|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 Truthbomber and 207.69.139.**
- 3 What a mess
- 4 Wikipedia does not link to on-line Bible chapters
- 5 Explain please
- 6 Puritan
- 7 Disputed Statement
- 8 Facts of Acts 15
- 9 "Paul publicly condemned Peter ... 1 Cor 9:20–23." ???
- 10 Summary
- 11 Judaizers: Definition
- 12 Merge
- 13 First sentence
- 14 File:20050921circoncisionB.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
- 15 "Distinct uses" section
- 16 Christians needed
There is no need to turn this article into a circumcision rant. It's already mentioned to the extent that it needs to be in the article. Also to call my edits vandalism merely because you disagree with them is absurd. --Starx 03:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This article is not a "circumcision rant." The word "circumcision" occurs only once in the article, and the word "circumcised" also occurs only once. It is an article about important tenets of the Christian faith. The Judaizers were heretics. It is necessary to state the fundamental Christian beliefs in this matter. That is what the article attempts to do.
There are substantive entries regarding circumcision elsewhere on Wikipedia. --Truthbomber.
I think it's clear from your edit history that the circumcision info you added was to further an anti-circ cause and not to add to the relevent content of the article. --Starx 20:02, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Whether or not circumcision should be a religious requirement for Christian males was one of the main points of disagreements between the Judaizers and non-Jewish Christians. The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was held mainly to resolve the circumcision issue. In my opinion one version of the article understates the importance of circumcision as it relates to the Judaizers and the other version over emphasizes circumcision. -- DanBlackham 01:11, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The council was held to settle all sorts of issues between James and Paul, including the requirements on Gentile followers of Jesus; circumcision was one important issue discussed there. Jayjg 01:56, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The important point is that Salvation comes from Grace and Faith, not Works. The entry has been beefed up to put the proper emphasis on these points. This is one area where Christianity differs from Judaism and it is essential to understanding.188.8.131.52
If that's the important point then don't mention all that stuff about circumcision. Not all christians agree that the bible forbids it and this isn't the article to get into that. --184.108.40.206
The article does not say that it is forbidden. After all Paul circumcised Timothy. But Paul does say that one should remain as one is, and he does say several other things against circumcision and that is in relation to justification by faith. --220.127.116.11
- The entry for Judaizers in the Catholic Encyclopedia begins, "A party of Jewish Christians in the Early Church, who either held that circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic Law were necessary for salvation and in consequence wished to impose them on the Gentile converts, or who at least considered them as still obligatory on the Jewish Christians."  Let's all try to work towards agreement. -- DanBlackham 06:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- That's the view of the Catholic Encyclopedia; I don't imagine you think that they present a NPOV. Jayjg 01:56, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have no problem stating that the main dispute was over circumcision, but we don't need to put in the biblical referances to circumcision. Almost every subset of modern christianity agrees that the bible needs to be interpreted. It would be horrendusly POV for wikipedia to hold one interpretation as true. --Starx 17:19, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- You shouldn't compromise, they just want to spill the circ debate onto as many pages as possible. --18.104.22.168
Truthbomber and 207.69.139.**
How is this edit  which removes your personal christian pov considered to be anti-christianity as a whole? I'm christian and I don't agree with your interpretation of the bible, so if anything his/her edits are pro-christianity because they don't exclude anyone. Also you need to participate in this discussion, not just revert people. Refusal to discuss your edits could be considered vandalism, if your interested in bettering the wiki page then you need to participate in the discussion, otherwise please leave. --22.214.171.124
The Catholic Encylopedia entry on "Judaizers" mentions "circumcision" or "circumcised" about 20 times. This was a very important issue. In contrast the Wikipedia mentions it no more than 3 times. I don't think this overemphasizes the issue. Truthbomber
- It's very important to the Catholic author of that Catholic Encyclopedia article; that doesn't mean it was the crux of the original dispute. Jayjg 01:56, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In any event, I am not interpreting the Bible, I am simply reporting what it says. Apparently the Biblical text does not agree with your preconceptions.
If the entry is wrong, you need to provide evidence that it is wrong.
If you can quote were exactly in the bible it says circumcision is bad then fine. But obscure referances to works of the flesh or arranging the body don't count. Unless the bible says the word circumcision, then your belief that that's what it's talking about is an interpretation. --126.96.36.199
It's not appropriate for us to either interpret religion, or promote one mans interpretation, especially when he is non notable. Cirp is a biased anti-circ site and certainly not an acceptable NPOV referance. --188.8.131.52
The anon has a point. Unless you're directly quoting the bible not everyone of a particular religion is going to agree with you. Also I don't believe that the statement that most christians are uncircumcised is accurate, I don't think the issue is of much importance in the modern versions of christianity. But I'm not going to revert, I don't think we need to start a revert war. Truthbomber, do you have any sources commenting on the percentage of christians of the world who are uncircumcised (sources that aren't blantantly anti circumcision)? Because if you don't then I can't see how that comment is anything other then POV. PS, I like how the edit history of the article calls me obviously pro-christian. For the record I'm athiest. --Starx 03:20, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The American Medical Association report Neonatal Circumcision says, "Ritual circumcision is common in the Jewish and Islamic faiths, but uncommon altogether in Asia, South and Central America, and most of Europe."  Since most people in South and Central American and Europe are Christians, I think it is accurate to say most Christians are not circumcised. The exceptions are the United States and to a lesser extent other English speaking countries. Circumcision is not an issue in South and Central American and Europe because male circumcision was never part of their culture. However in my opinion attitudes of modern Christians regarding circumcision are not relevant to this article. -- DanBlackham 07:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The problem is attributing the cause of the circumcision rates. Are they uncircumcised because they are christian? Or is it because circumcision just isn't a common practice that is given any thought in their region? If it's the former then the statement that most christians are uncircumcised belongs in the article, if it's the latter then the statement does not because, while it may be statistically true, it's irrelevent to the article's topic and to put the statement in implies a causal relationship with christianity. Unless a survey specifically considering the reasons for circumcision status can be produced (which I don't believe there is one), then it's POV to include the statement in the article. It looks like you and I agree that this isn't relevent to the article. In the interests of not causeing a revert war I would really like truthbomber to chime in so we get a consensus on this before a change is made. --Starx 17:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- In my opinion circumcision is not an issue for most parents in South and Central American and Europe because circumcision is not part of their culture. However the reason that circumcision is not part of their culture is because early Christian leaders decided that circumcision is not a requirement for Christian males (Acts of the Apostles chapter 15). That decision was in response to the Judaizer's claim that Christians must follow all the Jewish laws, including male circumcision. -- DanBlackham 00:21, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree too, this shouldn't be in the article, but truthbomber is never going to chime in so I'm gonna go ahead and edit it out. --184.108.40.206 17:31, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What a mess
I've done my best to turn this Sunday morning anti-Judaizing circumcision-obsessed sermon into a NPOV encyclopedia article. It would benefit from information about later Judaizing trends as well, particularly among the conversos/marranos of Spain. Jayjg 01:52, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Great job, but I would keep the article on your watchlist, IYKWIMAITYD. --Viriditas 01:58, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Indeed I do. The POV warriors have already attempted to slip in a bunch of irrelevant POV stuff under a deceptive edit title. Jayjg 02:51, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. Your edits are definitly a massive improvement. --Starx 03:07, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Or any other on-line books, etc. Please stop inserting such links. Jayjg 03:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Please provide a citation for this alleged policy.
- Tell you what; when you find any such links, let me know. Jayjg 23:15, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Am I to gather that you have stalked me to yet another article in which I am involved in a content dispute, and have subsquently responded to a 9 month old comment? Jayjg (talk) 21:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It wasn't your Contribs, but ScapegoatVandal's that I was reading up on, but can't say i'm surprised to find another place where you've been involved in revert wars. --Irishpunktom\talk 23:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't feel that the age of a comment is relevant, or that accusations of stalking are helpful. Let's stick to the point. — Chameleon 22:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see a lot of revert back and forth on the subject of puritans, but no discussion of it here. Please do not revert to any version without explaining your reasoning a little here. — Chameleon 18:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Puritans were optimistic Judaizers of recent times, in a belief that the Roman Catholic Church had somehow become apostate without the Jewish customs that Saint Paul of Tarsus worked to extricate from the Faith. A return to Judaic rituals was a large part of the sense of "purifying" the Church from "gentile paganism", a sort of role model for modern people to live and worship as the Judaic Christians were persecuted by pagan Rome. The Puritans believed that they were already living the experiences of the elder people, as they viewed the RCC to be corrupt from within as the old Roman Empire "was". They compared Popes to Roman Emperors. They were the first modern group to allow Jews back into Christendom, in the belief that it may help Puritans meet God easier by having the "Chosen people" among them. See also: Whore of Babylon, Christian Zionism, Fundamentalist Christianity.
- The above can well be reworded, but seems worth including. Sam Spade 01:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Why does it seem worth including, Sam? Is any of it accurate or sourced? It looks like pure POV/conspiracy theory to me. Jayjg (talk) 14:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It's an exploration into history of the Puritan ancestors on my grandmother's side who died young and I want to know more about them, so I contribute more of what I know and am willing to learn about. This is a hallmark of the wikipedia, regardless of your Spin (public relations) profession. ScapegoatVandal 15:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Why does it seem worth including, Sam? Is any of it accurate or sourced? It looks like pure POV/conspiracy theory to me. Jayjg (talk) 14:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but nothing I do to alter the truth will satisfy their lust for ommission. ScapegoatVandal 14:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Statement: "Paul also addressed this question in his Epistle to Galatians in which he condemned those who insisted that Jewish law had to be followed as "false brothers" (Galatians 2:4)"
Correction: Paul condemned those who insisted new converts must be circumcised.
Facts: "But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. " Gal 2:3-10(KJV)
"But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. But because of false believers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us— we did not submit to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you. And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) —those leaders contributed nothing to me. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do." Gal 2:3-10(NRSV)
Facts of Acts 15
"Then certain individuals came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’ And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and the elders. " Acts 15:1-2(NRSV)
"Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood. For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues.’" Acts 15:19-21(NRSV)
"Paul publicly condemned Peter ... 1 Cor 9:20–23." ???
I can't make any sense of this sentence: "Paul publicly condemned Peter for his seemingly ambivalent reaction to the Judaizers, embracing them publicly in places where their concepts were popular while holding the private opinion that the teachings were erroneous, for example 1 Cor 9:20–23."
In every Bible I have, Paul is talking about himself in those verses, saying that he obeyed Jewish law when he was among Jews, because he thought that was the best way to gain as many converts as possible. I think the sentence should probably be deleted. -- 220.127.116.11 12:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
This is one of the most slow-burning summaries I've seen on Wikipedia. I like having oblique intro material in a book that I have committed to reading, but I like getting a nice synoptic nugget right off the top when I look up a word I don't know in an encyclopedia... Eleven even (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The opening sentence is misleading. The definition of Judaizers is Displacement theology. Non-Jewish Christians who call themselves "Spiritual Israel' and adopt Jewish practices like the so-called "Jews for Jesus" are classic examples of Judaizing as defined by the Church fathers. Why has this meaning been totally changed?18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Since there is no other discussion, tag procedure was not followed, and the merge tag does not now appear at "Jewish Christians", I am dropping the merge tag here also. First sentences are essentially correct, though a bit POV, and make clear the difference of topic. "Judaizers refers to those who teach the necessity of obedience to the Torah Laws by Christians, which is normally considered a requisite only for the followers of Judaism, the parent religion of Christianity." "Jewish Christians (sometimes called also "Hebrew Christians" or "Christian Jews") is a term with two meanings, a historical one and a contemporary one. The historical term refers to Early Christians of or attracted to Jewish culture .... The contemporary concept simply refers to individuals of certain Jewish ancestry or heritage, who is an adherent of some form of Christianity and not Judaism." Anyone can Judaize (verb), but only a Christian with Jewish roots can be a Jewish Christian (adjective, noun). Very clearly different concepts. The only reason for merger would be the position of some, mostly Jewish, that Jewish Christians (today) always Judaize, by definition. However, most Jewish Christians in either era, especially including most Jews for Jesus, do not teach necessity of Orthodox-style obedience to Torah for Jews, let alone Christians; many teach grace-based growth into Torah for all. JJB 22:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
This: "Judaizers describes a type of Christian Heretic by Orthodox Jews and Orthodox Christians" is simply not a well-crafted, clear sentence. I have not edited this page and am no expert on the topic so I will not presume to screw around with the first sentence. I just ask active editors here to pause and think about the first sentence a bit. Try to pretend you know nothing about the word or the world in which is is used. I think you will se then what an awkward sentence it is. I am not commenting on the content, I am not asking anyone make a major change. But I suspect that this sentence should either be reorganized or broken into two or three sentences to better introeuce the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
File:20050921circoncisionB.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:20050921circoncisionB.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
"Distinct uses" section
I think the section Distinct uses of the term "Judaizers" is WP:OR. It doesn't have any secondary references, it is some-places far-fetched, such as calling adherents by Gentile Christians to Torah Laws intended for Gentiles, "judaizers" – never ever heard of such a usage: Torah Laws intended for Gentiles is an empty list, unless you interpret it through the Talmud eye-glasses, which Christians never do. I think it should be removed to the discussion page and shrinked till it is
true sourceable. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)