps add term Religion , and use cells to designate the difference between the spiritual side ( humility and thanksgiving ) and the conventional side ( pact or concord ) ........ Pilotwingz (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you would need to source each thing proving in each religion "this is spiritual" and "that is conventional" to designate it like that. Especially since this article is on thin ice anyway due to charges of using OR to designate/describe concepts. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for "religious"

• Judaism:
  • Reform (major bingo):
    • Religious=one who believes in Judaism as their religion, contrasted with "observant" which describes how one practices one's Judaism. Fuld, Mike. "Are Reform Jews less Religious than other Jews?" in ITorah. March 5, 2006 - ITorah is the Reform movement's teen internet magazine. Egfrank (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)\
    • Religious=not a secular Jew Braver, Ben. f"Religious Jew" - email in The Mail Archive (not particularly authoritative - need better source for this)
  • Orthodox:
    • religious="its a commandment and I'm doing it because its a commandment""Religious Jew" - email in The Mail Archive (not particularly authoritative - need better source for this)
  • General: "[those] who have a strong God concept, attend synagogue, perform Jewish rituals, have a strong sense of the role and destiny of the Jewish people in history and, perhaps most important, commit their lives to the Judaic concepts of justice and mercy"Appel, Stephen. "Who is religious?" in The Jewish Week. Nov 28, 2007 Egfrank (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • An observation: In some Jewish context the word religious is attached more to things and collective nouns and social groups, e.g.
    • things: "religious school", "religious commandments", "religious pluralism", "religious coercion", "religious parties", "religious politics", "religious decline", "religious political power", "religious radar", "religious ceremonies", "religious Zionism", "religious discourse". collective nouns: "religious leadership", "religious public", "religious world", "religious community", 'social groups: "religious compatriots", "religious Israeli", "religious Zionist", "the religious" but only .... 2X "religious person" and 4X "religious Jew"Address to the Edah Conference: On the Politicization of Religion in Israel
    • things:"religious rituals", "religious needs", "religious holiday", "religious programs" Princeton Hillel

    The above is very WP:OR - but I wonder can we find a source that says something like "a word more often applied to things, than people?" Egfrank (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want to say "religious" is more often applied to things than to people? The only reason religious things exist is because religious people use them. -Bikinibomb (talk) 05:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think something more is going on here - I'm interested in the point of view implied. What do Jews mean when they say "religious"? Christianity primarily uses as a description of a personal quality or feeling(see below: human responses, receives in faith, reverent awe). Jews tend to see it more as a description of things and social groups. In other words, the association is reversed: Jews are religious because they do certain things or study and act for certain reasons. It's the things/social affliations that make the Jew religious rather than the other way around.Egfrank (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A second observation. Judaism does have a concept similar to the Christian concept of religious (I can hear Pilotwingz breath a sigh of relief...) but we use entirely different terms. I think it may come from the Jewish belief that relationship with God is a given - you can't be religious for what is essentially a gift that is always there whether you notice it or not. Instead we describe the quality of that relationship:

• kirvah - closeness
• devikut - attachment
• t'ffilah - pleading/talking to God
• hasidut - traditionally: full of awe and trembling, modern: tending towards emotional, estatic religious espression
• teshuva - acknowledging faults, requesting forgiveness and seeking to restoring relationships to God and fellow human
• simcha - joy in God, Torah
• emunah - faith in God
• tikvah - hope
• bitachon - trust
• baal midot tovot/a "mensch" (one full of good virtues - i.e. one who has mastered personal traits that God desires but cannot spell out rules for - implies Godly wisdom and discernment, kindness, patience, etc) Egfrank (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC).

Yeah the second post seems more likely. Humans are humans. I don't think you can force a caricature or stereotype just for sake of contrasting, like one is Mr. Spock and the other is Dr. McCoy. I see strong emotions from both Jews at the Wall and Christians at revivals. Same joy and party atmospheres at Bar Mitvahs and baptisms. Same eagerness to study Hebrew and Greek. Same confidence of a Sinai covenant and grace from Christ.

I think the main idea is, no matter what religion, if you are practicing it because you sincerely want to for whatever reason and it feels right and good, you might be a religious person. But if you are sitting in church or temple all pissed because you are missing the game on TV but have to because your wife or mom says you need to be there, maybe you aren't that religious. I think that's how you define religious (in terms of people), not if it is mainly a person or thing in one religion opposed to another, or that someone is Christian or Jew, or that it involves entirely different motivations or behaviors between those religions. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Bikinibomb. Like most Westerners I live in two worlds: a secular and a religious. From the secular point of view religious=sincere and the person annoyed at being in church, temple, or mosque because their mom or wife said they had to isn't that religious. But lets keep in mind here that we are talking about the terms people use when they are working from their non-secular selves rather than their secular selves. In that context, it is possible don't you think that "religious" may have different meanings to Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc? I've always been interested in religious language and what I find interesting is how words slither around and acquire different cultural associations and valances. But we think we're using the same word with the same meaning when in fact we aren't. That is the problem we are trying to document here. Although this is a bit of a diversion, I'm curious: how would a Muslim understand the word "religious"? Egfrank (talk) 09:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much the same. As far as things go, anything related to religious practice. As far as people, those who practice religion because they feel it is the right thing to do and they want to do it, for God or for any other reason. Although what exactly "the right thing to do" is among individuals may vary wildly. A religious person might be one who simply takes up daily prayer and study of Quran, Gospels, or Torah. Or it may mean cutting off someone's hand for stealing, blowing up an abortion clinic, or throwing rocks at chicks walking around with cleavage showing on the Sabbath. As with anything else, the finer points of what it means to be "really" religious is often from an individual perspective, not a wide religious one, and being religious doesn't always mean being righteous in the eyes of God either, at least in my own mind. -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Christianity:

• Religion : The Latin religare means to hold back or restrain. It came to be applied to the services and ritual and rules by which faith in and devotion to a deity were expressed .. ....... .. NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible ISBN 0-310-22873-5 ...... sounded like a reasonable statement of the conventional aspect ,, Pilotwingz (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Religion : is pervasively the theme of scripture ,, has to do with human responses to the Creator ,, an abstract term
• That religion has a place in human life springs from two fundamental realities ,

1., Humans have been created in the image of God ...

2., The Creator has disclosed Himself to humankind ...

• (religion) is filled with reverant Awe before the majesty of the One (God) who discloses Himself in creation, history and redemption ...
• (religion) recieves in faith the Grace of God offered in Jesus Christ and in gratitude it dedicates the whole of self to the service of the Creator-Redeemer...

excerpts taken from : Elwell,Walter A., [13] ... Pilotwingz (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Above taken verbatim from sources , not OR ...... Pilotwingz (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

All in all a simple dictionary definition works best here, like the practice of religious beliefs in Judaism; ritual observance of faith of Christianity.^[1] Etc. Then let the Christianity, Judaism, etc. cells (articles) define what that is. There's a huge stereotyping problem implying Christians believe but don't practice, Jews practice but don't believe. Really, what human does anything without believing it is going to accomplish something? -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Halakhah

I'm thinking we should have a row for halakhah. Ideas? Egfrank (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should -- not to dictate halakha, but to at least say what the word connotes in each group. Also, in some cells I've given a nearest concept if the word is unfamiliar. For instance, I had something in the Christian cell for Avodah Zara. Although they don't know the term, they are against the concept. Shituf as well. Never heard of the term, but the concept is condemned as an Arian or Tri-Theistic (both polytheistic) heresy. I think that we should agree on whether to include a concept answer or to give a pointer to another cell for a related concept -- like for the Christian cell of Avodah Zara: "Unknown term. See idolatry." So, is the latter example the format to follow? I personally think it is better than responding to something from the point of view of someone who doesn't even know the word.

I'll add some sources for "religious" to the talk page this evening.Tim (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

• a discourse, an ongoing conversation through which we arrive at an understanding, however tentative, of what God and Torah require of us. As far as we are concerned, this conversation cannot be brought to a premature end by some formal declaration that "this is the law; all conflicting answers are wrong." Washofsky, Mark. Halakhic Decision-Making in Contemporary Reform Judaism.

Reads like a declaration of independance ....... I see it is an excerpt from his book , pub. 2001 ........ also notice that Rabbi Washofsky was ( or stiil is ) the 'chair' of the Responsa Committee of the Central Conference of American Rabbis ........ is that excerpt like an official statement representing all American Reform Judaism ........ is there such a declaration that all the Reform Rabbis have signed ?? ......Pilotwingz (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resurrection

[14]
Do Jews believe the account of this happening to Jesus ?? ....... Not speaking of Jews who believe Jesus is Messiah ......... Pilotwingz (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Some do, some don't. Pinchas Lapide, an orthodox scholar of the NT, thinks God did it to pave the way for the Messiah, but that Jesus is not the Messiah - through this story gentiles came to faith in the God of Israel rather than the many gods and religions of the Greek world. (see Lapide, Pinchas. The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective). Irving Greenberg (another orthodox Jew) sees the cruxifiction and "resurection experience" as a sign and seal of a "new covenant of Christianity" whose purpose was to "retain and extend" the values of Judaism to the gentile world.[15].

On the other hand there is also a long Jewish tradition of "debunking" the resurrection dating back to the talmud. The talmud for example claims that the body was stolen by Jesus's followers rather than resurrected.[16]. More modern criticism also uses NT historical criticism. Jews for Judaism points out inconsistencies among the synoptic gospels[17] and minimal coverage by ancient historians[18]. George Aichelle points out the absence of ressurection stories in Mark (the earliest of the gospels - the opinion of most NT manuscript scholars is that Mark ends with the empty tomb and the post resurrection appearences thereafter are a later interpolation) and the theorized Q source. He suggests that the resurrection is a "fairy tale" that uses "fantasy" to deconstruct "myth".[19]

However, not all non-literal understandigns of Jesus and resurrection are used to debunk. Richard Cohen sees the cruxifiction and resurrection as a profound metaphor that guides the Christian spiritual and moral transformation. He uses this to argue that the Holocaust represents a moral failure of christianity to influence the region of the world where Christianity was most established. As a consequence: until Christian can say, sincerely, profoundly, faithfully, that Ï myself have killed Christ, and I myself must bring Christ to life," until then, Christians have no chance of becoming Christians genuinely....That is, Christ is killed whenever and wherever blame for the death of innocents is considered someone else's responsibility and not my own. How can Christians resurrect Christ? By following in his footsteps by accepting culpability and taking responsibility.[20]. (BTW - this line of thinking seems not unlike some things said by Dietrich Bonhoeffer who was deeply critical of the tendency of Christianity to use God as a moral deus ex machina - see his concept of "cheap grace" in Cost of Discipleship).

Jesus aside, Jews do believe in the principle of resurrection, though many have understood it in a metaphorical sense.[21][22][23] God is capable of taking the most broken down wounded human life, healing it, and transforming it into something full of wonder, energy, and hope. In fact the principle is so important it is part of prayers said 3x a day. In one of the most important prayers in Judaism, Jews pray ...and you are faithful to bring life to the dead. Blessed are you, LORD our God, who gives life to the dead. (v'ne'eman atah l'chachaiot hametim. Baruch atah ----, m'chayeh ha metim). (---- name of God, it is never said, but rather read "adonai").

When Jews started trying to blend modernism with Jewish tradition, some reformers replaced the words mechayei hametim (gives life to the dead) with mechayei haKol (gives life to all). They were afraid that people would only understand mechayei haMetim as an "old fashioned" literal belief in the resurrection and miss the "real" point so they replaced the explicit resurrection imagery with a more philosophical interpretation of resurrection that could include the literal resurrection but did not explicitly state it. However, the most recent prayerbook of the US Reform movement, soon to be published, has put the traditional wording back as an alternative.[24][25] I think that in itself is a pretty powerful statement of how important the concept of resurrection is in Judaism. Best, Egfrank (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems like an even stranger question to ask , but I'm going to ask anyway ........ Do Jews even believe Jesus ever existed ??? ...... Pilotwingz (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Although Jews have often thought that no such person at all existed, most Jews now believe that there was some historical person being referred to. They do not believe everything that was said, of course, including a resurrection. But they (among whom I am one) believe that there was someone who appeared to be trying to make halakhic teachings. Sometimes they agreed with Shammai (as in divorce). Sometimes they agreed with Hillel (as in the Golden Rule). Sometimes they don't directly connect to anything. I'd suggest Hyam Macobby's "Revolution in Judea" for one view. There's another book by a different author that I haven't read but people talk about it: "A Marginal Jew."Tim (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe he existed. There was a person the Talmud calls Yeshua the Notzri, but he lived around 200 BCE. He had five disciples, some of whose names are similar to the names of disciples in the Christian scriptures. And there were other messianic figures around that time, all of whom were probably amalgamated into the figure of the "Jesus" known by Christianity.

Shammai never suggested that divorce was equivalent to adultery. And none of the rabbis ever suggested that it was okay to harvest on Shabbat because "the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath". Nor did any of the rabbis endorse the sort of vandalism and violence that Jesus is said to have engaged in in the Temple courtyard. So if he did exist, he was hardly making halakhic teachings. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In my own OR some Jews believe Jesus existed as maybe a misguided rabbi, others as a downright wicked false prophet, still others that he didn't exist at all.

So if God told a prophet to clean up the Temple, rabbis think a prophet should disobey? What about Elijah when he killed false prophets, that was pretty violent and destructive, do rabbis disapprove of stuff like that too?

He didn't "clean up the Temple". He committed vandalism. Nothing forbidden was going on there, and a prophet isn't permitted to violate the law just because he doesn't like what's going on. As far as killing the prophets of Baal, we're all commanded to kill idolators in the Land of Israel. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Also if the NT is true then things Jesus did was as a high priest and priestly duties are exempt from Sabbath prohibition, like lighting fires, cutting, etc.

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Priestly duties are not ever exempt from Sabbath prohibitions. They are exempt from shevut, which is rabbinic extentions to Sabbath prohibitions. Such as transferring fire. Lighting fires is forbidden even in the Temple, and even as part of the sacrificial service. Transferring already lit fire is only forbidden rabbinically; thus it was permitted in the Temple. Harvesting is prohibited biblically, and doing so is biblical violation of Shabbat regardless of who is doing it. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

So the question is if not what he did was against Sabbath, but if he was really authorized by God to do them.

One of the definitions of a false prophet is someone who tries to change God's laws. To say that something is permitted (by God) that God has forbidden, or vice versa. So if he actually did claim such a thing, Bikinibomb, then he would have been deserving of the death penalty for that alone. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Aside from all that if he was starving to death harvesting is fine since saving a life is allowed on the Sabbath, and that might extend to anything he did to save a soul from hell, like healing so the world could read about it and believe.

In the first place, read the text. No one was starving to death. In the second place, you can't extend saving lives to "saving a soul from hell", because that's pure invention. "that might extend" isn't a justification for violating God's laws. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In other words, there is a lot of wiggle room to refute the idea that Jesus definitely violated Sabbath. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Bikinibomb, there really isn't. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There is indication of price gouging among money changers and those offering inferior sacrifices for sale, according to being a "den of thieves." Even if Jesus spread poop on their faces it may also be a God-sanctioned act according to what Malachi said, he wouldn't just be acting as a rogue vandal. God has been known to use Jewish prophets like Moses and others to punish other Jews for wrongdoing, know what I mean?

I know what you mean, and you're wrong. In the first place, a prophet needed to be recognized as such before the Sanhedrin. No one can just say, "Hey, I'm a prophet!" and be entitled to do whatever floats his boat. In the second place, there's no indication in that narrative of either price gouging or "offering inferior sacrifices". That's your personal reading, and nothing in the text. And third of all, "according to what Malachi said"? Malachi said nothing to support your view that assault is legitimate in such a case. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'll reply in the context of assuming you might include this info in articles, since if you did I'd contest some of it without a source if I'm reading you correctly. Do you have a source that says Moses and all the other prophets were first recognized by the Sanhedrin before they became legitimate prophets? And if the Temple system wasn't corrupt, why did God allow it to be destroyed by the Romans? Don't the Jewish sages say it was destroyed because it was a symbol of the type of baseless hatred rampant among many Jews of the period who in pursuit of selfish goals, mistreated fellow Jews? -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". The Sages say that we were exiled and the Second Temple destroyed because of baseless hatred. Having the Temple is a privilege and a responsibility. We screwed up and lost that privilege. The Temple itself was not itself a symbol of baseless hatred, God forbid. Nor does any source say that it was. That's merely your misunderstanding of what the Sages said based on that "little knowledge".

As far as the need for prophets to be recognized formerly, try Maimonides, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, chapter 10. Here's a link, if you can handle the Hebrew. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Jesus wouldn't be changing Laws if he was acting as a God-appointed priest, since priests are allowed to do some things on the Sabbath other Jews are not, like cutting and kindling fires, right? He may be following precedent, not setting a new one.

Again, no. Priests are not allowed to do anything that other Jews are forbidden to do on the Sabbath. Nothing whatsoever. Anyone can do things that are only rabbinically forbidden in the Temple precincts for the purposes of the sacrificial service. The Levites did things, and even plain old Israelites, who were neither Levites nor priests, were allowed to as well. Shevut, the rabbinic extensions to the Sabbath prohibitions, is a category that was explicitly enacted only outside of the Temple precincts. It's the place that matters, and not the person. Walking in a field doesn't count. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't cutting normally prohbited, and can't you cut animals for reasons of sacrifice on some Sabbath days? For example. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Cutting is not prohibited. Cutting to form is prohibited. And cutting animals for reasons of sacrifice can be done in the Temple, because the rabbinic extensions to cutting in general were not enacted except outside of the Temple. Like every other rabbinic extension to the laws of Shabbat. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Also the text doesn't say Jesus wasn't starving, he may have been ready to pass out and die for all we know.

They were walking and talking. That's not being ready to pass out and die. Furthermore, if he were in such dire straits, he could have said so, which would have been a legitimate excuse for what he did. Instead, he made a lame comment about the Sabbath having been made for man, and not vice versa. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been talking to people and nearly passed out from low blood sugar, it hits all at once. People can die from it. Jesus probably went to the bathroom like regular folks too but the NT doesn't go into every little detail about every little thing. Since you don't know what exact circumstances were just from the text, I'm not sure it's so stupid to acknowledge that there might be reasonable explanations like that one. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am. If I do something to violate Shabbat for permissible reasons, and someone sees me violate Shabbat and comments on it, I'd have to be an idiot, or someone trying to cause trouble, to not say what the real reason was for my action, and to make up some lame "principle" like he supposedly did. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Jewish Law values the idea of "beyond reasonable doubt" and avoiding lashon hara before accusing someone same way westerners do, doesn't it?

No, Bikinibomb. We value that idea far more than westerners. But not to the point where we're stupid about it. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Plus if God tells you that saving a spiritual life is as important or even more so than saving a physical life, then you do what God says regardless of persecution, right? Really what good is a body without a soul, just as a golem? So which would be more important to save on the Sabbath? I think Lubavitchers might teach along those lines too.

You'd be wrong. Just because some Lubavitchers have started practicing what can only be called Chabadianity doesn't mean you can claim they'd violate the law in the way you're suggesting. The laws of saving a Jewish life on Shabbat have a source, you know. The statement used by the Sages is "Let him violate one Shabbat, that he may live to keep many Shabbatot". Where exactly do you see in that something that would justify violating Shabbat for some "spiritual" reason? Not, of course, that there was any spiritual reason. There was nothing going on when they picked that food that couldn't have waited until after Shabbat. It was a desecration of the day, plain and simple. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think they were going to meet some guy to heal his hand, if they didn't eat and have enough strength to go heal him maybe the guy would have gotten depressed about it and killed himself, if Jesus was a prophet and God told him that was going to happen Jesus would have been guilty of letting the man die just so he could cover his own butt and not appear to violate the Sabbath.

"Depressed about it and killed himself"? Now you're just being silly. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

See, A LOT of wiggle room and explanations we just may not be told about, like I said. Both sides might make for a good article like DID JESUS VIOLATE SABBATH? or something. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly he didn't. Because he didn't exist. But the character did. There's no wiggle room whatsoever. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I would just say that we both know there wasn't a Sanhedrin around to deem Moses a valid prophet, and the Hebrew source explaining how you say it is now doesn't do much good here on English Wikipedia if you wanted to say that in an article.

Actually, I can cite Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of the Fundamentals of the Torah Chapter 10, because English translations exist, even if I can't find one on the web to point you to. -LisaLiel (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you really saying that one of those sources claims that Moses and other prophets of the Tanach were not valid prophets until they were formally approved by the Sanhedrin (In the first place, a prophet needed to be recognized as such before the Sanhedrin.)? Fascinating. -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

And since we know that starving people are hungry and the NT says he was hungry, what Jesus said applies to Sabbath enhancing life, not killing it. Perhaps he was speaking to Jews who could see he was starving so it's a given, but simply rejected that provision of Sabbath life or death situations. Even on Jlaw there is continued debate about what exactly Jewish physicians are allowed to do. And then also, since we aren't told every little thing, not healing the man with the withered hand may have set off a chain of events only a prophet might know, like he could have killed himself, or not been able to save someone else's life with a withered hand. A lot of possibilities.

Not at all. Someone who violates Shabbat in public bears the burden of proof for justifying his action. -LisaLiel (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If Jesus never comes back to kill Dajaal we'll know for sure there's no proof. -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's like a big circular argument, saying Jesus couldn't have known such things and been exempt for that provision because he wasn't a prophet, and he wasn't a prophet because he violated the Sabbath, and la-de-da...but anyway, this is all kind of pointless unless it's going to go in another article. -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not pointless, because it's always worthwhile to contradict false statements. Letting them stand is inappropriate, and I choose not to do so. If you think it's pointless, then let it drop. Don't try and get the last word when that word isn't true. And it's not circular, either. There is a burden of proof. The character of Jesus never fulfilled his burden, and neither did Christianity. They chose, instead, to try and fill their burden of proof with a sword. -LisaLiel (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Contradict them with what, wishful thinking? Like I said I guess we'll see. End of a sword, end of a bulldozer, whatever, no sides in this deal have a spotless record, I admit that freely. I can report it without bias in an article too, big plus around here. So there you go, have your last word, I'm moving on to something else. -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway this isn't supposed to be a forum so I'll leave it there, but these might be good items for opposing views in one of the main articles. We don't need to debate it, just source it and post it. -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Egf, I've been trying to decide if it would be apropriate to hint, that you gave me quite a burden of info. at one time, to study up on with all those source refs. ......... what do you think , should I make the hint , LoL ??? ........ if your answer is no to that, please disregard my opening, LoL ......... Really though , all that info. was excellent , thank you ......... Lapide's book seems it could be an edu. read on a novel idea ,, now I'm wondering how it might play out .......... At least for now Lapide goes in the yes column for both questions .......... The Greenburg link was seriously informative and enlightening for me ,, I wasn't able to determine who the actual author of the book Christianity in Jewish Terms is , as the link itself appeared to be "a commentary by Rochelle, an Allentown, PA. university Proff. and his class students , highlighting specific excerpts from the book ....... The book itself seemed to be the product of a Jewish and Christian Studys (interfaith) group out of Balt., MD. , and there were creds. for a number of Eds. representing Weastview Press , 2000 ........ in any case , I found it so interesting , I have a mind to track that one down and listen to rest of the whole discourse , really !! In the opening I found the link to Dabru Emet's statement that the N.Y.Times pub. in a full page , Sept., 2000 ,, that was really encouraging and I think quite a big deal too ........

I really can not stress enough how encouraging the level of interfaith dialog taking place in our times has reached and the course in which it is going ........ Greenburg's statement : contempt cannot be seperated from human responsibility , should ring home loud and clear to all " who have ears to hear !! ........ there was an extra helping of the suffering , and good fresh muchly needed words bringing it back to center within our Lord God's master plans for us all ....... I read it all intently and then later went back listened to it again , then insisted the lady I love sit down and let me read it to her also ........ she takes some interest in my quest for deeper understanding on these issues , on occassion she will humor me and take a short break from her quilting , LoL ......... I was a bit lost on the Wilken and Hoffman part that engaged ' the main difference ( i.e. sacerdotalism " The High Sacramental Theology ), but the whole issue there sort of sadened me some .......... amongst all the seriousness of the commentary ( which I am thankful for ), discovered a couple of things on a lighter side I wasn't aware of : didn't know Baptism had it's origins in Jewish proselyte ceremonie,, and wasn't aware Jews never ordained rabbis until America .......... in the end , it is the Covenant(s) the Lord God has laid upon us all that we must share in and live up to , with reflecting eyes upon our forefathers and mother's paths of travail that have brought us thus far ........ if we can honor them and be blessed by God in our efforts , there is hope in the dawn of a new day rising for our children and theirs ........ pray for it ernestly .........

The Adobe links sort a zapped my machine here , not sure why , but couldn't finish reading them ........... but I did grit my teeth and make it to end of George Aichele's de-bunking speal ,, and he thinks that crap he vomited out was an impressive modern day critical approach with his own scholarly tact on the book of Mark ending at 16 : 8' ........ he's so proud of his wit when says "the germ of the tale" ( i.e. the resurrection ), and then goes on to declare the reader of the Gospels will inevitablly face the "stupid moment" when trying to make heads or tails of (his words) the fantastical ( i.e.,the miraculous events) ........ all that in an effort to convince his reader why the fantastical narrative courses leave a residue that has become the mythical legend of the resurrection ......... somebody needs to tell him the Mark conspiracy theme has been looked at with far more intelegent eyes than his own for over a thousand years ......... breaking news Aichele, I just witnessed one of your Stupid Moments !!......... opps , I'm a Christian , sorry ........ kinda wondering what Aichele thinks about all the stupid moments in the Hebrew Bible narratives ??? ......... ( I almost couldn't stop myself from spelling his name a bit differently )..........

About Richard Cohen comment ( i.e., a genuine Christian ), amen , he's spot on the mark ........ couldn't say it better if I tried .......... too bad he thinks it's all just metaphor .........

I am glad the phrase ( gives life to the dead ) is being placed back into your prayer books .......... there are some who believe it , there are some who want to believe it , there are some who don't ....... then there are some who don't believe it to be so , but truely know it is so .......... and for those , there's no place to go from there !! ........ Pilotwingz (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to say thank you all , Egf , Tim , Lisa , Biki .......... sorry I didn't get to some response for your comments and help on this subject so far , I kinda got carried away and ran out of steam right now ......... Pilotwingz (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defining resurrection in the article

Are we ready to add Resurrection to the cells ?? ....... Pilotwingz (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I got off track too, what I was saying goes in an article about whether Jesus broke the Sabbath or not, not resurrection. It's probably easy to find sources saying both Jews and Christians believe in resurrection of people in general at their own versions of "world to come." Christians but not Jews believe in the resurrection of Jesus. A minority of Jews believes that Messiah can be resurrected at all, based on what the Talmud says about Messiah maybe being Daniel, and what Lubavitchers think about Rebbe. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be better to leave the above sort of summary to the Christianity and Judaism article or Resurrection. There is no way we can do the complexity of this issue or the reasons why people believe what they believe justice in a single cell. The role of both the talmud and bible in developing Jewish notions of resurrection is a lot more complex than Daniel. Huge articles and even entire books have been written on this topic. As for Lubabavitchers: parts of Lubabavitcher belief are rooted in a much larger tradition of chassidut. Other parts are quite specific to the lubabavitcher rebbe's particular brand of chassidut. Still others have little currency outside of the followers of the late Menachem Schneerson.

For this table I'd prefer it if we stuck to definitions and leave the believe/not believe question out of the cell entirely. We should have no problem finding sources that review the breadth of Jewish and Christian tradition and say:

Jewish. (1) bodily resurrection in the Messianic Age (2) renewal and healing in this world (3) eternity of the soul (4) continued presence of the dead in our lives via our memories of them.

Christian. (1) the resurrection of Jesus, as a historical event (2) the bodily resurrection of "the saints" [and the wicked - Egfrank (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)] after the second coming of Christ. "The saints" include anyone who has accepted Jesus of Nazareth as their Savior. (2) renewal and healing in the life of someone who has accept Jesus of Nazareth as their Savior.

Anything more than that should be left with in dedicated articles. Egfrank (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Refs are at Resurrection of the Dead. 76.215.192.10 (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

However believe/not believe is exactly what determines perception. At any rate the numbers who actually say Messiah can be resurrected at all are probably so small, mainly among Lubavitchers, it may not be notable for purposes of this table, though it should be covered in one of the main articles, I agree.

I'm not sure about the idea that saints are just anyone who believes in Jesus, some Christians (especially Catholics) believe they have done really good deeds or are martyrs, compared to other believers. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In Christian theology - including catholic theology - all members of the community of believers, living and dead, are saints (small S)[26][27][28]. The saints you are thinking of are dead people with the title Saint (capital S). They are selected through a technical beautification/canonization process[29]. However, the idea is that they are heroic exemplars of a grace and moral transformation that is available for all Christians - even the non-catholic ones. Egfrank (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I'm getting at is preachers often teach there are two resurrections, one for the really good Saints (martyrs) in Rev. 20:4 at the Second Coming, then a thousand years later at Judgment for everyone else including other people who accepted Jesus, since at that time Jesus tells some of those believers to take a hike because though they believed, their deeds were evil (Mat 7:23). the good shall rise to the resurrection of life, the wicked to the resurrection of Judgment. Resurrection. So if you say all people who accept Jesus are saints and are resurrected at the Second Coming it might not be entirely telling of what Christianity really teaches. But like I said it could be resolved by losing the second sentence. -Bikinibomb (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an awful lot of material on the web discussion end-time speculation. However, I couldn't find anything in the Catholic encyclopedia article you linked to about two separate resurrections, one a 1000 years later. Can you point out the exact place in the article. I appear to be missing something. To the best of my knowledge, Roman catholicism and main line protestant denominations have stayed away from making doctrinal statements about the sequence of events related to the second coming. What preachers/denominations are we talking about here? Also how much weight do we want to put on this?

I'm still way over my head with book editing right now, so I apologize for being so quiet. What you are looking for is not pre- post- or mid- tribulationism, but rather the distinction between a- post- and pre- milennialism. Only the premilennialists believe in a separation of the resurections by a thousand years (per Rev. 20 I think). The postmilennialists believe we are in the "milennium" now (with it simply being a long period of time in which Christ perfects the world through his church). The amilennialists don't really believe in any kind of golden age. There is this age, and then the end, but no golden age against which Christ either comes first to start the golden age (premilennial) or against which Christ comes after we create a golden age ourselves (postmilennial). Roman Catholics lean in the direction of amilennialism. Mainline Protestants lean in the direction of postmilennialism. Evangelicals lean in the direction of premilennialism. The tribulation timing issue is only within the premilennial camp.Tim (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Historically interest in these specific theories (pre-tribulation, post-tribulation, no tribulation, etc) tend to wax and wan over time and currelty appear to be more popular in evangelical protestant denominations and are hotly contested among those interested in them. They also tend to be more commonly expressed as doctrinal assertions in "populist" preaching and responses to current events[30]. Academic sources tend to be much more circumspect and almost always acknowledge this topic as speculative debate.[31]. Also not all Christians agree that this kind of speculation is good for Christians and christianity.[32][33]

As far as the exact quote from the Catholic encyclopedia article: the good shall rise to the resurrection of life, the wicked to the resurrection of Judgment.. This needs to be read in context. If you read further on, it also says: These three characteristics, identity, entirety, and immortality, will be common to the risen bodies of the just and the wicked. But the bodies of the saints shall be distinguished by four transcendent endowments, often called qualities. The word saints here is linked to "communion of the saints" which is defined according to the three citations I provided above ([34][35][36]).

So yes, good and bad are resurrected in the Catholic view (and our definition can be adjusted to reflect that - done - see above), but here the "good" means those who believe in Jesus (saints with a small "s") and according to the article, they have special resurrection attributes of (a) impassability - being beyond pain and suffering (b) glory (c) agility (d) complete mastery of the body by the soul. There is no distinction I can see in timing of resurrection. Egfrank (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with the timing, since Paul says there will be a resurrection at the last trumpet which is tied with the return of Christ. And Judgment is still after that so the first sentence is still agreeable with that notion. It's the second sentence defining saints. For example if I ask Christians if Hitler could accept Jesus as his savior in the minutes before his death and be forgiven and regarded as a saint and resurrected to glory, many say of course not, you can't just shed crocodile tears for yourself at the bitter end of a wicked life when you realize you're going to Hell, part of accepting Jesus is actually trying to do what he taught like loving your neighbor and all that. So I'm not disputing your source since it seems technically correct, it's just that a lot of Christians tend to perceive and apply the idea of a "saint" more restrictively than the definition suggests. But I guess all that could be addressed in a main article, don't need to worry about it here. -Bikinibomb (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Here, this may not be the most valid of sources, the first one I found on google, but it gets to what a lot of Christians say: accepting Jesus as savior or not, if you have no good fruit you go into the fire with the unbelievers. Or saints = faith + works. Like I said it doesn't need to go here, just explains it more. Some people tell sinners, "You don't need to do anything to be saved. Just accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior." But is it really possible to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior to receive His salvation without obeying Him? Obedience

(outdent) You are, I think, touching on one of the central problems of Christian ethics and one of the hardest concepts for Abrahamic non-Christians (Jews and Muslims) to "get". It is also a hard thing for Christians themselves to "get" and has resulted in a huge amount of christian theory and arguments and even some heresies.

On one hand Christainity teaches that salvation is a free gift of God and has nothing to do with our good (or bad) deeds. Hence "saints=believers". It can't have anything to do with our deeds because we could never be good enough to merit even the smallest bit of heaven. Furthermore, God counts faith as righteousness and that little bit of righteousness is enough to insure that absolutely nothing can separate us from the Love of God in Christ Jesus. (Romans 8:35-39). On the other hand, Christianity believes that we are supposed to obey God and what could be the motive if believers have no chance of punishment? The tension between these two ideas is reflected in the very earliest Christian literature - the New Testament - in the very different themes of Paul (faith is counted as righteousness) and James (faith without works is dead).

Historically Christianity has dealt with this problem a number of ways - the work you cited being only one of many:

1. Purgatory. Bad people are in the communion of saints, but they must go through a purification processes before they can experience eternal bliss. Roman Catholicism has particularly embraced this solution.
2. Good works are signs of salvation. If you don't have them, maybe you weren't really saved in the first place. Puritans are especially known for this particular solution.
3. good deeds are the natural response to love The idea here is that good deeds will increasingly flow out of a believer as he or she grows in understanding the full meaning of God's love for him or her.[37] If it doesn't seem this way, then its because we can't be inside someone's soul and we don't know the measure of sin against which they struggle. A good deed may be second nature for one person and a major moral achievement for another. Also the sins that we want fixed right now may not be the ones that God and that person think are high priority.
4. good deeds are a product of grace. God's grace working in the life of the believer produces good deeds so the conflict is only apparent.[38] Explanations why this doesn't always seem the case tend to be the same as in 3.
5. choosing sides. A lot of people just give up on the paradox. However, most theologically trained Christians believe that avoiding the moral paradox of "saints=faith alone" and "deeds matter" is a heresy.
   • Antinomianism = deeds don't matter at all.[39]
   • Donatism = deeds are needed in addition to faith/grace. Named after a 3rd century bishop who insisted that priestly activities by priests who had burned Christian texts (to avoid persecution by the Roman emperor) were invalid (their validity depended on the priests deeds and not just the grace of God).[40]
   • Pelagianism = deeds alone are enough.

As for your citation - if you read carefully to the end, it appears to me that your author is taking solution #2 and arguing against antinomianism. He argues that if one really had faith one would obey, ergo if one doesn't obey one isn't really a believer. Quoting from his conclusion's about a person who thinks obedience is irrelevant (i.e. an antinomianist):

* Since accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior requires a commitment to obey him, it follows that such a person has not truly accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior. * Since loving God requires and includes obeying Him, it follows that such a person does not truly love God. * Since saving faith requires and includes obeying Him, it follows that such a person does not have a saving faith. my bold

So he isn't actually saying that saint=faith+deeds but rather saint=faith=deeds. Egfrank (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I can read it that way too, I think sometimes it should just be clarified that "saint = accepting Jesus" means more than just having faith, but also a display of deeds verifying that faith, else it perpetuates the notion that "Christianity is only about faith and deeds don't matter" is a majority view, and I'm not sure it really is, especially among all the missionaries who see proseletyzing as doing a good deed.

I think I'm focusing on this one thing because in the back of my mind I'm seeing a deeper problem of stereotyping that some religions are typically this or that, when in reality all people in all religions just handle and see things in different ways. Like in Christianity and Judaism it starts out saying Christians are more concerned with theology for themselves, Jews are more concerned with actions as a whole to respond to their Sinai covenant.

But Christians are also concerned with actions of the Church as a whole in how to respond to its covenant with Jesus, especially regarding missionary work. And I'm pretty sure that Jews sometimes think of themselves only as to how they should act in certain situations. Like, if Jews are wondering if they should return too much change from the cashier, are they usually really thinking, "I better return it or else this will mess up Israel's covenant?" Or are they thinking more about feeling guilty as individuals if they keep it?

I've complained about this before, that sometimes there seems to be too much effort to make the religions mutually exclusive. I'm not saying it's intentional, it may just be a perspective issue. But I think it's something to pay attention to and I'll probably be rewording a lot of stuff like that especially if it's not sourced. -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As usual, you've managed to zoom in one of the core debates in interfaith dialog: universalism vs. particularism. Ever since Kant, Westerners have tried to argue for the idea that there is one "real" universal religion and everything else is pretty much window dressing. But as interfaith dialog has become less political and less polemical there has been a shift away from the extremes of "we're different/the same" to a more nuanced understanding of the need to acknowledge both similarities and differences. As you have aptly observed on more than one occasion, an over emphasis on differences ends up distorting the very thing it is trying to explain: e.g. stereotyping Jews as those who care only about actions; christians as those who care only about faith. On the other hand, by smoothing over the differences we loose something as well - the ability of religions to learn from each other. Each religion plays up some issues at the expense of others. By viewing the differences in terms of strengths and weaknesses each can critique each other. A very well written essay on this can be found here. I strongly recommend you read it if you haven't already.

As for rewriting entries - I think it would be better to focus on rewrites based on sources. The concern about personal opinions and OR defining cell content was loud and clear in the AfD and we could be renominated at any point in time. Egfrank (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we wouldn't want to replace sourced material with something unsourced that "sounds" better. But as with the other J/C article regarding individual vs. national gain, it is unsourced and I will probably ditch that as being the crux of the matter.

Maybe this stems in part from the idea that Christianity is more of a "sinner's religion" that people turn to for individual transformation especially among born-agains. But if we dwell on that point, are we saying that conversion to Judaism promises nothing new or better for the individual but Christianity does? And if we say that Judaism focuses more on the whole rather than the individual, can there also be much discussion (or complaint, depending) in the same breath about so many televangelists and missionaries trying to ensure that Christianity as a whole lives up its New Covenant command to spread the Gospel? Not really.

So while the details of actions and beliefs may be different, I think the general goals are about the same, both individual and Church/national progress, and saying one religion is vastly more than the other unnecessarily shortchanges both for sake of trying to paint a big difference when there really isn't any. I think there are a few valid core differences, like observing Torah or belief in Jesus, but a lot of the others like this one, being introduced at every turn and every issue, seems like going overboard to prove that they are mutually exclusive with no similarities at all.

Same problem exists between Islam and Christianity, a lot of Muslims and Christians alike don't really want anyone to know that the Quran says Jesus is Messiah too, they prefer to keep the walls up. So I'm all for contrasting differences, just as long as they are valid and not based on limited perspective or worse yet, intentional wording that creates the illusion of great difference when there really isn't. -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Stanford, Metaphysics Research Lab, Afterlife [41] ......... rational considerations delivered rationally , God is not absent in contextualization ......... of notable value is the fact that the concept of Afterlife demands reasoning , greater than wishful thinking ......... good read ...... also note Stanford has cite criteria ( upper left , each entry )... Pilotwingz (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gospels/Quran

I have a book titled "The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an -- An Explanatory Translation, by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, Bilal Books, 70/3 Yusuf Meher Ali Road, Bombay-India, all rights reserved-first edition 1997-printed in India........Pilotwingz (talk) 03:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC):
In Surah V-115., ( speaking to Jesus ) "Allah said: Lo! I send it down for you. And whoso disbelieveth of you afterward, him surely I will punish with a punishment wherewith I have not punished any of (My) creatures." ...... so in response I would ask of this verse , I wonder if the writer of this Surah V-115., would have any objections if the believers he desires to inspire , were to follow Allah's command of verse 115 , and hear and read the words of Jesus they are to believe in . Did not Allah command it ??........ it only makes sense to me , that if they are to follow this command , they would have to go to the source where Jesus' words are written and recorded , which is of course the New Testament ........ I wanted to know what the Qur'an had to say for myself so an acquaintnace of mine aquired this for me many years ago ......... having my Holy Bible as the Word of God well read , tathered , worn and in communion with for some 12 or so years prior , I found the Qur'an to be lacking in all acknowledgement of what is written in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament ...... don't get me wrong , the Qur'an makes mention of much which is written in these Holy Scriptures , such as the prophets and Jesus , but gives no detail into the written context of them ......... it seems to be designed for one who has maybe heard tales and stories of them but never heard or read the original Torah or Gospel writings for themselves ....... thus leaving absent the comparison possibility ......... or in other words , refer to my opening about wondering if the writer of Surah V-115., would have the objection to the full story ?? ....... Pilotwingz (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not real sure if Arabic translations of the Gospels were around in the 7th century, the idea is that Mohammed got the data from God as a prophecy, so in that sense it's understandable not every previous detail would be reflected, and some new material is introduced. In my own belief, Muslims are commanded to accept the Tanach and Gospels as truth, same as the Quran:

Quran 3:3 It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong). -Bikinibomb (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's all well and fine " Muslims are commanded to accept the Tanach and Gospels as truth , same as Qur'an........ but what happens when a Muslim Al Islam reads the Gospels and hears the words of Jesus ?? ........ hears the first person witness of say , John or Peter ........... easy enough to say the things Qur'an says about such things , when one doesn't know what those things acually say .......... see Surah II-23,24 ( The Cow ), and the reply to those two verses is , and the Lord God hath produced it , it is called the Holy Bible ....... Pilotwingz (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Surah LXXXV , 1-8 (The Mansions of the Stars), when one who has read and heard the first person witness from the Gospels , and then reads this passage from Qur'an ....... it is obvious that the writer of this Surah had no idea that the blood of these martyrs would be able to cry out and speak for themselves , in declaration to say we believe Jesus Christ is our Saviour our Lord and no other way may be found except unto the only begotten Son of God.......... but they do cry out loud and clear in protest of this Surah's writer ...... Pilotwingz (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll hear different things from different Muslims, my take is this. The thing the Quran stresses is that Jesus isn't the product of sex between God and Mary or a demigod from a Zeus, which may have been an easy thing to misunderstand among pagan Arabs of the time. However there isn't really objection to Jesus as the Son of God as the Jews believe Israel is, a special servant chosen for a unique purpose, just as all believers are children of God. Luke says Adam is the Son of God, and Romans 8:14-15 says all those led by the Spirit are Sons of God by adoption. Similarly, Jesus started his ministry right after his baptism when God's spirit came on him, he was declared Son of God, and he was led by it to the wilderness.

In Exodus 4:16 Moses was also made God to the people as mediator between them and God. So it depends on how you read the NT, you can see it as Jesus being literal Son of God and God incarnate, or you can see it as Jesus being adopted by God like Adam was for a special purpose, not inherently God incarnate but being given the role of God over the people like Moses was given. I don't think the NT ever says you have to believe Jesus was born a God, only that you have to believe Jesus is Messiah/Christ, which is the promised human king of David, and the Quran does agree with that much. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What about Lord Jesus as Saviour , as in John 14 :6 " Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me........ or from John 10 :27-30 " My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My father who has given them to me is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. I and My Father are One. ......... John 6 :38 " For I have come down from Heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me........... John 5 :21-23 " For the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom he will. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgement to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.......... and Lord Jesus' words after His resurrection on the mountain at the time of His ascension , the Great Commission , Matt. 28 :18 " Then Jesus came and spoke to them saying, " All authority has been given to me in Heaven and on earth......... how does that Jesus who Allah commanded Al Islam to believe in , set with a Muslim ?? ........ you see , people have a difficulty relating to the times and events of past such as these mentioned , they do not comprehend it was only yesterday ........ people believe the life with-in them is theirs , and this is where the mistake began ....... Pilotwingz (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The point in the Quran is to recognize God as ultimate savior of everyone, including Jesus who cried out for God to save him from death (Heb. 5:7), being if you say Jesus is exactly the same as God then you contradict what the NT and Jesus actually say as you imply in your post: not our will, not even the will of Jesus, but God's will be done (John 5:30).

Most Muslims (hopefully) have common sense to know that there are lots of human saviors in the sense of people who try to save others from harm, all the way from Jesus to paramedics to a child who brings a lost kitten home. Muslims can appreciate them and honor them...but we honor them as humans, not as Gods, we only worship the one God as God and for subsequently giving humans the ability to save anything, or to judge, or kill the antichrist, or whatever else Jesus is believed to do. So we believe all that power doesn't inherently come from Jesus as a God, but from God who gives it to the human Jesus who also said in John 5:30, I can of mine own self do nothing. And then we can honor what Jesus does as being of God, and so we are honoring Jesus the same as God in that sense, even though we are still only worshiping the one God over all including Jesus.

Another big issue is the I AM statement in John 8:58, I believe Hebrews makes it clear Jesus was talking about being a priest of Melchizedek in relation to Abraham, not about being God or Jehovah. Another is John 1:1. Just like me, the sound of my voice, and the words in my voice aren't three people, they are all just me, I believe God, the Holy Spirit, and God's Word is just the one God, not three people, that the human spirit of Jesus wasn't there in John 1:1, and that God gave power to Jesus as He did to Moses to make him God over the people: whatever Moses said was Law of the land, whatever Jesus says is Law of the land -- in both cases God's Word becoming flesh, their words same as God's own words, even though God is still God and He rules everyone including Moses and Jesus. Those are only a couple of ways I can comfortably accept both the NT and the Quran together with no conflicts. -Bikinibomb (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Biki, you have read and heard for yourself Lord Jesus' words then , yes ?? ...... You have perhaps even read the whole NT then , yes ?? ......... Pilotwingz (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, thousands of times. It's my conclusion that when the Quran says Torah and Gospels have been corrupted it isn't talking about the written words themselves but the twisting and adding to them by the Church and such. Like to say Jews no longer have to follow Torah (Jesus said the opposite, they still have to until heaven and earth pass) and other things. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll add I think Jews and Muslims make a big mistake when they take Church word as gospel and argue against that as a way to refute the NT. A more clever approach would be to give their own explanations of the NT in order to make the three books -- OT, NT, Quran -- agree, then incorporate them (hijack if you prefer) into their own religions. I bet the religion that did that, especially on the issue of Trinity and God status of Jesus -- would end up being the majority, Christianity a minority. As it is I sit back and see three little kids bragging "my dad can beat up your dad" and while I identify a lot with all three religions, my preference would be to belong to none of them as they are. But since Islam is the only one of them that accepts all three to some extent, that's where I am. -Bikinibomb (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Biki , for assuring me you have heard for yourself Lord Jesus' words . I just needed to hear that yes , from you personally ........... You see I believe everything Lord Jesus told me , even if I don't fully understand everything , or anything for that matter ......... My Lord is all I have .......... I ask you because of , John 5 : 24 ....... I just needed to be sure everything will be OK ......... Merry Christmas ......... Pilotwingz (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. As long as we started with resurrection I may as well hit on that major difference. All fables aside, a straight reading of the Quran says Jesus wasn't crucified, not killed by Romans nor Jews, but God took him. So if we aren't going to throw the whole NT away, we can think about what it means to be crucified. In Jesus' case it means to be killed by the cross. Which means he may have been nailed to it but died some other way. If you are nailed to a cross but someone shoots you in the head you aren't technically crucified in the sense of a Roman execution, you are just nailed to a cross but die from a bullet. So what did Jesus die of, if he was on the cross but it didn't kill him? The Quran says God took Jesus. Would it change anything for the worse in the Christian view if God killed Jesus, not Romans and Jews? Not at all. In fact the implication that Jesus was killed by men -- failed and discouraged -- before he finished his mission would be pretty much void if God decided he needed to come home for a while, if so Jesus wouldn't have been stopped by men at all. Besides a ton of other symbolic implications and reasons why God may have taken Jesus rather than let him be killed by the cross. Maybe the most important thing for Jews: so that the nation of Israel wouldn't technically be responsible for the murder of its own Messiah, God would take the responsibility Himself. So I don't buy that apocryphal Judas illusion stuff, there's another way to read the Quran without trashing the NT.

I don't buy the Christian human sacrifice stuff either, I think although there may be OT symbolism there too, the main thing Jesus did was give his life for God despite fear and doubt as any human has, and because of his obedience, God honored him with the role of priest-king like Melchizedek who makes atonement for the people and delivers the New Covenant, thus saving them from sin in that office (Hebrews). Which despite the hoo-hah, doesn't disagree at all with Jewish thought since Jews also see Moses make some sacrifices himself, and because of his obedience Moses was deemed worthy of God to be in his own role as a savior to the people from Egypt and delivering the Sinaitic covenant to teach them how to avoid sin. -Bikinibomb (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing biases on the web

Just because we survived this AfD, doesn't mean that we will survive the next. I want to remind us of the great care we need to take with sourcing. As I read some of the above posts, I sense that some of us are relying very heavily on web-based resources.

We need to be very careful about assuming that the material on the web proportionately represents Jewish (or Christian) belief and practice. By and large minority groups in both Judaism and Christianity tend to be much more active on the web than majority denominations. When material from majority denominations in mainstream Christianity and Judaism is available, it is often only partially available - e.g. it appears in the form of links to purchase books, as an entry point to one of the on-line academic journal services, as reading lists (of books off-line), or as a list of off-line courses and study opportunities.

To illustrate this point, take a look at the Torah resources available from the two largest denominations in the USA (representing approx. 70% of synagogue affiliated Jews - the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ)'s Torah resources section[42] and the United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism (USCJ)'s Jewish living and learning section[43]. Then compare it to Chabad's[44]. Most of the URJ's actual content is off-line. The USCJ has a number of brief articles but if you take a close look, many of these provide a roadmap to off line literature, e.g. Jewish history, or Jewish thought and philosophy. By contrast, most of Chabad's content is one or two clicks away from the link in the previous sentence.

I'm not sure why this is so. Perhaps, the mainstream groups feel less of a need to use the web as their medium because the entire world of academic and religious publishers is open up to them? They also have numerous mainstream accredited degree granting institutions as well as many many active churches and synagogues. With so many mainstream publishing options I think the web gets viewed as a poor second cousin. Why put it on the web when you can publish a real book?

This may be why a lot of the US Reform and conservative material on line turns out to be someone's sermon. Sermons are harder to publish than books. As a rabbinic friend of mine joked this Shabbat - a blog is what you write when you can't get published and a sermon is a sort of Shabbat friendly blog (no buttons to push). In any case, whatever the reason, we need to be very discerning when basing our summaries on web based material.

I realize this imbalance puts participants without access to a good Jewish studies or Christian seminary library at a distinct disadvantage in sourcing. But as Bikinibomb has pointed out there are some good on-line resources that survey the full range of Jewish and Christian belief. For Judaism there is the Jewish encyclopedia. For Catholocism there is the Catholic encyclopedia. We need some good on-line Protestant sources as well - perhaps one of us has found such? Egfrank (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the web. based source for the SBC , official site for The Southern Baptist Convention ........... contains up to date info. on official doctrinal statements , office holding authority heads and just about everything else on where SBC stands and does in the world of Christianity .......... one ( previously ) SBC church I am familiar with , about 3 yrs. ago decented from the SBC congregational union churches , because this particular church wanted to in place a female pastor , the SBC threatened to cut off all funding to this church if they went ahead and that ....... the church hired the female pastor , SBC cut off the support funding , and the church turned and joined the Southern Baptist Alliance ......... [45] ........ Pilotwingz (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another crack at Shittuf

"Worship of deities other than God along with God. There are varying views amongst the rabbis as to whether this is considered idolatry for non-Jews. The dominant view is that it is not. However, the unanimous view is that it is forbidden for Jews."

Lisa seems to say that swearing to multiple deities is only ok for Gentiles as long as it isn't really worship, more of a convenience, so if true the dominant view should be the opposite, such actual worship is never ok for anyone. Anyone care to try to clarify again? A source would be cool too, I can't find any other than the one I posted and it doesn't really distinguish between sincere and convenience oaths. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The unanimous view is that it's idolatry for Jews. Not just forbidden. I fixed that just now. I must have missed it when someone (you? Tim?) removed the Kaplan source from it. And the issue of oaths is a red herring. It has nothing whatsoever to do with shituf.

Let me try and lay out all of the issues for you, one by one. I'm honestly trying to help you understand this.

Is shituf considered idolatry for non-Jews? There are two views in halakhic literature. The majority view is that it is, but the minority view is significant.

Is Christianity shituf or full-blown idolatry? There's no third view. It's either the one or the other. If it's full-blown idolatry, then questions of whether shituf is permissible for non-Jews or not are moot, since shituf isn't in play here. The Jewish view is that Christian protestations that they are monotheistic are rationalizations that don't match what Christians actually do in practice.

Is a non-Jew swearing in the name of a foreign god considered to be an idolator because of it? Note that this question has nothing to do with shituf. It can be asked whether shituf is full-blown idolatry for non-Jews or not.

I'm not sure why the issue of oaths is so important to you. Where do you find this coming into play in day-to-day activities? It's almost entirely theoretical these days, I'd think. Or am I missing something? -LisaLiel (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If shittuf is "Worship of deities other than God along with God" how could swearing an oath to deities other than God along with God have nothing to do with that? Seems like previously you indicated it would be shittuf if a Gentile was actually thinking about religion while doing it and unacceptable, now you are saying it has nothing to do with it. Yikes. It's not all that important to me more than any other issue, just an unresolved one I happened to notice again while perusing the columns today.

And even more unresolved now that you left the shittuf cell as The dominant view is that it is not idolatry for non-Jews, but here in Talk you are now saying The majority view is that it is idolatry for non-Jews. Which is it? -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is one of those rare cases where the minority view is the dominant one. Because we aren't in a situation of yad Yisrael tekifa, and have to make allowances for the fact that we live among people with a history of doing really bad things to us if we don't make allowances for them.

And where did the oath thing turn into "swearing an oath to deities other than God along with God"? I don't think that's what Tosfot discusses. -LisaLiel (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Way back here when you said this was allowed because they weren't really thinking about religion when they swore: Most recent authorities agree that Children of Noah are forbidden to believe in a partnership. But even according to these, the Children of Noah are permitted to swear by the name of an idol in combination with God (to swear by the Lord of Hosts and a Hindu deity, for example).Idolatry

But now you are saying only a minority really believes it is acceptable but a majority allows it only because...Gentiles will hurt them if they don't? Okie-dokie, even though so many Jews aren't afraid to say Jesus is the wicked witch of the west, hahaha. I think I'll just delete that bit too until someone can produce a reliable source explaining it. -Bikinibomb (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Christian Bible"

When Jews use that term, it's in an effort to find a replacement for the offensive "New Testament". Some people use "Christian Testament", and others use "Christian Bible". I do the latter, for instance. Some people use der treyfer sefer, but I didn't think we needed a row for that one.

Changing this to misrepresent the Jewish view of the term as reflecting both Tanakh and the Christian additions is a mistake. Using dictionary.com as a source is patently ridiculous. Come on, Bikinibomb, you had to know that wasn't going to fly. -LisaLiel (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Then find a source for that, in the meantime it's using the same definition from Christian Bible. A reason so many editors agreed with the AfD is they were afraid this glossary would be used for new and exotic POV twists on concepts, based on unsourced OR. Replacing sourced material -- everyone knows the Christian Bible contains the Hebrew and Christian religious texts -- is what doesn't fly. So I'm reverting it back until you find something sourced to say what you think it should say. -Bikinibomb (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that you not do that. Dictionary.com is not a valid source for the Jewish perception of a term. I will revert it back again if you do.

And the reason so many editors agreed with the AfD was that there are a billion things wrong with this article. All of the reasons given for the deletion of the Jewish/Christian/Muslim glossary apply to this one. And more. The only reason the AfD failed to achieve consensus was that I did such a crappy job creating it. Don't expect that to happen next time, particularly with the precedent of the other deletion out there. -LisaLiel (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Dictionary.com is a better source than no source, and it's the one used in the main Bible article, I didn't use it with the intention of "putting one over" on anyone, any editor was free to replace it with a better sourced statement. To me it appeared to say about the same thing. As it stands I was easily able to find one more in line with what you stated, with a little effort you could have done the same rather than reverting to a citation tag.

Dictionary.com is not a better source than no source. We aren't looking for a dictionary definition of the term. We're looking for what Jews use the term for. And you have my gratitude for finding the source. I restored the text that was there, but left the source. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway what you said, that the Christian Bible are the books added to the Tanach to make their Bible, isn't even really the correct view anyway since Jews complain all the time that the OT is not the Tanach because it has translational errors.

You're playing games. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Christian Bible = Books added by Christians to Tanakh to create their Bible -- whose Bible? The Christian Bible. So you are saying Christian Bible = Books added by Christians to Tanakh to create the Christian Bible. First you say the Christian Bible is just some new books only, then you say it is new books plus the Tanach. Doesn't really make sense does it? And really, I've never met a Jew that says the whole Bible Christians use contains the Tanach, what with errors like virgin vs. young woman in the OT and such. Why don't you just say Christian Bible = NT like I had it? -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Because Jews don't like the term NT. It's offensive. Do you really not understand that? You don't have to agree, but are you at least aware of it? Personally, I'd remove the line "Christian Bible" altogether. It adds nothing. But if you prefer, how about "A work composed of a mistranslation of Tanach, with its books rearranged into a theoretically chronological order, and with the founding documents of Christianity tacked on at the end." I could live with that. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Those voting for AfD saw too many statements like "Judaizers act too Jewish" and toned like "Christians just threw some stuff on OUR Tanach for THEIR Bible" and figured it was just an essay piece. That's the only thing they could validly nail it with, and that went out the window once there were more sourced statements, and you see I'll be plowing through that more. They couldn't get it on undue weight to Messianics since the purpose of the article relates to Messianics. They can't get it on coatrack unless it states to be a J/C/M article and it veers off into glorifying one of the three religions in particular or something. They can't get it on dictionary since there are other glossaries out there. So what is another AfD going to do except further establish antimissionary intentions? Anyway if it did get deleted, no big deal, all the work here will still be useful in cleaning up and adding to Christianity and Judaism. -Bikinibomb (talk) 07:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And then watch the reams of crap about MJ disappear. You can put them in the MJ article, though, if you want. In fact, how about we do that now? Get rid of the bizarre table structure, and turn each entry into a subheading, with the Christian and Jewish perceptions as sub-subheadings under those, and stick it in the Christianity and Judaism article. Then either delete the MJ stuff or put it in the MJ article, and be done with it. Save yourself some time. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If this was "my" article I probably would take it out of tables, then have sections for Jews and Christians, then under each of them more subsections for Calvinists, Catholics, Mormon, as well as Orthodox, Reform, etc. where they majorly differ, linking off to their main articles for more detail. But then you still have the same problem, do you want MJ as a third section with C/J, or as a subsection under Judaism along with Reform, Orthodox, etc? We already discussed why MJ can't go under Christianity, same reason Christians can't move Judaism into an atheist category because Jews reject the Lord God Jesus. The problem isn't going away just by moving it out of tables. -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So this goes back to your obsession about MJ. It goes under Christianity. With the comment that they disagree, if you insist, but that's where it goes. Do you have any idea what it takes to get unanimity out of the Jewish community? To get agreement between Orthodox Jews and members of the various heterodox movements out there, such as Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, Renewal, Humanist, etc? Even Bu-Jews have no truck with the fraud that is MJ. You can include them as a Christian group, or you can leave them out. Anything else is POV. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I'm not one trying to use Wikipedia as yet another antimissionary battle camp, who's obsessed? Like I said I've seen you in action for years now. You don't want them in Judaism, they don't want to be in Christianity, the only possible compromise is that they be included as a third entity and as a C/J interfaith issue as they are being done here, that's it. -Bikinibomb (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, a thousand apologies for being scarce. The only people who use the term "Christian Bible" are Jews. Christians just call the Bible "the Bible." The term "Protestant Bible" specifies the Old and New Testaments (their terms, guys). The "Catholic Bible" includes the basic apocrypha. The "Orthodox Bible" includes the expanded apocrypha.

But when Christians say "the Bible" they at least mean both our Hebrew Bible and their Greek Scriptures combined. They may or may not include the apocrypha in their head.

That being said, the term "Christian Bible" is meant to say something like "the books that Christians have that we don't have." It's confusing, because Christians don't know that Jews are excluding 3/4s of the Christian Bible when they say "Christian Bible." But it's not WRONG. None of these terms are "wrong" per se. They simply are what they are. Do all Jews or all Christians have to mean something in a cell? Of course not. We're simply listing what COULD be meant in a reasonable sampling of usage. I admit that citation can be complicated, but that doesn't negate the utility of such a glossary. Every single piece of static on this talk page is justification for the page's existence. In fact, every argument against the page screams the need for such a page. We wouldn't complain about the difficulty of terms if there were no difficulty!

There should be no POV or value judgement here. We need to focus on something other than "highest truth." We're just looking at words as they can be used. A problem, though, is that normal use is different from scholarly use. "Christian Bible" is more of a slang term. Writers wouldn't put it in very many published works because they would know they are speaking to a potentially mixed audience. Does that mean we can't use it? On the contrary! Slang terms are exactly what are most in need of cited spots in our glossary! Scholars have already corrected most of the problem in their works. Even Neusner uses the term "Old Testament" in his translation of the Talmud. To insult the Hebrew Bible? Hardly. He is merely using a term people won't confuse with something else.Tim (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What do Jews call the OT + NT, just the Bible? Isn't it true they don't usually regard the Christian translation of the OT as authentic Tanach? Do you see any big problem with saying Christian Bible = NT (edit: or NT + apocrypha)? -Bikinibomb (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Jews don't think of the OT + NT as a unit. There is the Hebrew Bible, and the Christian Bible. They don't normally process that Christians put those two together as their "Bible." They know it, but don't process it. I suppose it would be like seeing my wife on an ugly day. She insists she's had them, but I've never seen one. Even when she's sick as a dog, bleary eyes, Rudolph Reindeer nose, hair in every direction -- she looks like the most beautiful woman on the planet (who happens to be sick). I know somewhere that she's not looking her best, I suppose, but I honestly can't remember ever processing it. When Jews say "Bible" to each other they mean the Hebrew Bible. But if they are in polite conversation with a Christian they may say "Bible" and mean "[your] Bible." It's more fluid than fixed -- conotation rather than denotation. Don't bother looking those two words up in the dictionary though: the denotation of conotation is denotation, but the conotation of conotation is conotation. Go figure.Tim (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As for authenticity... most Jews see the Christian Old Testament as badly translated. But only a militant antimissionary with a POV out-to-here will say that it's not the same book as the Tanakh. The books are sequenced differently. So what? There are some translational difference. And? Not all of those differences are uniform. The RSV, for instance, has "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14. It's ostensibly a Christian translation, and there are indeed a lot of Christianisms in there (one day God-willing I'll catalogue them). But the RSV and NRSV committees had a Jewish translator as part of the team. And for the last question, no, "Christian Bible" is not slang for "NT + apocrypha."Tim (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess there are a lot of militants out there, haha. But ok. What else is implied being in the Christian Bible, besides NT, or NT + apocrypha depending? As a reader I'd assume you were just referring to those sections if you said they are the books added to the Tanach/OT, which is why I didn't see a problem condensing it that way. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back To Bible Article Please , talk page # 34

I have contacted Tim, Alastair, Biki, Egfrank at their own talk pages ....... please see my request ........... Lisa would you join in also ......... thanks in advance ....... Pilotwingz (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fig Tree

Figs are not a fig tree. And a fig as any kind of symbol of Jews is incredibly obscure. Furthermore, the bulk of the material Bikinibomb put in that cell was Christian material. Citing Christian material isn't any more legitimate for Jewish perceptions just because you quote it from the Jewish Encyclopedia. Sheesh. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What I put in are cites from aish.com and torah.org that they are symbolic, don't remove them. If you want to say they aren't symbolic find a source saying that and we can put that for some Jews they are, others aren't. LisaLiel is not a source. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What a night! Lisa defends Christianity on the Christianity and Judaism talk page, and I defend Lisa here! What we are running into is a matter of emphasis. I used to hear the whole fig connection in Christianity, and even repeated it. But in my 8 years of solid Judaism I've never once encountered it. That doesn't mean that something can't be found. It just means that it's so obscure as to be functionally non-existent. While I disagree with Lisa's style sometimes in making blanket statements "this is never" "no one ever" "there is no gold in Alaska" -- I still find my experience of Judaism to agree with Lisa most of the time regarding functional emphasis. To give an old example -- Jews almost always mistake the Trinity for Shituf, and in spite of this polytheistic mistake they still somehow think that it could be allowable for Gentiles. Christian know better. Shituf is idolatry, plain and simple, and Christians brand Shituf believers like Jehovah's Witnesses as polytheists. Now to turn it around -- Christians mistake Judaism for holding onto symbolic expectations as something fulfillable. This is a fig tree and therefore... (fill in the blanks with whatever content you want to cram into the symbol). But something isn't a symbol if people never hear of it. It's like the no left turn on green light signs in New Jersey -- they're functionally irrelevant. You have to get a ticket or two before you realize that New Jersey is just plain weird and you have to turn right to get left.

Further -- I think that some of these symbol issues are out of scope. A fig tree is a symbol in the New Testament. But is it really a term? I don't see people saying "you're figging me out..." Christianity tends to look for these typological connections, but 99% of Jews would have never heard of them, or known what the purported connection was if they did.Tim (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So if you never heard of it all that means is that you aren't real familiar with Jeremiah and other parts of the Tanach that use it symbolically. Other Jews have heard of it, as sourced from aish.com and torah.org. This is why we have NOR, so we don't end up with a page chock full of editor POVs. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I also don't understand about the terms either. Is Saint Peter a term? Or a subject of possibly differing views, like figs? Seems like an odd time to tighten up the rules about what a term is, just because of the figs. I can just change the title to "concepts" instead of "terms" if it's a real problem. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not that I never heard of it. I used to preach it -- and I'm very familiar with the Biblical uses. Again, I used to preach them. But, as Christianity finds its source text in the Christian Bible (i.e. the "Old and New Testaments"), Judaism finds its source text in the Written and Oral Torahs. Christianity emphasizes aspects of the Hebrew Bible in accordance with the New Testament. Judaism emphasizes aspects of the Hebrew Bible in accordance with the Oral Torah. Both use the Hebrew Bible and draw entirely different points to ponder. Do Christians do a lot of talking about the Noachide laws? Most Christians have never and will never hear the term. But there is a possible reference to them in Acts. A Jew would read Acts and see the reference. A Christian wouldn't. A Christian would read about figs and see the symbol. A Jew wouldn't. So -- exactly where do you put the understanding? In the Christian cell or the Jewish cell? The cells describe the normal take of the average adherent to that religious perspective. Regardless of what Jeremiah meant, most Jews today would be completely unaware of it. I appreciate your research, and agree that it is wrong to eliminate your citations because of our experience. However, there should be a way to focus these citations through normative experience. Ultimately we are describing multiple points of view. Certainly a typical Christian should be able to guide even the best cited spin of a Jew in a Christian cell. In the same way, a typical Jew should be able to do the same in a Jewish cell. Use citations? Absolutely! Delete them and replace them with POV? Absolutely not. Guide the citations describing POV with a person who actually has that POV? Well, of course. There's a way to cooperate here without verts and reverts.Tim (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comment, Teclontz. I agree with LisaLiel here. Figs are very widely used across cultures as symbols for fertility, and this holds for Jews too. But the fact that on occasion Jews have used figs as symbols of fertility does not make the fig a "Jewish symbol" in any special way. Perhaps it does have theological significiance in Christianity, but not in Judaism and it is a kind of anachrnonism or ethnocentrism to assume that because Chrstians assign it a special meaning, Jews do to. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really going to buy, as smart as most Jews usually are about every little subject in the Tanach, and often more knowledgeable than Christians about the NT, that somehow they magically skip over that symbolism in Jeremiah and elsewhere and are totally oblivious to it. Seems like selective memory loss and just another case of going overboard to make the religions mutually exclusive. However to avoid an edit war, if you want to say it's obscure without a source, I'll compromise and say go ahead, just don't remove the source statements I have in there. -Bikinibomb (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point. Jews love literature and as n all literature use rhetorical devices including metaphors and analogies. The prostetute in Hoseah is a very powerful metaphor. As it happens, Iknow from reading the Gospels that "prostitute" is important in Christianity. Now, it is not my place to say how important or what importance prostitutes have in Christianity. But the fact that I recognize that prostitute is a powerful literary device in Hoseah (and elsewhere) does not mean that it is also an important theological concept important to how Jews understand themselves, or necessary for others to understand Judaism. Same goes with snakes, trees, sheep, lillies, gardens ... in diffeent texts each of these are important literary devices but I don´think any of them belong in a glossary meant to facilitate Jewish-Christian dialogue. I am, of course, assuming that when Bikinibomb wants to facilitate a dialogue with Jews, it means he really cares about and respects what Jews think, even when he does not agree with them. I certainly want to take this approcah to talking to Christians. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not missing anything, Lisa wants to say figs aren't symbolic of anything in Judaism when I have two cites saying they are. Now she is vandalizing those sources replacing it with her unsourced POV. It's not a matter of which religion puts more focus on something, it's, do they even have a view on it. And the answer is yes, in Judaism there is a symbolic view of figs as I have cited. You can't pretend they don't exist just because you don't think they should! If she keeps reverting I'll have to report her for vandalism. -Bikinibomb (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Except for the first time I took out your vandalism, Bikinibomb, I have left in the cites from Aish and Torah.org. I will continue to take out your ridiculous citations of the Christian Bible. They do not belong in the column giving the Jewish perception. I don't care if you found the citations in the "Jewish Encyclopedia" or not. Quotes from Mark don't belong in the Jewish column, and your continued vandalism will not be allowed. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't put those in from JE, I put in statements from torah.org and aish.com, both Jewish sites. So don't remove them again, or put your unsourced POV. Do what you want with JE. -Bikinibomb (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Look at the history again. The last two times you reverted that article, falsely accusing me of vandalism, I had not taken out the citations from Aish and Torah.org. If you say otherwise, you are either lying or simply too lazy to look. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You left sources but took out the statements which is what I am referring to. What is your reason for removing them? -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So JE says that Jews see figs to be a Christian symbol. Sorry, that does not make figs a Jewish symbol. I have reomoved the entry. It just sin´t important in Judaism. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and thanks for removing it. I didn't have time last night and offered a synthesis. Here are the problems as I saw them:

1. Someone entered a heavily imbalanced Christian symbol.
2. Bikini, being a citation trouper, found a citation.
3. Lisa (and the rest of the Jews here) knew from experience (or lack thereof) that such a citation is not representative of normal Jewish use.
4. I, lacking time, tried to synthesize Bikini's cited material with what every Jewish participant knew (this is extremely obscure at best)
5. Then the military attack was launched.

The tragic part is that this was easily solved with a bit of discussion, and would have taken a lot less effort.

Finally, I'd recommend that such massive vandalism be routinely corrected by every editor here unless a discussion reaches a consensus on the talk page -- and that would include vandalism from any individual here, including me (if I freaked out for some inexplicable reason and drafted my own meat puppet "administrator"). BTW, I'll research this administrator entity and enter the necessary complaints. I'd suggest that all responsible editors here do as well.Tim (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD results

The AfD closing statement reads: There is no consensus to delete the article at this time, but I do note that there does seem to be a consensus that this article is in need of major editing and contains a strong element of original research and POV. The article needs to be moved from a "glossary" to a list, deleting all commentary and letting readers read the articles about the subjects in this list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As an administrator, will you please force this conclusion? The amount of OR and POV has gotten way out of hand. The worst offender is Bikinibomb, who is currently attempting to force citations from the Christian book of Mark into the "Jewish perception" column under the entry for "The Fig Tree". He's reverted all attempts to remove this inappropriate and offensive content.

Not a happening thing. Involved editors need to read the previous RfC, and unless the article becomes compliant, it would go to a second round of AfD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to make that conversion to list form, if you'd like me to do it. How would we change the title, and what would we change it to? "List of terms with different meanings in Christianity and Judaism"? -LisaLiel (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead... If a summary of each term is needed, then editors must summarize the existing articles on the subject in a couple of sentences as per WP:SUMMARY. Otherwise this list is not only in violation of NOR, but in violation of WP:NPOV as a POV fork≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The current edit moving from Glossary to List is inappropriate without discussion. I do not have time tonight to engage in an edit war, but suggest instead that there be discussion before such a radical change. Will the person who made the change please revert it until such discussion is held? The fact that one person wants to force this does not form a consensus. Also, the worst offender is not Bikinibomb. That person is trying to find citations. Without discussion, such a radical change is vandalism, regardless of the position of the person wanting to impose such a change against a consensus.Tim (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, just more horseshit. Think I'll just create a similar article somewhere else so I don't have to deal with her and her sockpuppet friend Jossi. -Bikinibomb (talk) 01:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you take that back. I am not a sockpuppet of anyone, and this article is a royal mess and needs to be fixed as per the results of the AfD. If you do not want to fix the article, it will go back to a second round of AfD, that will likely result in deletion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And no, you cannot recreate an article somewhere else, unless that somewhere else is not in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Watch me. The AfD didn't call for this vandalism. I'll take it back when you call it what it is. -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I will watch you. As for this article, it needs massive cleanup of the very obvious OR. Now, if you are not going to undertake the cleanup, I will place in AfD again, as suggested by the closing admin in the previous AfD ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you do. It's gotten completely ridiculous. This whole article is just a playground for Bikinibomb and his friends to try and (a) advertise the fringe movement of MJ and (b) blur the lines between Christianity and Judaism. I'll settle for changing it to a simple list (without the "Messianic" in the title), but I'd rather see it deleted, as it serves no legitimate purpose here. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No rush... We can leave a few days for involved editors to show that they can respond to the AfD results. If they do not, I will re-list in AfD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We've been adding cites every day, don't be absurd. This all started because Lisa here removed my sourced statements and replaced it with her OR, or didn't you catch that part? So jump on her about that one. If you say you aren't sockpuppeting for her, that is. -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You've been cherry-picking cites to support your personal views. Jews clearly don't see "The Fig Tree" as any kind of symbol, but you were so intent on trying to find similarities between Christianity and Judaism that you went searching for the most obscure sources to say that "figs" have a symbolic meaning in Judaism. That's OR and POV, whether you have a source for it or not. For every position you source, I can bring a source that says otherwise. That's your idea of an informative article?

Jossi is right. If you want to argue about idolatry, do so on the idolatry page. If you want to argue about the fig tree, do so on that page. But this article is clearly a tool that you're using to achieve your personal interfaith goals. It's inappropriate for Wikipedia, and should be removed. Changing it to a list is a good second best. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Explain how finding fig references on two of the most well-known Jewish web resources, torah.org and aish.com, is cherrypicking. Figpicking, maybe. Many of the same issues come up in different articles I work on, like Alcoholics Anonymous and Twelve-step program. There's no rule on Wikipedia that every issue has to be discussed in only one article. Just more throwing crap at the wall hoping something sticks to get this deleted according to your own personal wishes. -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I came back by here this eve. to see if new discussion and materials were being added ..... Looks like there is some trouble , huh ?? ........ well , I was able to spend enough time to read the new discussion about fig tree, check the ref. cites given for the Christian cell , and then when I went back to look at the new fig tree cell , the whole table had been reduced to only the terms .......... Now my input is as follows , Biki, Tim, I'm not sure what the reason is/was for adding fig tree , but I have to say the cell statements and cites ( links ) given , even after reading it all , still left me wondering what was it trying to say exactly ?? ........... as for knocking this article out into space as just happened by whom ever did it , put it back to it's former condition ........ I can attest that the Admins. recomendations and statements made at the conclussion of the AfD discussions , were in no way saying the article is a threatened one at that time , only POV and NOR and qualified references where things needing attention ......... much of that has been delt with to date and this project has made great changes for the better since the No Consenses ruling .......... in the first place this article never even qualified under Wiki. policy to even be nomminated and ultimately I believe it was those strict policy requirements that determined the outcome of the AfD before it was even nominated ......... the policies are quite clear and POV and NOR are insufficient grounds to nominate for AfD , it's not rocket science , it's just simple clear half dozen sentences that state what is required to nominate an article for deletion ............. this article did not qualify as per those requirements .......... what I do believe is that if the article is not restored , it will be like spiting on a policeman and saying what are you going to do about that ?? ........ so those are just my thoughts , and Biki., Tim , unless you are able to make some sense of fig tree that a completely uniformed reader could connect to , it should be shelved for the time being .............. if someone wants to nominate this article for deletion again , go ahead , but from my investigations there are no grounds to do so ........ thanks , Pilotwingz (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add the Fig Tree, nor the JE cites as Lisa claimed, 68.123.72.40 did. I just looked on the popular Jewish websites and found those references for the Jewish cell. The idea in both Christianity and Judaism is that figs symbolically represent Jews, their good or bad deeds, etc. You know, like good fruit, bad fruit.

Lisa and some others were griping because they said most Jews don't know about that fig symbolism. So I said, ok give a source saying it is an unknown thing in Judaism, since I have two sources saying it is known in Judaism, and every time it's ever mentioned in an interfaith forum, Jews know all about it then. Apparently she couldn't find a source saying it was an obscure concept -- no surprise -- and that's when all the vandalism started. Usual BS. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well sorry if I insinuated or assumed either you Biki or Tim added Fig Tree to the terms cells ....... it was like I said , I just had gotten back here this eve. and was in the process of trying catch up when the S-T hit the fan with Lisa and Jossi double timeing it , in what I would have to say after a history review , was a marvelous execution in military level coordination of attack and destroy .......... Lisa, Jossi, I am understatedly impressed !!! ........... Thanks for putting back Tim .......... Pilotwingz (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yea , about Fig ( alias Fig Tree ), I really believe it is an extremely unballanced Christian perception as in , " the synthesizing " of a specific philosophical suggestion of ( ie. the fig tree verses ) as somehow becoming the majority Christian acceptence of that philosophy ......... I would request counter critisms be added to the cell for ballance ......... thanks ........ Pilotwingz (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Warring

I've requested protection for this page based on todays edit-warring. Editors should be advised that they are in danger of violating 3RR. Avruchtalk 01:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest reaching a consensus before hijacking the page. This is vandalism, and I don't care what position a person holds with Wikipedia, it's obvious meat puppeting, and it needs to stop. Take it to the talk page. Get a consensus. But don't hijack.Tim (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Let 'em have fun, Jews for Judaism is probably sending reinforcements right now haha. All the existing info will find its way somewhere. That's why I stay out of Islam articles, my own POV takes over too much and I flip out when there is criticism or something of it. People of other religions should follow my lead and stay out of their own religion's articles if they can't maintain neutrality. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't blame Jews for Judaism. Some of my best friends have been on their staff. They have a lot more class than this meat puppeting.Tim (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

I'm complying with the instructions in Wikipedia:Requested_moves. This page should be retitled to "List of Christian and Jewish terms", and changed to a list, as per (talk) (an admin) and the AfD. If it is not, it should be nominated for an AfD again, because the article as it currently exists is a mess of OR and POV. The vast amount of material available discussing Christianity and Judaism (separately and together) means that a glossary of this type will either be pure POV or the sources will be cherry-picked to conform to the views of the editors. A good example of this is the way in which Bikinibomb (one of the worst offenders) tried to present "The Fig Tree" (a Christian symbol) as being relevant to Judaism. But other examples abound. In fact, it is difficult to find examples where POV and OR are not in evidence.

I'd prefer not to do the new AfD myself. Both because I botched it the first time, and because there are enough admins and editors who realize how inappropriate this article is that it shouldn't be necessary for me to do it. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have started using the leads of the related articles, as summaries for this list, as per WP:SUMMARY. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin. jossi, what happened here , did you become judge, jury, and executioner all in one swiwft blow this eve. ?? ........... why were the recommended proceedures for moves and redirects that are contested not followed ?? ......... why was the opportunity for others to even say yea or ney in open discussion on this talk page not allowed ?? ......... I know I'm new here on Wiki., so tell me the truth about all the written policy guide lines , are they just some kind of imaginary makeup used to cover up the real truth about how Wiki. works , just PR stuff ?? ......... anyway ... Pilotwingz (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

what happened here...?

Wikipedians against censorship

LOL -Bikinibomb (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's some crazy stuff going on there ........ Pilotwingz (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Uh, stop moving the article! The reason 'List of Christian and Jewish terms' wasn't available is because... you used it already! If you would just wait, let the move discussion proceed, and THEN follow the consensus on a new name (if there is a consensus on a new name) then there wouldn't be all these useless redirect pages. Avruchtalk 05:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Figs and NPOV

Instead of arguing over the importance of figs in Judaism, I thought we might better start adding words for objects and ideas that actually do have great importance in Judaism. I have added some terms, I hope others will add more and descriptions as well. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea! We've been focusing on terms the religions may encounter in discussion, but there is no reason to limit it to that. We may need to be careful of scope, however. There are hundreds of words that each religion has for itself that isn't encountered by members of the other religion.Tim (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You've been focusing on terms they may encounter in discussion because this whole thing is an exercise in interfaith dialog for you. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia, Tim. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - we need to be selective. I really have tried to limit myself to the kinds of stuff one would find highlighted in any intro to Judaism. Good sources - I mean, just for identifying what most Jews sould agree to be central concepts, might be Milton Steinberg's Judaism for Moderns, Donin's To Be a Jew, Praeger and Telushkin's Eight (or is it nine?) Questions People Ask about Judaism. I feel confident saying, if it is any two of these, it is important enough for inclusion in this. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If Lisa's point is that Wikipedia is not a forum (e.g. for interfaith dialogue) I agree with her. But we have an article on the Judeo-Christian Ethic, and NPOV requires that we explain where Judaism and christianity diverge (and not only where they converge); this chart could be a supplement to articles on this theme. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

But that's not what's going on here. And that could go in the Christianity and Judaism article. Furthermore, having a column for "Messianic" is the main reason this article was created. A fringe sect which was created for deliberately fraudulent reasons is being provided huge PR here. It's clear advertisement and undue weight. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Lisa -- mine is an exercise in clarity, and nothing more. You on the other hand have a huge agenda you are trying to push, and you are willing to do any kind of disruption and enlistment to push it. It's wrong, and it's a waste of time. That vandalism yesterday was an exercise in irrelevance. It is NOT wikipedia's place to define ultimate truth by forcing terms that have different conotations into a single denotation of the editor's choosing. The whole point of the table was to show the relationship of the conotations so that editors can avoid confusion. You, on the other hand, are screaming for that confusion to continue. Are you secretly a Messianic? Do you WANT the confusion to continue? Do you WANT to hide the obfuscation of terms? I'd think you were a Messianic, but Messianics are merely misguided, not intentionally malignant.Tim (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the idea of wikipedia is to provide people with information in a neutral way. This is why we have an article on satanism for instance, and also why we carefully do not state that nuclear bombs are evil. We merely provide information so that others may decide. I do understand you have a point of view, we all do. But if we end up stating our points of view in a dicussion, it tends to muddy the issue at hand, which is of course to make a really good encyclopedic article. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Often the best person to help you with an article is someone with an opposite opinion to your own. If you argue opinions, you might end up arguing with the person who is actually best suited to help you write that great article!

Kim, I completely share your sentiment, which is exactly why I'm responding to Lisa's attempt to sidestep communication by hijacking the page without any discussion or consensus. Thanks so much for agreeing with Bikini and myself here. Any help you can give us in getting Lisa to play fair is more than welcome.Tim (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that you may have misinterpreted Kim's comments... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim: Hmmm, but aren't you also stating an opinion? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Kim -- I'm all for people stating their opinions, doing research, finding consensus, and moving in a cooperative manner. I'm all against hijacking. Is that an opinion? Sure. It's also one that Wikipedia shares, regardless of the activity of someone claiming to represent it.Tim (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim: You stated that "Messianics are merely misguided", which is very magnamonious of you I'm sure, but it does shows a rather clear opinion. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course -- but the fascinating thing is that Lisa wants the table to vanish and includes as an argument that Bikini (a Muslim) and I (a Jew) are secretly pushing a Messianic agenda. I made it abundantly clear that I'm not a Messianic on purpose so that you can see it. Now, hopefully, you'll be innoculated the next time Lisa accuses me of sympathizing and even promoting Messianism.Tim (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV requires that all notable views be expressed. If we want a glossary of terms used in a Judeo-Christian context, I would expect major Churches/Congregations and majore movements of Judaism to be represented. The question is, is Messianic Judaism a notable view within this discussion? How many Messianic Jews are there - say, as members of organizations of Messianic Jews? This may help us decide the notable/fringe view issue. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the goal of the article is to provide an overview of the Messianic Judaism terminology? I'm not sure. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Messianic Judaism, it is a small, but significant enough movement to have an article in WIkipedia, but that's it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Messianics are the source of much of the confusion between Evangelicals and Jews today. Eliminate the column holding the source of confusion, and you have no need for the table showing terms side by side to eliminate that confusion. That's why Lisa wants to both eliminate that column and the table itself -- without the problem, the solution is irrelevant. That much is consistent. Take a good look at the vandalism yesterday. What was the result? An irrelevant list that has no context and no awareness of differences in conotation between groups. Think about it, seriously. What you had yesterday has no reason for existence.Tim (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Messianics are the source of much of the confusion between Evangelicals and Jews today. Really? If that is the case we will have plenty of sources that frame the dispute in those terms. Care to provide these sources? Or is this just OR? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim: Understood. Did Lisa tell you that that was her objective herself, or are you assuming her motives based on her previous actions? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about "clarity" at all, whatever Tim may claim. Tim has a lot of baggage, having been a Christian preacher before converting to Judaism. If it was merely an issue of clarity, "Apostasy" could be dealt with in the Apostasy article. "The Fig Tree" could be dealt with in the Fig Tree article. And the same applies to virtually every other issue in this table.

But if someone were to try and create sections in those articles labeled "Christian perception", "Jewish perception" and "Messianic perception", other editors would yank the "Messianic" section out so fast that it'd leave an afterimage. Because it's a fringe sect. This article is a way around that. It allows people with an agenda to address each of these concepts without regard for the article on that concept. It allows them to substitute their personal OR and POV for the NOR and NPOV articles that already exist. And it allows them to do so while pumping the Messianic sect up to look as though it's on an equal level with two major world religions.

This whole thing started -- and you can check the history to see that this is the case -- when Bikinibomb and others started pushing the Messianic agenda in the Christianity and Judaism article. They were bothered when people made comments about "Jews don't accept X", when they felt that the Messianic sect was a counter-example. Rather than fight and lose on that subject in that place, they started a table on the talk page of that article, which Tim eventually turned into this article.

I entered into the MJ discussion after it was started way back when. The main problem is using your own OR to say there is no such thing as hell, no such thing as symbolic figs in Judaism, etc. to give the illusion Judaism has nothing to do with anything in Christianity. It's disruptive. I don't really care that much about keeping MJ view, but I care about allowing a rogue editor to run wild, and even more if she is being assisted by admins and other editors. -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim accuses me of having MJ motives. Even Bikinibomb knows how laughable that is. But in Judaism, there's a saying that כל הפוסל,במומו פוסל (roughly, if someone makes vain accusations against others, the accusation generally fits the accuser himself). -LisaLiel (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha -- you've been accusing Bikini (a Muslim) and me (a Jew) of this very thing. I then turned the tables -- but added that it wasn't so. Your own words catch you.Tim (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we get away from personalizing motives? The questions I have are (1) is Messianic Jewish views notable enough to be included in a glossary of Judeo-Christian terms (it does not matter whether Wikipedia is paper or not; NPOV states notability ad the threshold for inclusion); (2) what objections are there to the glossary form as opposed to the table? Why not make a glosasary just a glossary? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

She's said so, repeatedly. Kill the Messianic column, and while you're at it, kill the table. Well, I'd agree -- kill the Messianic column and there is no problem for the table to clarify. Christians don't usually walk around using Jewish terms, and Jews don't normally use Christian terms. It's mostly Messianics using Jewish terms with Christian meanings. When I converted to Judaism, 90% of my Evangelical friends assumed that I still believed in Jesus. How? Messianics, of course. And Jossi -- please show me ANOTHER Christian group that practices Jewish term switching, and we may need to include this mystery group somewhere.Tim (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, Tim, and we may be in violent agreement here... If this article is a comparison of terms from a Messianic perspective, then provide sources that describe the Messianic perspective in these comparisons, and change the name of the article accordingly. As it stands is OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal motives are what is causing all the trouble. Wikipedia is not here to be used as a tool for antimissionary work, there is a pattern here of trying to smear and censor MJ issues in every way possible, far beyond reasonable use of sourced criticism. It's getting to the point now that I'm going to strongly suggest there be a consensus based on more of a mix of editors from different religious backgrounds before further action is taken, since having Jewish editors take charge of MJ articles is resulting in the appearance of organized censorship and POV pushing, finding every other way possible to cover for the real reason of aiding Lisa in her drive to trash it. -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal motives? As if you did not have yours... We all do, Bikinibomb. In my case, I am not a practicing Jew, but I am well read in Judeo-Christian traditions to be able to look at this article dispassionately. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm Muslim, but also quite experienced with Jewish interfaith dialog, and I know right where the trouble spots are, mainly MJ and keeping Judaism as far from being similar to Christianity as possible. My motive is to keep that same attitude from pervading and distorting facts here so that it doesn't turn into a Jewish propaganda piece. It's too bad, but you can say all you want and now the appearance is that when Lisa says jump you will jump, and as I've seen you also haven't said anything to her about disruptive behavior, so maybe you should just bow out of the discussion since the appearance of partiality is already present. -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sl, the problem with just a glossary is that you can't have a single glossary for Jewish and Christian terms together without a tabular format. Who's using the term? What's the meaning? "Christian Bible" is a Jewish term, not a Christian one. It means "New Testament" and an entirely different meaning from the one Christians would think it meant. But in a glossary it would appear to be a Christian term because of the name itself. Look hard at the table and ask yourself WHICH cell you'd use for the normative Wikipedia sanctioned meaning for that term? And who are you (or I) to judge that this term must have a Christian meaning or a Jewish one when the Wikipedia audience includes both. That's the whole point of the table.Tim (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim, you know I started out with an open mind on this but I have to say, the more you write, the more this sounds like it violates NOR. If your Christian friends do not understand you, let them read a good Wikipedia article on Judaism. Or, write an essay on your conversion experience, or on Judaism for Christians, and try to publish it in a real magazine where you are allowed to publish your own experiences and views. Maybe you could even write a book. But it seems like what you really want to do something beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Free yourself from our rules - by seeking a better venue! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sl, Jossi - this started on the talk page for the Christianity and Judaism article. The editors were stepping on ourselves using terms in different ways, and the only way to see what was going on was to put them side by side. Are Messianics Christians? Depends on who's using the term. Only Christians consistently call them Christians, because the word Christian means someone of any ethnic group who believes in Jesus (roughly). But the word "Christian" means "Gentile" to Jews, and Messianics and Jews both will deny that they are Christians, no matter how Nicene their beliefs are. So what is a Christian? Is it a believer in Jesus or a Gentile? Try to create a single glossary to cover that and you'll find yourself needing three different glossaries: a Christian glossary, a Jewish glossary, and a Messianic glossary. I run into the same problem in engineering. We have acronyms stepping all over themselves, and I solved the problem at work by creating an acronym table. What is TCP? Transmission Control Protocol? Well, not in a C4ISR context it isn't. But the engineers were stepping all over each other until I made the table -- and now it's required reading at work. All hundred pages of it. If I had put that table on Wikipedia with a table of acronyms used differently by different brands of engineering, we wouldn't be shouting about NOR would we? Only in religion do we get messy.Tim (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem here isn't the article itself, otherwise it would have been deleted before. The problem is that Lisa creates disruption by replacing sourced material with her own POV so that attention will be brought to the article and the whole debate about the article itself can be started again. That's just plain vandalism, pissing on an article so much people just want to throw it away. Jossi, SL, whoever can give all the long-winded excuses they want but deep down they know that's the deal here. -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Bikini's right. Heck, I've been tempted to AfD the table myself just to be rid of the maliciousness.Tim (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A reminder

I tried yesterday to respond to the AfD result, but I see that there are editors here that do not want to act in that regard, and that have reverted my edits. I am placing this article in AfD again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my edit

I restored the glossary form as a way to by-pass debates about NOR. In the process I likely lost some terms and I apologize and hope others will add what I missed. To comply with NPOV all notable views must be provided. To comply with WP:NOT we cannot use this as a means to promote interfaith understanding. If there are organizations promoting interfaith understanding the ony way to comply with our policies is to have separate articles on those organizations. If views of Messianic Judaism are ill-represented, the thing to do is to go to the article on MJ and improve it. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there an interfaith wikia that would love to have tables like we now have in our page history? Or would that still take some editing? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not our job to write articles solicited by various groups. We are an encyclopedia and write articles on what is out there, we do not create new knowledge to fill some need, that is for others to do. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Point me to the AfD page. The current form is irrelevant. Worse, it's flat violation of NOR and NPOV to dictate a single meaning for terms that are used in different ways by different groups. Tim (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just voted for deletion. The current format violently violates NPOV. WHO's meaning is being given for any given definition, and who is the wikideity to decide which meaning trumps the other? Jewish and Christian glossary items CANNOT be undifferentiated on the same page. Make them a table or make them two different pages, but for crying out loud, don't let people think they have the same religious POV and use words in the same way! This is the worst violation of NPOV I've ever seen, and is triumphalistically prejudicial against Judaism.Tim (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If you dislike this form so much, we could also revert it to your older preferred form?--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of like or dislike. It's a matter of treating Judaism and Christianity like they are the same religion. That's the Messianic agenda. This page is now as Messianic as it gets in its current form, blending Judaism and Christianity into an undifferentiated page. Call it Messianic terms if you like, but do NOT treat a single list as both Christian and Jewish. They are two entirely different religions.Tim (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. On the other hand, isn't that -in itself- a Point of view? I can imagine that a Baha'i might say that they are actually (almost) the same religion, for instance. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the name to Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms, since that is the only known religion that thinks Judaism and Christianity can have the same terms. However, since I am not a Messianic I have no further interest in the page. Good day.Tim (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, before this kerfluffle became... more of a kerfluffle, I was on the verge of suggesting that we might try to actually write from the messianic point of view, as an excersize. If is often easier to achieve NPOV when people actually attempt to write about the other side of the coin. It's an ancient wikipedia practice called "writing for the enemy", which could see some more use.

Though feel free to pick either path, as you see fit. (but weren't you the person to start the page? Also, once again, as a third alternative perhaps, if you truly dislike the format, we can revert to any version you prefer, can't we?) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I one-upped you, I'll probably get banned but it's been fun, later. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's seriously naughty. Quick, revert yourself before anyone else notices! --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim helped you out. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

God I'm so confused, what the hell article is this now? Avruchtalk 20:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is what Lisa has been fighting for all this time -- a Messianic Judaism article mixing Christianity and Judaism together into a single cholent pot. And like good old cholent that's been cooking way too long, you can't tell what is beans, meat, potatos, or anything else. It's a mess -- a Messianic one.Tim (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misjudging Lisa here. I am certain from what she writes and argues that she is not Messianic, on the contrary... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Be careful of whom you accuse. Lisa hasn't edited in the past several hours, and the changes you are referring to were made by Slrubenstein. If you disagree with them, you can simply revert them, can't you? If you haven't yet done so by the time you read this, why haven't you done so? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I already did revert them when Lisa did them. Sl reverted my reversion. I have no interest in an edit war or pushing a Messianic agenda. A neutral article is fine. But a BLENDING article is not. If Sl reverts it or someone else, I might consider continuing. But I refuse to engage in an edit war. Let it die if Wikipedia isn't capable of maintaining NPOV.Tim (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted for two reasons, whcih I thought were clear. First, I see some value to a gloddary to go with the Judeo Christian article. Second, I fear a table violates NOR because it is our own comparisons rathe than comparisons taken from a reliable source. We could of course disagrgreate this to glossaries for the respective articles on Judaism and Christianity. But we do have a "Judeo Christian" article. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll then ask what I asked Jossi: In Christianity and Judaism do you object to "By contrast, Christianity is an explicitly evangelical religion." in comparison to Jewish proselytizing? If there are no sourced statements specifically making that comparison, is it OR and should we delete it? -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that you can easily find a source for that assertion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but if one can't be had from a neutral source, saying Christians are more evangelizing than Jews, should we reword that one? I came across a source saying Jews like Sacha Cohen engage in a more subtle but nevertheless more prominent form of evangelizing by making fun of antisemites like with Borat. Or Seth Grogan promoting Jewish sperm on the MTV awards. So in that case would you put both views, if you want to avoid cherrypicking sources when comparing Christians and Jews? -Bikinibomb (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

All such compiled data is going to be mildly Original research. I do believe we have an old and widely supported exception in the OR policy for this kind of thing, since there are practically never going to be acceptable tables and figures from elsewhere that we could simply drop into the wiki. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helping and talking with people

So far I've talked with Tim, Bikinibomb, and Jossi, and would like to talk with Lisa. Is there anyone else that folks feel I should talk with? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No one is stopping you, Kim. I've left a message for you on your talk page. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool! :-) I'll answer right away. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christians and Gentiles

I'm curious to know what the reasoning is behind Tim's ridiculous assertion that "'Christian' means 'Gentile' to a Jew". Or that "'Christian' is a Jewish term meaning 'Gentile.'" He posted this on Jossi's talk page, and he's alluded to this strange belief of his many times before.

But Muslims are Gentiles. So are Tibetan Monks. Tim knows very well that there are Jews who espouse Christian beliefs. Not many of them, but they exist. Aaron Lustiger of Paris, for example, is a Jew, despite his Catholic beliefs. Some members of the sect calling itself "Messianic Judaism" are Jewish as well (though many of them are actually Gentiles who claim Jewish identity for deceptive purposes). So it's patently obvious that Christian is not a Jewish term for Gentile. Rather, Christianity is a Gentile religion. One of many. Having spent so many years as a Christian preacher, Tim may have a view of Judaism that is tinged by that background. For all I know, he may think that goyim means "cattle". That's another odd belief held by some people which has nothing to do with reality -LisaLiel (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask what the point of that post is, and how it relates to the construction of this or any article? Avruchtalk 22:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. This is a talk page. We're talking. I pointed out on Jossi's talk page that Tim's statements were not true, and Jossi asked that we take it here. So I did. Is discussion now off limits on talk pages? -LisaLiel (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that for some reason no one ever put the talk header on this page. You'll note it directs people to discuss improvements to the article, not participate in a general discussion about the subject of the article. The reason is that we are here to improve the encyclopedia, not debate eachother. If you want to argue about which one of you believes what and why, this is not the place - and I submit that the fact that this has been going on is a significant part of the reason why you are at such an impasse. Avruchtalk 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a ridiculous assertion. Jews make the mistake all the time. "The Trinity is idolatry for Jews but not for Christians." Lisa herself made a citation that said that. A Jew who believes in Jesus IS a Christian, by Christian definition -- but not by Lisa's definition. Ask Lisa -- or do a word search on the talk page archives where Lisa INSISTS that Jewish Christians are not Christians! Is it wrong? Of course it is. That's the whol point of the glossary, though -- to show the kinds of ways these terms are used. Lisa is the one being disingenuous here.Tim (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The Trinity is idolatry for Jews, even if they identify as Christians. That's what the article said. And please, do the search that Tim is suggesting. If you find any place where I have ever said that self-identified Jewish Christians are not Christians, either on Wikipedia or anywhere else on the Internet, I pledge to print out a copy of that statement, and eat it. If Tim really believed his claim was true, he'd have dug up the quote himself. But he's been attributing things to me that I never said for months now. I don't expect him to stop any time soon. I do hope that some of you will call his bluff, and actually do the search. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's one, from [46]

"Tim, my choices aren't dictated by you. In the first place, as I've stated, Telushkin's comments do not refer to Orthodox authorities. I own that book, and have read it, and you are beginning to wear away at the good faith assumptions on Wikipedia by repeatedly misstating what Telushkin says. In the second place, a Jewish convert to Christianity is neither a "Messianic" nor a "Christian" in the sense used by Jewish authorities. He is a Jew who is sinning. He is a Jew who is committing idolatry. For you to accuse me of suggesting that he is a "Messianic" when you're the one who keeps pushing the MJ agenda here is both personally offensive and patently deceitful.

The way I presented the source does not eliminate the apostasy. It points out that adopting Christianity is far more than simply apostasy when done by a Jew. You want to block the fact that Orthodox Jews consider any Jew who espouses Christian beliefs to be an idolator. I can only think of one reason why you'd want to do that. V'hameivin yavin. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)"''

I've added the bold. This whole debate occurred because you were giving a Kaplan citation that said the Trinity was okay for Christians but not okay for Jews. I pointed out, and continue to point out, that this use of the word "Christian" does not include "Jewish Christians" but only Gentiles. Have a good printer?Tim (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Another dishonest quote. I was explaining to you how those terms had been used by Jewish authorities, such as Tosfot. Folks, I invite you all to take a look at the example Tim has produced, and to judge for yourselves how honest he's being. I think it speaks for itself. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh gosh... is this what this is about? A "Christian Jew" (whatever that means) and a Jew having a theological discussion? Please no, not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if Tim is a "Christian Jew". He claims to have converted and to be an Orthodox Jew. I've taken him at his word, though he clearly has a lot of Christian baggage. But yes, while that's not exactly the case, Jossi, this whole thing has been due to Tim and Bikinibomb (and a couple of others who dropped out a few weeks ago) to push the "Messianic Jewish" agenda here, and give them far more visibility than is appropriate. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To add some clarity, Judaism (Orthodox Judaism) operates according to certain legal presumptions. Among these is that someone espousing Christian beliefs is assumed to be a non-Jew. Like any legal presumption, specific proof to the contrary in specific cases is recognized, but Jewish legal authorities have indeed used the term "Christian" to refer exclusively to non-Jews who espouse Christianity as their religion. And it's a reasonable usage. Tim wants us to specify "Gentile Christians", as though his beloved Messianic sect is significant enough that "Christians" isn't a sufficient descriptor. But even though it's presumed that the average Joe Christian is a Gentile, Christian has never been used, ever, by anyone, not now and not in any Jewish legal sources, as another word for "Gentile". It's only ever meant one particularly type of Gentile. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We all have our viewpoints and bias, but we are here to edit an encyclopedia. I would love to have an article that explains the differences between messianic Judaism, Christianity, and Judaism, but it will need to be written based on available literature on the subject, not a collection of sources about each of these religions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Last edit for the night. I'm not a Christian Jew. I'm a Jew. I'm not pushing a Messianic agenda -- Lisa is (unknowingly) by blending Christian and Jewish terms together without differentiation. And no, I do not want you to say "Christianity is okay for Gentile Christians." That's silly. I want you to say "Christianity is okay for Gentiles." But don't say "The Trinity is okay for Christians" because it only excludes "Jewish Christians" to an Orthodox audience. To a Christian audience, it's unintelligible. For the last time -- I want people to read EXACTLY what you mean, and not something you don't intend. I'm insisting on clarity as an editorial concern recognizing the fact that we should write in such a way that the majority of our readers are not misdirected. And now, GOODNIGHT.Tim (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What a mess... If instead of trying to be right, people would have listened to each other's concerns and assume good faith, we would have discovered that most of us are in violent agreement..! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It'd be nice if Tim would have the minimal honesty to admit that I never said what he claimed I did. Mice are mammals, but that doesn't mean that "mouse" is another word for "mammal". Christians are Gentiles (with rare exceptions), but that doesn't mean that "Christian" is a Jewish term for "Gentile".

And quite frankly, I'm tired of assuming good faith on Tim's part. I had been doing so, since it's only Bikinibomb who is clearly a game player, but I find it hard to continue seeing Tim that way after the multiple instances of libel he's leveled against me in the past few days. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We all make mistakes... Now that the issues have been clearly raised, I think we can extend the courtesy of a second chance, don't you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm Muslim, I'm not interested in pushing the Messianic agenda, since of course most believe in Trinity and Muslims don't go for that. I just don't like to see antimissionaries bully their way around as they do everywhere they go, and on that principle I'll be around to throw a monkey wrench in their efforts to dominate and distort MJ articles. If there's any game it's disrupting an article to create an atmosphere for controversy and deletion as Lisa has done. Utter and complete horseshit. -Bikinibomb (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Bikinibomb, Please note that that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and that we expect a civil debate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Expect all you want. I call it how I see it. -Bikinibomb (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not me that expects that. It is expected of you if you want to participate; and if you do not want to do so, you will get booted out the project sooner or later. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never been blocked by a puppet. Does it hurt? This whole thing is a joke and that's the kind of respect it deserves, my interest in real participation with this issue is long gone. I'm just here for some cheap laughs before I move along. -Bikinibomb (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I will not/cannot exercise my admin privileges in a content dispute, but these type of comments may be grounds for an uninvolved editor to oblige... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm out of it here, it's a dead horse, but I'll probably delve into the general problem more on my Talk page to see what steps need to be taken to avoid this type of censorship. I stand by everything I said. -Bikinibomb (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Bikinibomb, generally at Wikipedia accusing someone of being a sock-puppet is taken very seriously. If there is good reason to think someone is using a sock-puppet in an edit war, that person can be banned. Given the severity of the penalty, you should be able to understand why accusing someone of being a sock-puppet without good reason is itself considered to be a serious offense. Now, I say this to you in good faith and believe it or not, for your own good: Jossi is not Lisa's sock-puppet and if you continue to accuse him of being one, he would have good cause to file a complaint against you and you will loose. Now, if you think I am just being a jerk trying to silence you, I have alternate advice. Instead of throwing around accusations casually, which only makes it look like you are trying to dis or hurt someone's feelings (something I would think jews, Christians, and Muslims would in general rather not do), if you genuinely think Jossi is a sockpuppet, do this: go an check out the WP pages on sock-puppetry and find out what kinds of evidence a user can accumulate to make a prima fascie case. Do so, and then request a check-user, and see what happens. If you are right, you will have good cause to file a complaint at ArbCom. But don't waste time here just throwing around hurtful accusations. If you really believe this, then accumulate evidence and request a check-user and file a formal complaint. Then you will know for sure. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)