|!||This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.|
What a so long digression about Mel Gibson. It's said that his father went to concentration camp during WWII. What do we care ? Jews have been exterminated by the Nazi during this war. It's absolutely out of context and interest. The pig talk is as well without any interest, empty and absolutely false.
I think what you read was vandalism. It's no longer there. --<<-David R->> 16:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
It seems to me that this article should contain information about Judaism. The long passage about Pontius Pilate and the Sanhedron is still here, and it is many times longer than the brief stub which actually is about Judaism. Also, the line about circumcision is out of context here -- in a longer, more detailed article, it could be worked in along with related issues.
Since Abraham is claimed by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as a Patriarch, this issue probably should be covered in a separate article aboout him, rather than being the second thing mentioned in an article about Judaism.
I hope we can make this entry as informative and accurate as possible.
Boethius 20:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Nobody seems to have mentioned that Christ was a jew. It's an important part of both our histories. Toryboy
- Yes Boethius, I must agree with you – it might well profit us that an article headed "Judaism" "should contain information on Judaism" as you propose. But Toryboy, I can't see how you missed (and I quote) "Though Jesus is said to have been Jewish..." And this is my query, why the qualification "said to be". I mean is the Pope "reputed by some to have a connection with the Catholic Church"? What is going on here? His Mother was Jewish, even if the question of the exact nationality of his Dad is perhaps best left to the Jesuits. Regardless, Jewishness is conferred via the maternal line, so he is 100 per cent kosher in that regard, Does "Jesus was a Jew" sound perhaps a little infra-dig, just a trifle abrupt, mayhap?
mylesP email@example.com March 31, 2007
- Interestingly enough, the father’s ethnicity does matter to many Jews. For the purposes of immigration to Israel you are quite right—maternal linage is enough. However, inter-religious marriage is and was deeply frowned upon. Deuteronomy 23:1-8 is one of the relevant text—because the Rabbis believe in “building a wall around the Torah” it is interpreted to forbid marriage to any non-Jew and the child of any such marriage is understood to be illegitimate and therefore not fit to enter into the congregation (and therefore not Jewish). So, one may be the child of a Jewish mother and still not a Jew if the father is not a Jew as well.--Reginod 10:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
- Wrong. While marriage outside the faith is prohibited, a child born of a Jewish mother is fully Jewish. Converts from certain nations (Moabites, Egyptians, &c.) could not marry full Jews (“enter into the assembly of the LORD”), only other converts—up to a certain number of generations.JCSalomon 10:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)
Not really...Jesus is an important part of Christian theology, but not Judaism. Claiming to be God's son isn't that special in a religion that applies that term to all of humanity. --M
- But Jesus was a Jew and was a devout Jew practicing all the laws and obeying the commandments. --Will N. 09:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, but there have been millions of devout Jews; that doesn't make them all historical figures. Jesus wasn't a scholar or a sage like Maimonides; he's of historical importance only to Christianity and Islam, not Judaism.--M 08:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- Jesus is of historical importance to Jews because he founded Christianity. That said, I’m editing the “Jewish views on Jesus” for relevancy & accuracy.JCSalomon 10:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)
I was actually rather offended that "circumcision" was referred to as "mutilation" on this page. The majority of white Americans are circumcised, as are most Jews, and our President, George W. Bush, recently allotted funding to promote circumcision in Africa, in recognition of the fact that circumcised penises are healthier, and (some would argue) more aesthetically pleasing. Please treat circumcision with respect: it is a proper and beneficial surgery. User:Isiah24
I am interested to hear that your President thinks highly enough of "aesthetically pleasing" black African penises to invest funds to ensure whole generations to come are properly endowed. Who would have thought that a leader of the Republicans would have supported a policy that would certainly have been rejected by the Gay Liberation Front as being a little too radical? mylesP email: firstname.lastname@example.org
- While I agree with the benefits of circumcision, it is still debated whether it is healthier and more beneficial. Nevertheless, I agree that a better term can be used to describe circumcision. ColinR 17:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
- How about topping the asparagus, trimming the cigar, uncowling the capuchin monk?... mylesP email@example.com
- Circumcision, if beneficial, is beneficial in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS among promiscuous people who refuse to use condoms. Abstinence until marriage and monogamy after marriage (assuming your husband/wife does the same) is a much safer way to prevent HIV/AIDS. Baring that, condoms are much more effective than circumcision. So Americans, especially those raised properly, have no “health reason” to be circumcised.
- So, health concerns aside, what would you call having a doctor cut off part of your son’s penis—sure, it’s a religious obligation of the Jews, but the New Testament is quite clear on the subject of circumcision (see Acts 15) circumcision is unnecessary. An unnecessary surgery that removes a very sensitive piece of flesh and that has the potential to castrate a child entirely sounds like mutilation to me.--Reginod 15:15, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
I wish that Ezra Wax and Mountain Dew would explain why they deleted most of the article about Judaism, of which I was the major author. The current version is now far too sort and now lacks important information which was there in previous versions. I realize some of the additions to this article were in need of work, but this doesn't explain deleting the entire article and replacing it with a dumbed-down version.
Boethius 18:56, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Hey, thanks M (whoever you are), the current version is a great step forward, I think. Boethius 11:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
- You're welcome! I just hate seeing inaccurate info. --M 08:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Preposterous examples of stupidity
That the Jews are descendants of Satan, and that the Israelites are the ancestors of the Celts and Germans. Has this been deliberately left in the article, or is it an oversight? The thing I can never really understand is anti-Semitic Christians - Jesus was a Jew and Jews wrote the entire New Testament (let alone the old). Dorpfeld 12:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
- Should there be something telling how the Jews will be converted to Christianity in the end, according to Revelations. Mellie 15:49, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
That is a disgustingly selfish and misguided view. So what if someone doesn't agree with what we think? We should learn to accept other people for who they are. As I read this I think to myself...if Jews are descendants of satan, then that includes Jesus as he was a Jew. That anyone would think that Jews are descendants of satan is a very great example of the stupidity of some people.
some more added
I added some more to the page, hopefully more of a introduction. I'll keep working on it to get a good blurb of judaism.
Jews for Jesus?
I really fail to see why there is a link to "Jews for Jesus" in this entry; someone who claims to be a Jew for Jesus simply is not Jewish. There is a term for anyone who views Jesus as the messiah and believes in the Holy Trinity - that term is Christian.--M 04:46, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
To be fair, so-called Messianic Jews really do consider themselves Jewish, and many started off Jewish, and retain the cultural trapping of Judaism. In other words, they are much like the first Christians, simply a sect of Jews. While not recognized by most mainstream Jews as being "jewish", they self-identify as jewish. For my part, I think they should call themselves something different, like "judeo-christians" or something, but that's neither here nor there.PalMD 16:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Messianic Jews are not Jews for the purpose of any official Jewish function. I can cite a ton of stuff on this; just let me ask my girlfriend, but in the meantime I'm deleting the language or rephrasing it. Oh, also, JFJ were formed by an evangelical Christian minister for the express purpose of converting Jews while convincing them they weren't being converted. True story.-AmesGyo! 16:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Jews became an independent nation when Moses (Moshe) led them out of Egypt
Why is the word "independent" used here? And what are we to make of the Genesis 12:2, God speaking to Abraham, "I will make of thee a great nation"? Didn't Israel become a nation with the birth of Isaac, more specifically a "great nation" with the birth of Jacob (Israel)'s 12 sons, the Patriarchs? RobS 15:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
- I would think probably because a nation enslaved cannot be referred to as a free nation? In the Seder service, it's said that the Hebrews became "a nation, great, mighty and numerous" amidst the Egyptians.--M 17:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
- The Jewish nation is much more than Israel; it is present in many countries. Remarkable Jews are members of this wide nation living in different places. --Joaquín Martínez 03:48, 29 March 2010 (EDT)
The article should be divided into sections. It'd be good to add photos. Ylmw21 23:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Why was the menorah replaced witht the Star of David? Thank you. RobS 15:27, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
Could someone change the 'G-d' in the last paragraph to 'God'? It is silly to use God's name five times in the page, then wrap it up with a 'G-d'. BrianJackson 00:23, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
- Then G-d should be written as such throughout the article. It is a Jewish Article. AniChai 22:18, 12 January 2008 (EST)
- But it's a Christian wiki and country.
I am shocked and appalled by the use of the word 'yahweh' in the quotes from the bible. The article is about judaism and yahweh is a mistranslation of YHWH the letters of the true name of g-d. Any passage attached to judaism should have lord, g-d, adonai or etc instead of 'yahweh' (Shieldofdavid 05:50, 13 June 2008 (EDT))
Shield of David, I'm the offender. Sometines it's hard to know what to do as we're coming, I think, from different frames of reference. In any case, in any future postings here, I'll refrain from writing "Yahweh" in an article itself. I did think of writing an article on Yahweh, and may still do so. But of course this would be a technical, so to speak, article and not a random use of the Name when it need not be used. But here, on this talk page, I'll just note - YHVH appearing in the Bible is from the root of the verb "to be" and that is why the Greek version translated it by "'o ontos" probably best translated "The One who is being" or "the being One". which is why the most common English translation has it "I am who I am" * who sent Moses on his mission. But almost certainly the vowels, which are not in the orginal text, as is the case with Biblical Hebrew, puts the verb in the Hiph'il (those are the vowels that appear in "Yahweh") which is causative, and since the form is causative without reference to time (past, present or future), It probably meant (clumsy in the English but not in the Hebrew) in the context, "I who have brought into being everything that has come into being, and who am bringing into being everything that is coming into being, and who will bring everything into being that shall be brought into being", It is I who am sending you, Moses, so don't be afraid!. Something like that. that's a mighty powerful God!Bert Schlossberg 07:06, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
- Linguistic note - Though the divine name throughout is YHVH which is in the 3rd person singular = "He has, is, shall...", a key passage is Deuteronomy 3 :14 which is in the 1st person singular = " I have, shall...". As I noted, the vowels are not original to the text and the vowels that appear in the masoretic text put it into the Pa'al form making it imply (but not requiring it to be) a non causative sense; and so the words can bear the meaning "I will be whom (or what) I will be..." But knowing that the vowels are a centuries later addition (and interpretation) leave us open to consider the equal possibility, as I have noted, that the form is not Pa"al ("'eh"- 1st syllable) but Hiph'il ("'ah" - 1st syllable), making it causative, rendering the meaning, in this case in Deut. 3:14 first person - I who have brought into being everything that has come into being, and who am bringing into being everything that is coming into being, and who will bring everything into being that shall be brought into being.Bert Schlossberg 08:30, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
I wish to expand of these but it is locked. AniChai 22:18, 12 January 2008 (EST)
What do people think? The main goal would be to acknowledge that Jews are not saved without appearing anti-semitic. We could also mention the general permissiveness of Judaism, the higher rates of secularization, disputing that Jesus was the messiah, circumcision, Purim, etc. This would not be a section to allege stupid conspiracy theories ("Jews control such and such") or to criticize Israel.
- Firstly, I would not call it criticism. We have to tread very lightly and still be respectful and sensitive. Judaism is not viewed in any way as inferior on this site merely because it is not Christianity, and there is a deep bond and shared history between the two. I would put whatever information you feel is noteworthy under different sections as appropriate without bunching it together or making value judgements. After that we can see how it looks. Learn together 12:54, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
I think that Learn together's approach is a very good oneBert Schlossberg 14:18, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
Truly unintended slights
Here I see that people of good will are bumping into other people of good will. On one hand, we see that Jews can be offended by the Christians using the Divine Name in an article on Judaism and elsewhere, seemingly oblivious (but meaning no harm at all) to the fact that to Jews the Name is too holy to pronounce meforash = so explicity. Wasn't it only to actually be said only once a year, and that in the Holy Temple, and that only by the High Priest? On the other hand, we see that reference to God, to the Lord, can be so "casual" as to be written in small letters - g-d, lord, adonai, which seems to Christians strange and somehow demeaning of Him. And yet, Jews would not have intended it demeaningly at all but somehow it happens due to the influence probably/possibly of the Hebrew Language, as well as all semitic languages, namely, these languages have no differing sizes letters, no "Capital letters". All this requires a great deal of understanding of one another.
"They do, however, respect him and consider Jesus to be an ethical person."
REALLY?! I do? ---user:DLerner--- 04:07, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
I pity the poor administrators and editors that have to deal with this question! This is a a hard one. There are so many Jewish views about Jesus, as well as no view at all. There is no uniformity on this question as well as among Jews generally. There is more of a tendency among Reformed Jews, due to the development of Reform Judaism, and there is more of an openness, to embrace Jesus as "one of us", as an ethical teacher, and even a prophetic voice within Judaism. On the other hand, there is more of a rejection of even these views among the orthodox from various streams, even to the avoidance of uttering the name of Jesus, sometimes referring to Jesus as "the man". This is not due, I think, to the religious referencs of Orthodoxy. but due to the various histories of the orthodox dispersions and histories. Yet I remember Dr. David Flusser of Hebrew University, a teacher of Talmud, Greek Classics, and New Testament studies, and an Orthodox Jew himself, saying, in his lectures with many religious Jews present, that Jesus was more than a man, and his being so against the critical liberal Christian scholars who throw out good history in their attempt of "reducing" Jesus. So there is no one single Jewish position about Jesus. Another factor, influencing secular Jews as well as the religious, is the viewing of Jesus, or rather the inability of view Jesus, as He really is, because of the Jewish experience amidst Christendom. of so much that is the total opposite of the goodness of the Lord. Yet, even here, there is also much good of sincere and holy followers of Jesus. The professor I mentioned above, Dr, Flusser, in his native Germany before the holocaust, had the good fortune, as he would tell, of meeting Mennonite Christians would showed him the difference between "Christians" and true followers of Jesus. I think that in the article, it is best to not include the Jewish attitude to Jesus. Only my opinion, not graven in stone.Bert Schlossberg 15:12, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
- I edited the article; is this closer to what you’d think correct?JCSalomon 10:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)
I earlier put in links to http://www.JewsforJudaism and http://www.MessiahTruth.com to try to show the Jewish view of Jesus, but one of the admins didn't like these links, if anything is going to be said about the Jewish view of Jesus wouldn't those sites be essential ? -- 15:31, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
- Deborah, I took a look at/through the MessianicTruth site. I think that it is a decidedly "Jewish view of Missionary to the Jews" site, rather than a "Jewish view of Jesus" site. The view of Jesus that does emerge is more of a counter polemic with very little real view of Jesus coming through. In an expanded Judaism article, the sites you mention probably could go under a subsection or sub-subsection of this article under the title of "Jewish views toward Christian Missionary work" or "Jewish views toward Messianic Jews" but it may be better under an article itself with one of these titles.Bert Schlossberg 03:19, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
- Nobody can help me out? I'm going to remove it to be on the safe side. HelpJazz 19:41, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
- Correct to delete. Justy some anti-Semite parody (Tower Fall) Tawafalla, Sept 11 9am-noon --Jpatt 20:04, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
No, Jewish Holidays follow the Hebrew Calendar (for example Yom Kippur will happen in October some years, and September other years, however it always falls on the 10th of Tishri in the Hebrew Calendar) --Redsox70707 16:04, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
I made some fairly minor, small fixes. Mostly just small factual changes, grammar fixes, or clarification. --Ohniner 16:27, 5 November 2008 (EST)
More representation of traditional Jewish women.
How about candlesticks, a challah (picturewise, I mean)...? You weren't born from thin air, bubbeleh! Man + Woman = Baby. Take woman away and you have the common enemy of Jesus and the Pharisees: Decadent pagan Ancient Rome.--Antinous 23:25, 5 November 2008 (EST)
More representation of traditional Jewish women.
How about candlesticks, a challah (picturewise, I mean)...? You weren't born from thin air, bubbeleh! Man + Woman = Baby. Take woman away and you have the common enemy of Jesus and the Pharisees: Decadent pagan Ancient Rome.--Antinous 23:29, 5 November 2008 (EST)
Life Cycle Section
Bar Mitzvah means son of the commandments, Bat Mitzvah means daughter of the Commandments. Technically, when a boy turns 13, he becomes Bar Mitzvah, a man, responsible for the commandments. There is often a ceremony to celebrate the child becoming Bar Mitzvah, however the ceremony is not called a Bar Mitzvah as the article says. --Redsox70707 16:04, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
- Please see: 
- The term "bar mitzvah" also refers to the religious ceremony that accompanies a boy becoming a Bar Mitzvah. Often a celebratory party will follow the ceremony and that party is also called a bar mitzvah.
Not quite right and doesn't sit well
"Jesus was one of many Jewish teachers who disagreed with the Jewish authorities during his lifetime. He founded a new school of thought, which flourished even after his death and eventually became Christianity."
I think that knowledgable Jews and Christians agree that Jesus saw Himself as being in the line of Jewish tradition and fulfillment of prophesy and the longings for God's Kingdom so prominent in the Hebrew Scriptures. This, all pretty much agree upon, though there is a wide difference of opinion concerning the truth of it. But to say that He "founded a new school of thought" seems to break both the continuity with the Jewish past and the present matrix into which Jesus came, and makes Him into some kind of Greek style thinker or teacher - one of the philosophers. Jesus more had come in conflict with Jewish authorities than "disagreeing" with them (and thus founding a new school of thought). Things were much deeper than that.To say that "the new school of thought eventually became Christianity" strongly implies that Christianity is not original with Jesus but had come about (evolved, developed) into something else than what it was at the start. I would contest thisBert Schlossberg 17:51, 28 June 2009 (EDT)
Spinoza and pantheism
Would this article be improved with a section on Spinozist Judaism?
- What is that? Spinoza was an observant Jew until he was ostracized for his heretical opinions. After that, he had no contact with the Jewish community and arguably he was an atheist. Peto 12:52, 18 May 2011 (EDT)
Branches instead of Denominations
I have changes Denomination to Branches as it is more fitting to the concept in Judaism and is clear to both Jews and Christians. "Denomination" is more familiar and approachable to Christians but is more inexact than "Branch". In Hebrew, "zerem" is often used which bears the understanding of movenent or current and quite close to branch (in our sense).Bert Schlossberg 20:06, 13 December 2009 (EST)
A picture is described as showing a barmitzvah at the Western Wall. I doubt that it shows a barmitzvah. The boy is wearing tefillin, which are not worn on the Sabbath, and two people are taking photos (one in the picture, one taking the picture), which are activities forbidden on the Sabbath. Also, there is no Torah scroll in evidence. Peto 12:48, 18 May 2011 (EDT)