Debating terminology on Wikipedia's "JEW" article...Conversion/converts/"Jesus" in disguise or what ?
From "Jew" on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew
 
(Please see    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License  if you use this material. Thank you. )

Zest asks: How about a section detailing the Beit Din system. Also at least a little section listing the different sects, within Chareidi, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, etc. like for example Chabadnik, Netzarim, Humanistic etc. And since some of these sects are considered apostate by the orthodox, why not also mention the apostate Messianics too? (Before anyone else accuses me of being Messianic, I do NOT believe in any kind of Chstian displacement theology nor do I acknowledge the legitimacy of their so-called divinity G-zus. I am however in favour of absolute neutrality in reportage). Also a little section discussing the steps towards conversion as Bnei Noach, Noachide, (Chassidic Gentiles), Ger Toshav, and the Ger Tzedeq. Zestauferov 18:31, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC) I just discovered a wiki entry about Talmidi Jews too. It is the first I have ever heard of them! This entry surely is the place to inform the casual reader about which forms of Judaism are considered Jewish and which are considered apostate. Zestauferov 08:48, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Errr Zestuaf.....it would seem that you are really interested in bringing in "Netzarim" and the subject of "Messianics" who are CHRISTIANS into this discussion. This is NOT the place to have the "stealth tactics" of "Jews for Jesus" (meaning Jews who have become Christians and are therefore APOSTATES To Judaism) in order to promote Christianity over Judaism. There is ample place to talk about Christianity. There is even an entry for Jews for Jesus, so why not go there for discussing "Messianics"?! Why would a section about the Beit Din system help here?? This is an article about Jews as an ETHNICITY, it is not about the religious system, or mechanics, of Judaism which has in any case already been over-stated here when the article discusses "Conversions" by the different denominations. IZAK 20:24, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Zest says:Right my careless mistake, I wrote the comment here in a rush before I realised that this wasn't the Talk:Judaism section (which in fact already includes a small discussion of sects). So I have moved my comment there and have changed the title. To defend myself on your first point though, I suppose now I have to declare that I can produce documentation from my Orthodox rabbi that I am making Teshuvah from secularisation (reconstructionist) back to orthodoxy and that my Rabbi is in good standing with the Israeli rabbinate he is not a Netzarim and neither am I. I am TOTALLY against chrstian missionaries and am getting actively involved in retrieval of assimilated Jews (are you?). It would be nice if you don't accuse the Orthodox Yemenites of being At-All associated with Jews for J-man (because in accordance with Halakhical requirements the Netzarim Beit Din has been acknowledged as a legitimate orthodox Beit Din by the board of the Orthodox Yemenite Beit K'nêsêt in Raanana, Israel) unless you are claiming more authority than the Beit ha-K'nêsêt Môrêshêt Âvôt (which is recognized by the Israeli rabbinate) are you? What is your position? I just added them to the list out of pure neutrality. Netzarim are real Jews and are not in any kind of state of apostasy -unlike Reform. You aught to get your facts straight before leveling accusations brother :-) You might find these two links helpful to be able to distinguish between Messianic Apostates and Real Netzarim. [1] (
http://www.netzarim.co.il/ConvCtr/Xy/Imposter.htm),[2] (http://www.chayas.com/articles.htm). Netzarim are all anti-missionary onslaught and are one of the the most successful retrieval organisations in the world.
But since you focus on the point I mentioned of Apostate Jews there is a lot about them sprinkled throughout the article but what about pulling these refs together into a little section on Apostate Jews and retrieval programs? All the best and thanks for correcting me IZAK.Zestauferov 12:06, 1 May 2004 (UTC) I just discovered a wiki entry about Talmidi Jews. It is the first I have ever heard of them. Does anyone know for certain if they fit into the apostate category or legitimate category? The links at the bottom of that page make me think perhaps the former. But they may just be bad links. Zestauferov 08:57, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:Sounds like just another group of Jesus-believing and following Christians, nothing more or less. The "theological" splits between Christian splinter groups is very wide. It's a case of "six of one, and half a dozen of the other"...Still trying to "squeeze in" a group of Jesus-disciples into the "Jew" category is disengenious, as by now, 2,000 years of history makes anyone who follows Jesus into a CHRISTIAN and not a Jew. No theologian would mix and match two religions so determinedly as would a group of proselytizing missionaries hunting "lost Jewish souls". IZAK 09:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: Netzarim don't carry out nor encourage conversions, but you are right (I take it you are also grouping muslims as chrstians by your commentZestauferov 03:15, 7 May 2004 (UTC)), and I also guess I have to take just criticism in that case. I am no theologian, but I do care very much about "lost souls" when it comes to my family. So I will continue to recommend http://www.netzarim.co.il to any Jewish brothers or sisters being targeted by branches of Messianic Judaism rather than write them off as gone forever. I also care about Those tempted by Reform and Reconstructionism etc. but different approaches are needed. Our major problem is image. Anyway back to the point, how about a "Jews in apostasy" section? Any objections if I write one? All the best Zestauferov 09:28, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:I have Wikified your subject (Jews in apostasy) and wrote a few words, so write there. There is also ALREADY a Wiki section on apostasy so feel free to enter a "Jewish" section over there too. IZAK 07:08, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Do you mean it would be too difficult for Reform & Reconstructionists etc. to swallow to e reminded that they are no more practicing legitimate Judaism than are the Messianic Jews? Zestauferov 03:15, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: IZAK, very dissappointing here to see your lack of objectivity in your accross the board revert. You might check more carefully before you revert all changes like that please. The section on Reform & Reconstructionism views should use the term "interpretations" not Judaism. And since the views of these apostate sects validated only by numbers is mentioned here NPOV demands the apostate messianic views be mentioned too. The description of halakha is wrong. Ger Tzedek is still a non-Jew, there is no term in Halakha for a convert since it is against the law to even remind a convert of their past. Judaism is a culture (ethnicity means culture not race) and though one may reject one's culture (which is called apostasy in Judaism because we believe our culture comes from heaven) just as it is impossible to give up british citizenship no matter how many other times one is naturalized in other countries, the same view is adopted by Halakha on being Jewish. If you don't like the wording fair enough then change it but what I wrote is accurate and informative so I don't understand your reasons for ommitting them. If you are a reform jew you must try to see beyond your interpretations of the world and simply report the facts. You cannot call Messianics apostate without accepting that you are too. Why don't you come on over to more solid ground. All the best. Zestauferov 11:06, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: You cannot just arbitrarily "decide" what Reform and Reconstructionism "is" or "is not" with the tendentious goal of inserting "Jews for Jesus" as "merely" another group of "apostates". The sections on the non-Orthodox branches were worked out after much work a long time ago, and you risk antagonizing those contributors and editors who had worked on them when this article first went up over a year ago, and I was not involved with that at all, but I have never tampered with those sections, unlike you who seems determined to do so only so that you can get Christian and Messianic sects included in the main discussions here. In the Judaism section there is already a discussion about Jews for Jesus, it doesn't have to come up here. This article is about "ethnic Jews" and IT DOES SAY THAT MANY ETHNIC JEWS HAVE ASSIMILATED AND CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY a number of times. IZAK 14:40, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: Izak, don't get emmotional it does not help matters. And don't hurl abuse in an attemt to get me worked up, it will not work because I am not here to fight and cause trouble. I have already mentioned that I was an agnostic secular Jew and I am making teshuvah to the orthodox way. Thankyou for your comments I am sure they will be well noted. What I am looking for here is objectivity. Perhaps you have never noticed the comment at the bottom of the editing pages "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it." I am not Tampering with anything just excercising my Wiki rights. And when this causes upset then we discuss here on the talk pages in a gentlmanly manner if we are abiding by the wiki policies (that means without terms like tendentious, tampering, using CAPITALIZATION, and refrasing a contributer's comments with a slanting rhetoric -for example I would never use the J word contrary to what your postings seem to infer). There is however one word I have used which I regret. I don't like the term apostate myself (did I bring up that term or did you?) because it means most of my friends and family are apostate (reconstructionist, reform, atheist or other secular "ethnic" Jews). I prefer the term assimilated or better still Ethnic Jews. It is precicely because the article claims to be about Ethnic Jews and includes those who have basically rejected traditional Jewish culture to follow Humanism and yet still call themselves Jews viewing it as a religion (it is not a religion in Halakha, it is only a religion if you are taking the Reform or Reconstructionist POV) are trying to make this entry biased to their perspective by excluding other apostate sects that I think the article still needs some NPOV work on it. If I had my way I would shove all "ethnic Jews" outside Israeli reform (progressive), conservative & orthodox judaism into a section on Assimilated Jews because that is the orthodox stance -albeit put in much more gentle terms. However I am not here to shove my views down everyone's throats, I am only here to say that this article is as of yet far from NPOV and seems to take a heavy Reform stance (excepting Israeli Reform). I realise that Izak obviously considers my edits controvercial and for some reason does not want to accept the had of friendship I have extended to him on his talk page through any reciprocvative response. To each his own I suppose. I have no gripe with him and if I could adjust his accusations into simple statements of fact (which I might do later just to keep this page looking civil & brotherly) then I would agree with the fundamentals of all his points. Anyway to please him and show him that I am not about to start an edit war, I will simply call for NPOV on this matter a little more and if not then I will campaign to get the article labelled with a disputed neutrality notice (in which case I hope that truth and objecitvity will win the campaign not emotional charge). Izak be nice my friend. If race is ethnicity and ethnicity can be religion then your comments are certainly sounding racist, our people have suffered enough abuse and rejection without getting it from other sects of assimilated Jews too. Shalom. Zestauferov 16:09, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: It seems you are intent on defying "conventional wisdom" here, and want to introduce entirely new methods of "classification" that only you will "understand", as those who have worked on this article over time will take exception. This article does NOT take "Reform" a view. It does state Reform views when they are relevant. As I have said, what has been been written in that regard was not done by me, but I think it is unwise to tamper with what they have written. I have a suggestion to make, why don't you succinctly write HERE in "Jew:TALK" what it is that YOU have in mind first, and then see if it fits anywhere! IZAK 23:20, 11 May 2004 (UTC) Why has user Zestauferov created TWO redundent pages Ethnic Jews and Assimilated Jews as a "response" to the Jew article? User Zestauferov claims on his newly minted Talk:Ethnic Jews and Assimilated Jews (see the related Ger Tzedek): "This page is created in response to the lack of NPOV on the Jew page. Zestauferov 17:18, 11 May 2004 (UTC)". See his comments above. IZAK 23:42, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Ger tzedek
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Zest says: IZAK don't be anonymous, you do realize that you have completely reversed the point of view of the original article instead of adding thwe alternative POV?Wiki is not about t4rying to force one POV into domination but to report all of the POVs in a neutral manner.Zestauferov 05:26, 12 May 2004 (UTC):Halakha & Ger Tzedekim.

Simshalom says: You are introducing ERRONEOUS definitions and confusing people. A "Ger" or a "Ger Tzedek" is someone who has become fully and Halachically Jewish 100% because they have undergone "GIUR" ("Conversion) and this is what makes them into a "Ger". "Ger Tzedek" refers to a very "Righteous" convert. One CANNOT be refered to as either a "Ger" or "Ger Tzedek" PRIOR to the actual "day of conversion" when an AUTHORIZED Beit Din accepts the PROSPECTIVE Ger and oversees the Halachic requirements, such as immersion in the Mikveh supervised by that Beth Din. ONLY THEN does the Beit Din ISSUE a "SHTAR GIUR" (Certficate of Conversion) certifying that the former GENTILE (GOY) is now a Jew (Halachik Jew). So to call someone who has NOT immeresed in the Mikveh a "Jew" is incorrect from the point of view of Halacha and any branch of Orthodox Judaism and most Conservative Judaism goes by this procedure. The Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism do not have these standards for conversion to Judaism. The branch of "Netzarim" people, who believe in "Ribi Jesus" are confusing you. Maybe you would enjoy learning at http://www.aish.com/ or http://www.ohr.org.il/ or at http://www.chabad.org/ and you will see that they will all say what I have just told you here. IZAK 19:50, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: According to what I am learning from the Beit Din I am thinking of practicing in (ask your Rabbi to tell you which one), by making a distinction between one who has become Jewish and one who was born Jewish Izak you and your teachers are breaking halakha. Maybe your Beit Din has a different stance on this. I do not know well about the differences between the beitei Din yet. I have already mentioned that Wiki is not about the battle for one opinion to dominate, but for the neutral expression of the various opinions. Are you not content enough with my leaving the Jew page according to your opinion that you are seeking to silence my Beit Din's position here too? My beit din does not accept any Noahides as genuine unless their intention is to become fully torah observant with the exceptions provided for them within the Torah. The 7 noahide laws are simply a minimum start. Please read http://www.noahide.com/minimum.htm for more details on that. Only those Noahides who cannot become Jewish because for example they are married to a Gentile, or have damaged genitalia, etc. are permitted to remain Ger Tzedek, The word Guir does not mean convert it means proselytize why do you think we never used the word convert with regards to Judaism even in English until recently? You were either as Jew or a Proselyte ("Judaized" non-Jew). That is the traditional stance. I know American Reform movement is trying to promote different views but then so are Messianics, but in the orthodox view there is no difference between these two schools.Zestauferov

Simshalom says:Noahides have NOTHING to do with the question of Halachik conversion according to Orthodox Judaism. They are merely a wonderful group of NON-JEWS (Gentiles) who have decided to follow the "7 Laws of Noah" (they are NOT "converts" and they are NOT "GERIM" or "Ger Tzedek" in any way shape size or form or whatever....). I have not touched on that subject at all, so I don't know why you drag them into this discussion.IZAK 18:45, 13 May 2004 (UTC) Who said anything about "discriminating" between true "Ger" (convert) or "Ger Tzedek" (righteous converts) and a Jew born of a Jewish mother? I am NOT suggesting that Halakha be broken at all. We are having a SCHOLARLY discussion about these issues. It is the Torah that says that "You should love the ger (convert)" (Leviticus, chapter 19, vs.33-34): Is the Torah "discriminating" because it calls a "ger" a "ger"? On the contrary, SOMETIMES it is a high COMPLIMENT in Torah Judaism to call someone a "Ger", such as the famous case of the Vilna Gaon's Count Potocki, who is known as the "Ger Tzedek of Vilna" or the "Ger of Vilna". All throughout classical Torah writings there is mention of those who are a "Ger Tzedek". However, as far as Reform Judaism, they definitely and deliberately "changed" (some would call it "broken") the paramaters and allow even people who do not have a Jewish mother but only have a Jewish father to call themselves "Jews", so they have created a schism that allows people who according to Halakha are NOT Jews to call themselves "Jews".IZAK 18:45, 13 May 2004 (UTC) The term "giur" means the PROCESS of conversion. I am just trying to help you out with correct terminology as you say yourself you are only now begining to learn about HALAKHIC Judaism in depth. IZAK 18:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: P.S. why don't you stop mentioning the name of that "divinity' you like to name so much. It is also against Halakha to do so. I don't want to alienate you, but I do find it unfair that you are trying to give the impression in your posts that I am being misled while I am simply following Halakha while you are the one who has been misled into not following Halakha. Please consider the nature of the ground you are standing upon friend. Zestauferov 06:44, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: What "Halakha" are you "following" if you call someone who has NOT completed the process of conversion yet, and is Halakhically a complete Gentile, a "Ger" or "Ger Tzedek"? IZAK 18:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: Circumcision is a prerequisite of becomming a Jew (for men, I think you may be right that Ruth was just a Ger Tzedek -I have to get confirmation- since one can be a Jew if you are the son of at least a Ger Tzedek female & a male Jew). Read the Torah. I have heard that some Beitei din even insist that one who has already been circumcised must have a symbolic nic in the forskin or even be re-circumcised if possible. You wrote it yourself, Mikhvah is the final requirement for a Ger Tzedek or Proselyte and not circumcision. Zestauferov 06:53, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:FIRST comes the circumcision ( and yes, if the converting gentile did have it done earlier it must now be done symbolically with just a drop of blood drawn, known as hatafat dam brit), and then the FINAL STEP is the immersion in the waters of the mikveh, as far as I know. Why would you think that a man can "skip" brit mila (the required circumcison of conversion), and fancy to call himself a Halakhic "Jew" by merely going into a mikveh? That sounds really too much like Christianity which merely requires "baptism". Judaism is not some sort of "eloborate Baptist religion". I highly recommend you purchase a copy of BECOMING A JEW By (Orthodox) Rabbi Maurice Lamm. (Jonatahn David Publisheers) Get it at your local Judaica store or online at either Barnes&Noble: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.aspuserid=BQv1PKPx8K&isbn=0824603508&itm=1 or at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0824603508/103-5616073-8653426v=glance IZAK 18:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: Here is an online reference from one of the communities I respect most http://www.chayas.com/ger.htm You will see that this is not a netzarim site at all and that my POV is certainly valid. I hope you will do something about reverting your very strong suppression of my POV considereing the facts presented. If not I will do it myself, I will try not to show a bias. All the best.Zestauferov 15:17, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Discussion on Netzarim

Zest says: This section of the discussion does not belong here it has been moved following no objection to the Talk:Nazarene Judaism page. Zestauferov 11:02, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

FFW says: I've removed the link and incorporated the material into the article to give some context. JFW T@lk 20:52, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Discussion Moved from Ger Tzedek

Zest says: Background: Zestauferov plays devil's advocate, Izak enacts the prosecution.
The Question: Do Netzarim follow Halakha?

Simshalom says: Had I known you work for the "devil" I would have worn a "fire-suit" (as if that could help). Futhermore, I did NOT agree to come to this page, as I am not interested in debating the pros and cons of "shades" of "Messianic judo-ism". You seem to want to "burn the candle at both ends": Debating (disguised) Christianity with (confused) Jews, and (fake) Judaism with pseudo-Christians. Hmmmmm. IZAK 05:39, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: I am not the one who brought this discussion to this point I am only the one who moved it here where it belongs. I was talking about Ger Tzedek and halakha.Zestauferov 10:24, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:I am merely calling "a spade a spade". Would you feel better if I talked about "Yeshu HaNotzri"? I have never heard Torah Jews refer to him as "Ribi Yehoshua" either as some Messianic cults try to "Judaize" him so that ignorant ("assimilated" in your parlance) Jews will be "fooled" into thinking that he was just another "regular rabbi", a respectable "member of the tribe", which is a lie as he was rejected by all the rabbis of his time and since. If you don't like "Jesus" so why are you so dedicated to the "netzarim"? I don't get it, I must be missing something here I guess.IZAK 18:45, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: Yeshu Ha Notzri was a late 2nd Century early 1st century BCE apostate contemporary with Yoshua Ben Parachiah. I use to think they were the same person until it was pointed out to me that to think this way is to insult the chronological skills of the compilers of the Mishnah. Are you next going to say that he was also the early late 1st early 2nd century CE Plony Ben Stada? then that would make his life span accross 4 centuries!! There are no jewish records about Ribi Yehoshua Ben Joseph just as there are no records about any other minor Beth Hillel rabbis of the early days. Can you show me the line of Halakha where it says "A Jew must hate and dispise anything remotely connected to the coenter of Chrstian devotion" please? If there is rest assured I will hate him more than you, and speak out against them, but if there isn't I am just as puzzled about your negative stance as you are about my trollerant stance. Let them be as long as they are bringing Jews into orthodoxy. All the best. Zestauferov 02:17, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: I am not sure who the people are that are "pointing out" things to you, but they sound like a pretty wierd bunch of folks to me. I have met many great genuine rabbis in my lifetime, and never have I heard the kind of things you seem to be exposing yourself to. Maybe it's time to find teachers who are more "mainstream" and not so focused in the "netzarim" folks who really appear to be way out in "left field" both according to Judaism AND Christianity (and as they say: "self praise is NO recommendation"). As for the "compilers" of the Mishneh, they were NOT concerened with "chronology" the way modern western academics are. The Torah SheBeal Peh (Oral Law) and indeed the Torah SheBichtav (Written Torah), deal with personalities and events within their own unique methodologies of "time" and one would have to spend many years in a good yeshiva getting acquainted with exactly how the Mishna "placed" people in time and space. They did NOT work under the asssumption that they must have a "sense of history" as it is understood in the secular world today. There was so much persecution of Jews by Christians, especially since it was the Jews' arch-enemy: ROME that "adopted" Jesus' "faith" that the combination of factors working against traditional Torah Judaism, made it imperative that Judaism's views of Jesus (whichever one he is, take your pick) be cloaked in deliberate ambiguity and "plausible deniability". IZAK 20:51, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: This looks like you are saying that the life of the historical person in question was chopped up into several sections, given different names then thrown in amongst stories of different rabbis over the course of 4 centuries (or 8 in the case of the Toledoth Yeshu). This explains how in the case of Eliazer he sometimes appears as a man with disciples and at another time as a young boy. Interesting idea do you have any reference for this or is it just your own opinion? If you have a reference it would be good to add this synopsis to a Toldoth Yeshu article. Zestauferov 03:41, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: The kind of "references" you seek are not necessary, as there is NOTHING in Torah scholarship that will cast positive light on Jesus-Yeshu (and/or anyone like him). He may even never have existed, but the fact that there is a world-wide religion called "Christianity" (in all its stripes and stages) that has always been hostile to Jews and Judaism, especially as espoused by Orthodox Judaism, throughout two millenia of history is enough "evidence" that Jesus=Yeshu was and remains "bad news" for the Jews. Reputable rabbis and scholars IGNORE him as he is persona non grata and the myriad movements he spawned are "RADIOACTIVE" as far as Torah-true Judaism is concerned. IZAK 18:30, 16 May 2004 (UTC) The bottom line is, that you CANNOT have it both ways, even tho' groups like "netzarim" or "Jews for Jesus" types may want to foist the false idea that somehow one "can have one's cake and eat it"...it just ain't so according to any major Torah and Jewish thinkers. Either you are Jewish (Halachicaly) or you are Christian. One precludes and excludes the other, no matter how much the "Netzarim" types jump up and down or stand on their heads (as they even stand logic on its head) IZAK 20:51, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: I understand your point which you have already made very clearly several times over i.e. "You can't be ANY kind of "Cristian" and be Jewish (in the religious sense) simultaneously" I would expand it somewhat and say You can't be anything but Jewish in the traditional religious sense and be Jewish in any religious sense simultaneously. But opinion is not useful at all. I have asked "Can you show me the line of Halakha where it says "A Jew must hate and dispise anything remotely connected to the center of Chrstian devotion" please?" This would be very useful. What if careful analysis of evidence suggested that Siddarta Guatema might have been a minor unknown Jewish teacher amongst the Jews exiled in the east by Babylon? Same question different content would apply. What if Mohammed turned out to be a Ger Tzedek whose story has been corrupted by political factions? As far as I can see the netzarim are not following the person you think they are following They are following Halakha and put the Reform movement to shame in that respect. Is it this that is annoying you? Zestauferov 03:41, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Don't let your imagination run amock! You say: "...I have asked 'Can you show me the line of Halakha where it says 'A Jew must hate and dispise anything remotely connected to the center of Chrstian devotion' please?' This would be very useful...". Your question reveals your lack of insight into what Halacha is about. Halacha is not here to teach you to "hate" anything. It is not a program or "dogma" of "emotional reactions" as people may erroneously think.

Zest says: No Izak, I know this very well, I was simply wondering if you realised this. I suppose I set myself up for that stab though. Serves me rightZestauferov 11:01, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: (Sadly the "Koran" does incite its readers and that is one reason why Islam has always been so dangerous as it is so "emotion" based.) Instead, the Halacha is here to help people BECOME BETTER JEWS and human beings (you know, like that line the Christians stole of "love thy friend as thyself" Leviticus, 19:18). I would say it is very simple: The Torah FORBIDS following anyone who is deemed to be a Navi Sheker (a "False (Liar) (so-called) Prophet"): ...if a prophet presumptiously makes a declaration in My name when I have not commanded him to do so, or if he speaks in the name of other gods, then that prophet shall die... (Deuteronomy, 18:20). The Torah urges us in the Ten Commandments to worship only the One true God and NOT to have any other FALSE Gods or idols! IZAK 18:30, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: Very good, thankyou. I know the passage of course, but I don't know what your evidence is for infering the Netzarim worship idols etc., and that their Ribi Yehoshua Ben Joseph was a Navi Sheker. Which sources are you establishing your beliefs upon? Zestauferov 11:01, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: It's not just "idols" per se, it's any "belief-system" that is not part of the Mesorah (authentic tradition) of Torah Judaism as it has been sanctioned by the Torah sages of ALL generations, and none have sanctioned or even taken note of "Ribi what's-his-name". "Ribi Yehoshua" could also be classified as a Meisis Umediach: 13:7 [This is what you must do] if your blood brother, your son, your daughter, your bosom wife, or your closest friend secretly tries to act as a missionary among you, and says, 'Let us go worship a new god. Let us have a spiritual experience previously unknown by you or your fathers.' 13:8 [He may be enticing you with] the gods of the nations around you, far or near, or those that are found at one end of the world or another. 13:9 Do not agree with him, and do not listen to him. Do not let your eyes pity him, do not show him any mercy, and do not try to cover up for him, 13:10 since you must be the one to put him to death. Your hand must be the first against him to kill him, followed by the hands of the other people. 13:11 Pelt him to death with stones, since he has tried to make you abandon God your Lord, who brought you out of the slave house that was Egypt. 13:12 When all Israel hears about it, they will be afraid, and they will never again do such an evil thing among you.(Deuteronomy, 13:7-12) IZAK 21:23, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: Another very useful reference thankyou Izak. But still it would be useful for you to provide which sources are you establishing your beliefs that he could be a Navi Sheker, and/or Meisis Umediach upon? All the best. Zestauferov 01:59, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: I have just provided you with the best sources available from the Torah, do you doubt that ANY Torah-true (Orthodox) Talmidei Chachamim (Torah Scholars) and even those who follow non-Orthodox Judaism have any doubts whatsoever that "Ribi Yeshoshua" aka Jesus was NOT either a "Navi Sheker, and/or Meisis Umediach"? C'mon now, what are you expecting from "Halacha", a "clear statement" about him? Do you think that they were THAT stupid, self-destructive or suicidal? Every time a Jew was thrown to the lions in the name of "Yeshu" or ripped apart by a Crusader, that Jew knew who was to blame: Your wonderful "Ribbi Yehoshua" who had incited the WORLD against his own people (see his words in the "New Testament"). Add "traitor" to his resum`e. IZAK 05:39, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: The Torah is indeed the best thing one can reference to, but it is like talking about what to do with bad apples without showing your evidence that an apple in question is bad. However, the last part of your posting clinches it for me. "Your wonderful "Ribbi Yehoshua" who had incited the WORLD against his own people (see his words in the "New Testament"). Add "traitor" to his resum`e." You are basing your beliefs upon the "NT"?? Don't you know there is halakha against that? Don't you know about the people who compiled and edited it? "Every time a Jew was thrown to the lions in the name of "Yeshu" or ripped apart by a Crusader, that Jew knew who was to blame" If you had just left it at this I might be more satisfied but for the fact that Jews have been persecuted from the beginning. It has plenty to do with hate for the truth and very little to do with anything much else. This is why I am interested in the truth surrounding a subject and will not allow myself to get worked up to the state where I become just as much an enemy to the truth as those who wished to silence us over the years have. The persecution of the Jews is equivalent to censorship, and that is the example you are copying by not trying to through the tears of many years. Oh, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, I am not a Netzarim! I am simply interested in truth. My personal belief is that the events described in the Mishna are true. Yeshu Ha Notzri is nobody and was simply too early to be anyone, though I am pretty sure the chrstians created their religion by mixing up things they heard about him with that of Yeshu Pandera who is mentioned ONLY in Tofseta Hullin 2:22,23,24 and that Yeshu Pandera is probably the true historical identity. I believe this same Pandera may have been the biological father or uncle of the mamzer heretic known as Ben Stada. I have heard that even Chrstian historians record that the family name of the man they worship's grandfather was something like Pandera. Rabi Eliazer seemed impressed by a certain Jacob Kefar who was a student of this Pandera. The authorities at the time and Rabbi Ishmael on the other hand seem to have been against him. Since the authorities at the time were dominated by Beth Shammai (who even rejected Shammai!), Herodians and Helenized Roman-conspirator pseudo-Zadokites, I see no reason why I should consider either these or Pandera to be any better than each other. I do however like Rabbi Eliazer, so maybe there was a certain Jacob Kefar who could heal who was a disciple of a Ribi who may have been a good man but who was also certainly unpopular with the authorities because of his outspokeness, and who may have been an uncle/ancestor of the mamzer heretic Ben Stada. As for the messiah? I believe, with perfect faith, in the coming of the Messiah, and though he may tarry, I wait, through each and every day, for his coming. Shalom. Zestauferov 10:24, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: No-one serious about Torah-true Judaism makes a "study" of "Mr.Ribi/Yeshu/Pandera/What's-his-face/etc" as you seem so intent on doing. As I told you, the guy has been "blotted out" of the Jewish lexicon, and the less said the better. (I have already said too much and cannot add much more). I mentioned the "New Testament" as those are the writings that purport to speak for him, regardless of your feelings, they are unkind to Jews, period. You claim to be searching for the truth. What that "truth" is, is hard to know for those trying to decipher your statements, as you make so many contradictory declarations and citations that it's hard to tell "top" from "bottom". One day it's this, the next day it's that, and so on and so forth etc ad nauseum. Take it easy. IZAK 23:54, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

JFW says: Zestauferov, whenever the Ribi lived, it was after the "official" cessation of prophecy with Haggai, Zecharya and Malachi. It is impossible to say whether he was a prophet as far as Judaism is concerned, and (hence) it cannot be "falsified" either. The fact is that the Netzarim are on the verge of discrediting their beliefs by attaching importance to a man who (in their eyes in a caricature) has come to mean so much to a billion christians. What does his theology have to offer to the Netzarim that cannot be found in the body of B'nei Noach ideology?

Zest says: Very well said indeed.Zestauferov 17:24, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

JFW says: At any rate, they deserve treatment by themselves in the Nazarene Judaism article, and material pertaining to the Netzarim does not belong in Ger Tzedek or Noahide Law. Nazarene Judaism is not a halachically valid option for B'nei Noach as far as most rabbinic authorities are concerned. JFW T@lk 12:46, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

JFW says: "and material pertaining to the Netzarim does not belong in Ger Tzedek or Noahide Law"

zest says: Why not? Is it because "Nazarene Judaism is not a halachically valid option for B'nei Noach as far as most rabbinic authorities are concerned."

Zest says: Does that mean there are some rabinic authorities which do cosider it valid?
And does this matter anyway? Are Noahides required to follow Halakha?Zestauferov 17:24, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

JFW says: Zestauferov, I take strong issue with your habit of cutting up peoples' responses. It makes my response look fragmentary and spaced in time, while it is supposed to be a coherent whole. You might prefer to copy&paste relevant quotes and italicise them, rather then endless indentations interspersed with a message's body. I can agree with "netzarim" and similar groups being mentioned on the Ger Tzedek or Noahide Law, but with a clear disclaimer that these groups are not considered by Orthodox Judaism to belong in either category. Indeed, the "netzarim beit din" like to tell us that some Yemenite congegation has endorsed them, and that this provides them with legitimacy. Some rabbinic authority must have authorised this (hopefully that community's own rabbi). Nonetheless, this does not promote their cause much. I think more ASCII has been spilt on this peripheral subject than there are members to Nazarene Judaism. User:IZAK is correct that present orthodox leaders are not (and probably will not) approve of belief in Ribi Yehoshua, for whatever reason. That ends the matter. JFW T@lk 00:08, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

JFW says: "Zestauferov, I take strong issue with your habit of cutting up peoples' responses. It makes my response look fragmentary and spaced in time, while it is supposed to be a coherent whole. You might prefer to copy&paste relevant quotes and italicise them, rather then endless indentations interspersed with a message's body." JFW

Zest says: I did as you have described above, I only interupted once to express agreement. Have I done this before? I am sorry my agreement upset you so much friend. Even so interspersing a posting meant to be a cohesive whole is not forbidden in wiki. Please remember If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit itZestauferov 05:32, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
As for Halakha, I have discovered that there is nothing wrong with any Noahide accepting "Ribi Yehoshua" as a teacher or even a prophet as long as they 1) do not force others to accept him. 2) Emphasise the distinction that he is not the same as any divinity worshipped alongside Ha-Shem. The orthodox authorities do not reject any Noahide's belief in any prophets. I have also confirmed that the Muslims are also Noahides, and that there is nothing wrong with them accepting Muhammad as a prophet (though they may be wrong) as long as they do not force jews to accept the same belief. Thus your request for a "clear disclaimer that these groups are not considered by Orthodox Judaism to belong in either category" would infact express an inaccurate POV. All the best Zestauferov 05:32, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

JFW says: interspersing a posting meant to be a cohesive whole is not forbidden in wiki - no, but it might be polite. Please do not interpret my rant as a personal attack. I find this debate much too amusing and fascinating to let it be spoiled by formatting issues.
You are right that acceptance of Ribi Yehoshua as a prophet is not a sin for a Noachide. My only point in the previous posting is, that it will be mighty difficult for a Ribi-Yeshoshua-believing sect to claim legitimacy with the orthodox Jewish framework, as most halachic authorities will be uneasy about lending credence to a movement centered around Jesus, even if he's not considered a god.
I have also stated above that Noachides do not need approval from orthodox authorities. However, if they want this approval, then belief in Ribi Yehoshua and his teachings can be a major obstacle.
Therefore, I think this disclaimer is not POV at all - a Ger Tzedek is a full convert to Judaism, something the Nazarenes are not. They keep the Noahide Laws, and perhaps a disclaimer is not necessary in the latter article. JFW T@lk 11:59, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: I wonder if we are talking about the same people here? http://netzarim.co.il ? I ask because in two posts you mention that they cannot be Jews. But they exist already within the Yemenite Jewish community, and they do not accept anyone into their Beth Din unless they are already Orthodox Jews. Are you saying an orthodox Jew is not a full Jew? Maybe I missed your point. Please forgive me, could you try to explain again? :-) I have also found an online reference for the POV I expressed on Ger Tzedek earlier so I am putting that link in that article.Zestauferov 15:09, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

JFW says: I have seen the http://www.netzarim.co.il site. It seems to be the primary outlet of Netzarim ideology. It turns whackier with every line I read, and the petty puritanist insistence on correct pronunciation and etymology is nauseating. The Paqid Yirmiyahu ben-David could do a lot better than that. They do not exist within the Yemenite community - they claim to have an endorsement from that community's board. Otherwise their house of worship is modeled after (and run like) one of the Yemenite community. I had not realised that the Netzarim also aim to attract Orthodox Jews - an oversight on my part but an important point. Again I cannot stress enough that the unofficial endorsements do not put this strange community within the framework of Orthodox Judaism. No orthodox rabbinic authority will speak out and say that it's OK to pray in the house of worship of a community that maintains that Jesus/Ribi Yehoshua was the Messiah! This said, I'm having growing doubts whether this stuff is encyclopedic at all. We're talking about a very small group of people whose only hallmark is that they claim to be orthodox Jews while celebrating "The historical figure behind Jesus" as the messiah. JFW T@lk 20:17, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Request for information

Seglea asks: Could those editing this page please provide some more information to help less expert readers? The phrase "the Nazaraeans/Nasoraeans Theodoret described" is useless without a link to Theodoret, which we don't have. Either we need a short article on him/her, or we need a one-line explanation of who s/he is/was. Is the "Jochanan the immerser" referred to John the Baptist, or at any rate a figure otherwise known who is held to be the origin of that New Testament figure? If so, we need a link and perhaps a brief word of explanation. Thanks. seglea 18:05, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

JFW says: John is the English version of the Hebrew name Yochanan (or Jochanan). We can safely assume that we're dealing with the same immerser here.
I've got no idea who Theodoret is, but when Googling for the name, the second site is the Wikipedia article on Theodoret. (See also the entry in the Catholic encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14574b.htm)). He appears to have been involved in a Nastorean controversy, and the author of this article is probably referring to that event. JFW T@lk 20:17, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

seglea says: Thanks, JFW. I'm sorry I missed our Theodoret page - I realise now that I misspelled him when I searched for him. I have to say that I share your doubts about whether this material is encyclopaedic. It is deeply obscure to me, as a reader from outside whatever world those writing it (or those who are being written about) are in - so obscure that I can't even tell what world that is; which makes me suspect that I'd find it highly POV if I could only discern what its POV was!
I guess that criticism begs the question of what would make it more encyclopaedic. Well, it would be nice to have some basic information about the size and geographical spread of these groups - are we dealing with hundreds of people or millions, and where might we meet them? - and how their beliefs are derived - are they constructing a new (Jewish?) interpretation of the New Testament, using existing traditions about the NT (and if so where do those come from, and what evidence are they based on?), relying on other ancient documents (which?) - etc. And it all needs to be written in a language and style that isn't a concealed attempt to rubbish anyone else's belief system, whether that's Jewish, Christian, or anything else. seglea 06:01, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

JFW says: I share all your concerns, and a lot more NPOV should go into this article. Basically, all these groups are still Jesus-centered but claim to be Jewish. They do not subscribe to Jesus' divinity, only to his rabbinic and Messianistic role (failing to explain why there's no world peace yet). They are a bit closer to Judaism than adherents of Messianic Judaism but cannot in any form be considered mainstream Jews, however much legitimacy is claimed. Numbers are probably under 10,000 worldwide, but the website of the Netzarim doesn't provide us with these stats. JFW T@lk 12:42, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree, and
"failing to explain why there's no world peace yet"
that is the Key point isn't it? All these messianic groups whether it be centered around Menachem Mendel Schneerson, or Ribi Jehoshua, or anyone on this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah#Other_Jewish_people_purported_to_be_messiahs the fact that the messianic era has obviously not begun yet needs to be addressed by any such group. But do we find any such explanations offered anywhere? All I have seen is a lot of deflection.

Zest says: In answer to one of your questions, I know that they consider the Testaments of the Evangelists and other such writings to be nothing more than historical documents no better or worse than any of the early chrstian writings, and apply a scientific method in deducing which texts might hold the most accurate information. I think that they consider the reconstructed Hebrew Matthew pretty trustworthy but do not consider any of these texts to be from HaShem. With these writings then then simply read to understand them from the orthodox Jewish paradigm. Thus the immerser simply becomes a Matbil. Ribi Jehoshua's teachings simply identify him as a Beth Hillel Ribi, etc. etc. Quite interesting actually, if only they dropped the messiah belief their research might be taken more seriously. Zestauferov 13:28, 20 May 2004 (UTC) I have done some further reading on the subject and I have discovered that there are several "Nazarene" sects all with very similar names but not all identicle. I suggest that this page be merged with Nazarene and that each of the sects is clearly disambiguated with a summary of their respective beliefs. It also seems as it stands, like some of the info on this page is inaccurate. Zestauferov 09:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

About an external link

Jmabel says: I had added a link Jay Sand's site about African Jews also contains information about various small Jewish diasporas elsewhere (http://www.mindspring.com/~jaypsand/index.htm). IZAK removed it, remarking, "These groups are mentioned in the body of the article. They are very minor. Is this now going to become a place where all those claiming to be from the "Ten Lost Tribes" can register as Jews=General=) IZAK, did you even examine the site whose link you are deleting? It has information on several groups of undoubted ethnic Jews not mentioned in the article (in Sao Tome and Principe and Cape Verde, for example), discusses everything from the (white) Jews of South Africa to the Jews of Morocco and Tunisia; it gives information on several Jewish communites (e.g. Mozambique that have been forced into exile in the last generation); also, as my comment indicates, it extends beyond Africa to give a good rundown on small Jewish comunities in Asia and Latin America. Three or four of the groups covered are, indeed, groups with dubious claims as "lost tribes", and the site makes that clear, but most are simply small, isolated groups of ethnic Jews, some of them still Jewish by religion, others not. I think this is perfectly relevant to this article. I picked it partly because, unlike similar sites about one or another community, it discusses over twenty countries (about half of them in Africa). Unless you can give me an argument that at least indicates that you have actually looked at the material on the site, I see no reason to accept your deletion and will restore the link. So as to avoid an edit war, I'll hold off at least 24 hours to give you time to respond. -- Jmabel 23:19, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Actually, this is related to the above item: [Too many external links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jew#Too_many_external_links)] where someone "in the know" advised that ten external links is enough, and we now have many more than that as it is, even after I had trimmed many interesting links. As for the "Jews of Africa etc", yes I looked at your link and I am familiar with some of its contents. If we are now going to "dig up" any entity of people who claim to be Jews then the list will never end as you will find such groups on all continents. Between the "Lost Tribes" and the "Jew envy" (in those cases where Jews were not being killed out, of course) accumulated over thousands of years there are thousands of groups claiming to be connected to the Jews. Then add in those larger groups such as the Pashtuns, Mormons, and even those who want to say that the Japanese are descended from the Jews' lost tribes the sum of it all is that being "Jewish" loses any meaning in any sense. Furthermore, there could be legitimate links tagged on (but shouldn't be, in my opinion as it will then just be a page of "links" to "Jews" then), that could be added about organized conventional communities in all countries with Jews that would fit even in the Halakhic sense, meaning Jews of Morocco, Yemen, Syria, Turkey, Spain, England, Brazil, Paraguay, Mexico, Norway, Italy, Canada, Ukraine, Serbia, Greece, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, ....and it will never end if you go about it this way, unless you want to start actual Wiki articles on each of these which is perfectly fine. So we have to work within some sort of bounds, without "falling off the deep end" thereby making this article so broadly-defined that it becomes "meaningless" to be Jewish! IZAK 01:14, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel says: As far as I can tell, only about 4 of the 20 or so groups on that site are questionable in terms of Halakha. Right now, about half the external links from this article are about Judaism, not about Jewish ethnicity, the ostensible topic of the article. Jay Sand's is precisely a site about Jewish ethnicity, and only secondly about the religion. I would think it is far more relevant than the bulk of the links here, which really belong on the Judaism page. And I have written articles about several of the smaller Jewish (and dubiously Jewish) groups. For whatever it's worth, just sticking within your list, the article discusses the Jews of Morocco, Yemen, Turkey, Brazil, and Mexico. -- Jmabel 06:03, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: As the article makes clear it is virtually impossible to create a clear dichotomy between being a "Jew" and "Judaism" as the two are inextricably intertwined and only a complete fool would attempt to go with a "working assumption" that somehow it is possible to create an absolute differentiation between a "Jew" and "Judaism". "Judaism" defines who is a "Jew" as much as a "Jew" is a product of "Judaism". One cannot grasp the one without the other. The selection of the word "ethnicity" is NOT from Judaism (and I did not pick it as I was not around when this article was first written). It is an arbitrary word from the secular world using an English word (actually from the GREEK ethnikos and ethnos meaning "nation"), to somehow describe and explain Jews as a people in history and in the present. It just so happens to be that for the bulk of their history for over 3,300 years Jews and Judaism, as measured and expressed in the Torah, were indistinguishable. Over the past three hundred years growing secularization has watered down the Jews' ability to define and recognize themsleves, as new secular words and nomenclature, such as "ethnicity", "secular", "liberal", "humanist", etc struggle to arrive at any consenus whatsoever, which is why this article causes so much consternation as a "Wiki" article, working under the isufficient notion that "Jews" and "Judaism" can be "squeezed into" a "secular encyclopedia", which of course it can't be at all. It's like trying to squeeze God into a "Genie bottle" and expect a little intellectual "rub" to grant "enlightenment" on what is essentialy a complex issue ROOTED in theology, belief, spirituality, and religious identity. IZAK 23:14, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: There is a very big meaning in laying claim to being ethnically Jewish Izak and that is laying claim to the obligation to do ones best to practice one's traditional culture perfectly. Even so this article is about the Jews as an "Ethnicity" not about the religion/culture (which are still both ethnicity), so we might as well cover all the wonderful diversity in that label. Personally with regards to identifying lost tribes, I think that is a Job for the orthodox rabbis to decide based upon evidence presented to them. If we do not accept the orthodox definition of ethnic Jew then any group with large enough numbers can claim to be ethnically jewish and their claim will carry some clout. I think the problem here is the meaning of the word Ethnicity. Judaism IS an ethnicity, however many who do not practice Judaism (there is only one Judaism) still want to call themselves "ethnically" Jewish just because they have some physical descent from a Jew, or even just because they like Latkes & Klezmer. What this article should try to do is describe the levels of Jewish ethnic intensity gauged against Chareidi as the most ethnically Jewish and people who just like latkes in winter (for example) as the least.Zestauferov 09:34, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: "Zest, Enjoy your latkes!" (have doubles whilst you're about it)! IZAK 23:21, 18 May 2004 (UTC)


- posted by Izak @ 7:39 PM