Top

"Theories' multiply fastest where no one reads books. This stub is lazy and irresponsible. For the Nazarenes, a Jewish-Christian sect, even the Encyclopaedia Brittanica suggests that one might begin with Epiphanius, Panarion (xxix.7). Before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE these Jews fled from Jerusalem into Syria. Epiphanius characterizes them as observant Jews pure and simple, but adds that they recognized the new covenant as well as the old, and believed in the resurrection, and in the one God and His Son Jesus Christ.

Jerome's opinion of Nazarenes (Epistle 79, to Augustine) is characteristically narrower and more rigid: they cannot be both Christians, accepting the Messiah as Christ the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rose again etc etc while adhering to circumcision, dietary laws, etc etc. they did not refuse to recognize the apostolicity of Paul or the rights of Gentile Christians (Jerome's commentary on Isaiah, ix. I). See also Ebionites.

It might be good to look into Acts xxiv. 5.

Before doubting the archaeology of Nazareth, one might begin by reading some of it. User:Wetman

"Nazarene" in Matthew ii.23

Here's an anonymous User:203.252.193.217 who passes by and replaces this: "Matthew 2:23 reads that "coming he dwelt in a city said by the prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene", and though no-one has ever identified what prophecy was being referred to here, this again strongly suggests that Matthew meant Nazarene to refer to a place name.

with the following:

Matthew 2:23 reads that "coming he dwelt in a city said by the prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene", though now generally accepted to be a free paraphrase fusion of Isaiah 11:1 and Jeremiah 31:5, this again strongly suggests that Matthew meant Nazarene to refer to a place name.

This use of "generally accepted" is cheap. Does anyone have the patience to pull down these two verses and see what is being said here? Wetman 04:35, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Isaiah 11:1 (RSV) There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots.
Jeremiah 31:5 (RSV) Again you shall plant vineyards upon the mountains of Samaria; the planters shall plant, and shall enjoy the fruit.
- That's some purty free paraphrasin'. -- Nunh-huh 04:44, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Unh-huh! See? The Wetman has a wet nose like a terrier. When the Wetman smells a rat... ;)Wetman 04:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can you do truffles? :)? -- Nunh-huh 04:50, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Check out Truffles in which my hand is detectable! Wetman 04:55, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fiend! Where am I going to find an all-night truffled turkey joint? - Nunh-huh 04:58, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Generally accepted, eh? I've never heard that theory before, and I read a fair bit of biblical commentary, from all parts of the theological spectrum. Time for a spot of reversion - though perhaps my "no-one has ever..." was a bit of a temptation to the weak-minded. BTW does anyone have any idea why this particular page, which has no obvious reason to be anything but a bit of fairly arcane and NPOV textual discussion, seems to generate so much heat? (oh, and did you know that the Northern flying squirrel specialises in truffles?) seglea 04:59, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have replaced

In Matt., ii, 23 we read that "coming he dwelt in a city said by the prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene". No explicit prediction to this effect is to be found in the recorded Old Testament prophecies, however.

with this more emphatic version, unchanged in its connotations however, in order to show why Matthew is being quoted:

The author of Matthew was intent on linking Jesus, as a "Nazarene" with books of prophecy: in Matthew ii, 23 we read that "coming he dwelt in a city said by the prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene". No explicit prediction to this effect has been found, either in the canonical books of the Old Testament nor in the midrash traditions, however.

If anyone want to make a case for Isaiahs tree of Jesse having been intended by the writer of Matthew, it should follow this revised section. Wetman 20:43, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Netzarim material

I have removed the following passage from the External Links section of the page. Wikipedia is not a soap box, and this seems to me to be fairly unambiguous soapboxery. seglea 05:17, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Only the Netzarim - headquartered in Ra'anana, Israel - function within the legitimate Jewish community and its Orthodox beit din system. All others calling themselves self-proclaimed Netzarim are operating outside of the framework of the legitimate Jewish community and its uninterrupted and legitimate succession of the beit din system ordained through Mosheh Rabeinu at Har Sinai. Thus, all others calling themselves Netzarim set themselves up as rivals of the legitimate Jewish community and its Orthodox beit din system. All who displace (or replace) the authority of the legitimate Jewish community and its uninterrupted and legitimate succession of the beit din system ordained through Mosheh Rabeinu at Har Sinai are practicers of Displacement (or Replacement) Theology! Therefore, no group other than the Netzarim (headquartered in Ra'anana, Israel) can possibly be legitimate Netzarim. No web site other than www.netzarim.co.il is a legitimate Netzarim web site."

Merge Needed

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

Done. Jayjg 18:02, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes done a long time before you came along.Zestauferov 19:44, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Uh, no, no merge was done "a long time ago". Your request was made on July 17, and no merge was done between then and August 23. A similar request was made by you on the Nazarene Judaism Talk: page on July 17 as well. As a result, the material in the two pages had considerable overlap. This has now been solved. I hesitated doing the work, fearing you would revert any edits of mine out of hand, but after over 3 weeks with no work, I decided to take a couple of hours and do it. I see now my fears were justified. In any event, if you think a different merge was done, please point it out. Jayjg 20:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The version dated 20:25, 23 Aug 2004 includes all the relevant info.Zestauferov 20:28, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The merge was carried out on 10:30, 9 Aug 2004 and has been in clean-up since that time. With regards to the Nazarene Judaism page, Wetman redirected the Nazarene Judaism page here on 16:50, 10 Aug 2004 but for some unfathomable reason you reverted his edit at that time. If you wish to remove some fact, please copy and paste the disputed item to this talk page and state your sources providing the contradiction you have found. Zestauferov 20:29, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Please stop the revert war. Come to some sort of middle ground if possible, otherwise put it to vote. --Ignignot 21:12, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Actually I'd requested mediation on this long ago, but hadn't made much progress. Jayjg 14:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The request for middle ground is posted above but Jayig has always ignored such requests. check the history of Nazarene Judaism to see how he blatently disregarded all initial requests for an explanation and waited until the fire was kindled before comming to the table. I will re-iterate the statement one more time though. Jayig, if you think fact should be removed, please copy and paste the disputed item to this talk page and state your sources providing the contradiction you have found. This is the usual civil way rather than the slash and burn approach which always rubs someone the wrong way.Zestauferov 21:22, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Jayig, you have deliberately ignored my request for you to discuss the parts you delete here first. In good faith I will not revert again (because Ignignot has requested so) but will instead wait for you to do exactly this. Yes there was a lot of redundancy, but there has also been a lot thrown out with the redundancy which for the sake of civility you should explain.Zestauferov 16:35, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

I will give you a tip on how to use wiki because it seems you are unaware of some of its functions, you can find the changes you have made highlighted in red by using the history pages to compare between my last edit and the current version. These are the changes I am commenting on ALL OF THEM -not just deletions but additions also- spelling and linking etc. excepted. Please address them one by one below, and lets see what kind of consensus we can come to.Zestauferov 17:16, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

I know the be bold rule, but surely you are aware that when someon who has acted "boldly" is asked to explain their changes point by point they are not supposed to shirk. So please for the third time now talk me through each and every one of your additions & deletions. Thanks.Zestauferov 14:06, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Well I suppose I do have to keep repeating myself. The request was that you explain everything if you do not then the revert war is back on. I have asked you to explain yourself more times now than you have asked for specifics. I have told you where you can find the specifics -EVERYTHING IN RED. I am being specific. Now stop being lazy and deal with the request.Zestauferov 16:58, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Everything in Red" is meaningless; because the article has been re-organized, much of it is now "in Red". If you have nothing you specifically object to (and as yet you have not been able to name a single specific example), then I recommend leaving the article as is. Revert wars are strongly not recommended in Wikipedia. Jayjg 17:34, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well use your common sense trhen. If it is red because it has been moved then state so from line??? to line??? etc..Zestauferov 17:51, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You want me to count lines now? Please use your own common sense. Jayjg 17:53, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wow. Jayjg, I'm trying to be neutral here, but it would go a long way to cooling things down if you voluntarily reverted to where it was before you edited, then incrementally added the changes with several edits instead of just one, with a small blurb about each one. Use your discresion as to how big each edit should be. That way Zestauferov can look at the history and address specific changes. I know the edits are somewhat extensive, so it might take 20 minutes or so, but the whole problem is that the edits are too monolithic. The be bold rule is well and good, but every rule has its exceptions. The rule assumes that if there is a problem with being too bold, later on people will discuss the changes and find a middle ground. Right now there are problems with discussing your changes, so the process isn't working correctly. After your revert and edits, the page will be just like it is now, only it will be much easier to follow your reasoning. --Ignignot 18:18, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

The edits are indeed extensive, and re-doing them in the way you suggest would take several hours, not 20 minutes. However, I have listed all the significant edits I can find below; that alone took 45 minutes. Some small re-wordings, grammar and tense changes, typo fixes, etc. may have been missed. Have at it. Jayjg 19:05, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sections concerning "Pre-Christian Nazarenes" moved to historical section

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

This section was moved higher, to be with the rest of the historical information. Comments? Jayjg 18:24, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes indeed, though comments are consistently ignored. The alleged pre-existence of the Nazorean sect is the agenda here. It is not a fact until some text, or some mention by a contemporary can be adduced. Epiphanius does not "confirm the existence of their heresy before the Christian period"-- does he even make the claim? "Notzrim came simply to mean Christians" Where is notzrim used in the sense "Christians"? This is a statement of the agenda not of actual history. Wetman 19:40, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I had already removed it entirely (see below), for precisely the reasons you mention. Jayjg 20:13, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Jerome and "Nazareans" of Syria

St. Jerome on the other hand wrote that he received permission from the Nazaraeans at Beraea of Syria to translate their "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" into Greek. He criticized their original for containing matter which would be damaging to Christianity.

This information was moved from the bottom to the top historical section as well, and combined with other information about Jerome. Comments? Jayjg 18:31, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jerome himself is not the issue. His testimony may be adduced on more than one point. However, by removing his statements from their context, and assembling them together as "Jerome's statements" are we being prepped to see them removed ("cleaning" is the cover phrase) as "not germane" to the new agenda? Wetman 19:40, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, I was just trying to put related statements together. There really was no "context" for the latter Jerome claims; it was just more of the agenda based material you objected to immediately above. But in line with your other comments, where exactly does Jerome say this? What exactly does he say? I don't think he describes the material as "damaging to Christians"; that sounds like more of the agenda based stuff you've already referred to. By the way, what do you think the "new agenda" is? Jayjg 20:13, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've found references for the Theodoret and Jerome quotes, and given them a context. Jayjg 21:30, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Standardized usage changes

"Jesus", "Yeshoshua", "Ribi Yehoshua" etc. all standardized on Jesus. Comments? Jayjg 18:37, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The problem with this is that it covers up the fact that the netzarim and certain other movements like the Messianic Renewed Judaism all vehemently reject Jesus as an icon of christianity. Thus to use that name is misrepresentation of their beliefs.Zestauferov 06:51, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of how they understand or reconstruct Jesus, the underlying figure represented is still Jesus, and this is the relevant Wikipedia terminology. Jayjg 07:07, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also careful about general knowledge. The point is that Jesus is an icon in common understanding not a historical figure and virtually everything that name stands for is rejected by these groups. The Name Jesus comes from Zeus as far as I have heard. The "underlying figure represented" has been proven to have originally been called Jehoshua from comparison with the septuagint and a passage from Acts 7:45 with the rest of the christian scriptures. Other scholastic work has proven that he was a rabbi and that he was a halakhic Jew.Zestauferov 13:38, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

"Nazarene Judaism", "The Netzarim", "The Netzarim movement", "Netzarim" all standardized on "The Netzarim movement", and beliefs attributed to the movement, not to specific individuals (e.g. "Netzarim do not" changed to "The Netzrim movement does not"). Comments? Jayjg 18:37, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your standardisation is not complete. Also, although the netzarim movement was historically, and in recent years too, the first Nazarene Judaic movement, there are now since that time a plethora of christian groups which have sprung up very recently classifying themselves with the term Nazarene Judaism. The text does not make this clear enough. for example. line 46 ":"Nazarene Judaism maintains a belief in Y'shua as the Messiah. We do not leave the Jewish identity, heritage and culture to "convert" to a new or foreign religion." [2]" is presented as if it were part of the same movement. since it comes under the headding Netzarim. This is a misleading, obviously stemming from your miscomprehension of the movement in question.Zestauferov 06:51, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Well then if ou admit ignorance on where to draw the lines why do you attempt to draw the lines at all? Zestauferov 13:38, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Scripture

Netzarim use the complete and original Hebrew Tanakh & Mishnah. Having rejected the "New Testament" as null, they do however acknowledge the reconstructed Hebrew Matityâhu (in place of the synoptic gospels which they reject) as their only trustworthy guide to the life of the Chasidic Ribi Yehoshua. Besides this they also refer to Ma•avâr the reconstructed Hebrew book of Acts, and the reconstructed works of Yokhânân "Bên-Rōgêz" Bar-Zavdi•eil including Ha-Hitgalut (the unveiling) instead of John and the Apocalypse of John. They do not consider any of theses as "gospel" but rather take a scholastic approach to critically analyse any relevant early Christian writings. They use the Yemenite Baladi liturgy.

was changed to

The movement uses the complete and original Hebrew Tanakh and Mishnah. While it rejects the "New Testament", it has created several "reconstructed" Hebrew works, including

a Gospel called Matityâhu (viewed as the only trustworthy guide to the life of Jesus),
the Ma•avâr, based on the Book of Acts, and
Ha-Hitgalut, (the unveiling) based on the Apocalypse of John (who they call Yokhânân "Bên-Rōgêz" Bar-Zavdi•eil).

The movement does not consider any of these works as "gospel" but rather take a scholastic approach to critically analyse any relevant early Christian writings.

The language was tightened and made clearer, formatting improved, some stuff NPOVd, and Yemenite Baladi liturgy information was moved to the area which talks about Rabbis and synagogues. Comments? Jayjg 18:49, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How can you say the phrase "...it has created several "reconstructed" hebrew works..." is NPOV?Zestauferov 19:09, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The term "reconstructed" is one the group uses, but it is not clear what it means, so I merely quoted them. Jayjg 21:02, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reconstructed means just that. Your English is otherwise very good, If I had realised before it could have saved much misunderstanding. Zestauferov 01:05, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In any event, in order to accomodate your objections, I've just made it clear that the movement uses this term, and left it at that. Jayjg 02:59, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reconstructed can mean a number of things; what do you think the movement means in this case? Jayjg 02:10, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From context it almost certainly means "rebuilt from surviving material, possibly with some addition and interpolation"

Matityahu is a biographical record not a gospel and is not considered such. Why did you feel you had to put that phrase in?Zestauferov 19:11, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Matityahu, is the name they give to the reconstructed Q based upon ideas that that document was in fact Hebrew Matthew -as far as I understand. Scholars believe in fact that the Gospels were based upon it and not the other way around.Zestauferov 01:03, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Founding paragraph

The Netzarim were re-discovered by former Baptist minister Clint Van Nest who published about them in 1972. He and his wife renounced Christianity and all its works to follow a Jewish way of life and he re-named himself Yiremeyahu ben David in 1983. He moved to Israel in 1985 upon conversion to Orthodox Judaism and re-established the current Ger Tzedek manifestation of the Netzarim movement with himself as Judge (Paqid). Following this sequence of events, various messianic Judaic sects adopted the name Nazarene Judaism for themselves, though the dogma they follow places them firmly under the Notzrim category (see above) and not within the Netzarim frame.

was changed to

The Netzarim movement was founded by former Baptist minister Clint Van Nest who published about them in 1972. He and his wife renounced Christianity and all its works to follow a Jewish way of life and he re-named himself Yiremeyahu ben David in 1983. He moved to Israel in 1985 upon conversion to Orthodox Judaism and established what he described as a Ger Tzedek manifestation of the Netzarim movement with himself as Judge (Paqid).

The word "re-discovered" was changed to "founded" because Van Nest did not "discover" a group of Jews living as "Netzarim" in Israel, but rather founded a movement with him as the head. The language in the rest of the paragraph was tightened. The last sentence was removed, as it was a POV polemic against other movements which are not actually described in the article. Comments? Jayjg 18:42, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Maybe "refounded" would be a better word, as it was founded before, disappeared (from what I read here) and then was founded again. --Ignignot 13:27, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

"Refounded" seems an unwarranted NPOV claim; we know little about the original movements, and they have not existed for at least 1,600 years. The assertion that this modern group is a re-creation of the original group is an assertion that is not supported by the facts. Jayjg 17:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Founded" is even worse because it seems to say that he founded the group in modern times that was active thousands of years ago; that is noncausal. Instead maybe "founded a group under the same name" or something like that. --Ignignot 18:37, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph is in the modern section; have you looked at it again in context? I don't think the implication you are worried about is there. Jayjg 19:05, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The original indicated that he was the first to discover the forgotten Nazarene Jewish movement originated with a group called the netzarim and that he published about this in 1972. Following publication he started to live according to Halakha and Torah and eventually was converted to Judaism in 1983. At that time he re-established the netzarim beth din (NB in accordance with halakhic requirements this could only be IF he had made a thorough search and confirmed that the Beth Din which could judge him accurately did not exist) but since that time many messianic movements have called themselves Nazarene Judaism. There is also a very important distinction made between Notzrim and Netzarim.Zestauferov 19:21, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean he "discovered" this? Where did he "discover" this, and how? Why do you think it was "forgotten"? Was he an archeologist or historian who discovered buried artifacts or ancient manuscripts, and translated them and published his work in some recognized journal? As for "very important distinction", I'm sure Van Nest thinks it's important in order to "prove" that his movement is "valid" and the others are not, but I'm not sure how it is "important" to the reader. Jayjg 21:05, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Any clear distinction is important to readers, but it seems now you are finally starting to get the picture.Zestauferov 01:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your response is a Non sequitur; please answer the questions. Jayjg 02:15, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Deleted stuff

"Theodoret wrote that the Nazaraeans were Jews who knew the messiah as a righteous man, and used the "Gospel According to Peter". "

This was deleted, as it didn't make a lot of sense, seemed to repeat other information, and in any event was unattributed (the work and section were not named, merely the author). Jayjg 18:51, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough lets see if we can find a source mentioning something like this on the net. Theodoret Nazaraeans "Gospel According to Peter" in Google should do it.Zestauferov 19:33, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If there is a description by the 5th century Theodoret of Nazareans, it should be quoted, then discussed in its historical context. The assumption is that Theodoret was simply parroting what he had read and had never seen any document produced by or for a Nazarene. That assumption would be mentioned in an authentically neutral assessment.Wetman 19:40, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Nazirites/Nazeiraios/Naziraios Nazirites were Jews who had taken special vows of dedication to the Lord whereby they abstained from alchohol and grape-products, cutting their hair, and approaching corpses for a specified period of time. At the end of the period they were required to immerse themselves in water."

This section was deleted, as relevant the information was already given earlier in the article. I saw the part about immersing as overly detailed, and left it out entirely. Comments? Jayjg 18:53, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lets put the immersing back in.Zestauferov 19:33, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why, but O.K. Jayjg 02:06, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"They do not count any Netzarim Judges (Paqidim) outside of Jerusalem prior to James the Just, neglecting even Jochanan the Immerser (John the Baptist) and Yehoshua/Jesus, whom he supported. Nor do they count any Paqidim after their expulsion from Jerusalem in 135 CE, until the post 1980's manifestation. They are distinguished from the Notzrim in that they reject Pauline Notzrim dogma, appearing more Pharasaical and looking to James Halophai (Cleophas/Alpheus) the "brother" of Yehoshua as their founder. Netzarim also distinguish themselves from a Rome-oriented sect (called?) present in Jerusalem which split from them in 135CE. The first bishop of this new era and sect was called Marcus. Under the influence of such hellenized Israelites & their cousin nations the orthodox Jewish structures in Jerusalem had been successfully dismantled and the Netzarim fled Jerusalem."

This section was deleted. The language was very confused, the point was difficult to understand, it was highly POV, used specialized terminology, mixed modern day and historical information, and in any event seemed too detailed and esoteric. Comments? Jayjg 18:56, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lets put it back in and clean it up to make more sense.Zestauferov 19:33, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"It is not known if there were ever any Notzrim Paqidim (clerics). In Arabic they were known as Nasara."

These sentences removed. The first contradicts other sections, which describes a Paqid as a "judge" not a "cleric", and in any event tells us nothing. The second seems irrelevant, since they were not written about in Arabic until several hundred years after the movement disappeared. Jayjg 19:01, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How about putting it back and standardising the term. It tells us that while the Netzarim had paqidim, there is no record that the notzrim did -a very important distinction. Zestauferov 19:33, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

I don't follow you. Are you still confusing ancient netzarim with ancient notzrim?Zestauferov 00:59, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Well for one point the Nasaraioi eventually evicted the Nazoraioi from Jerusalem in 135CE.Zestauferov 02:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Other changes

"The term is also used by a number of other groups, mostly very small," "very" changed to "equally".

where is your evidence for their size?Zestauferov 18:30, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have not stated their size, I have merely changed "very" to "equally". If you want I can change it back to "very". The section was written by the admin Ed Poor, not by me. Jayjg 18:38, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't make much sense for it to be equally, because you are saying that there are many groups, most of which are the same size and small? or that they are the same size as the group previously mentioned, sometimes? Personally I would get rid of the whole "mostly very small" phrase because it serves little purpose. But anyway, something like this is grammar and isn't a big deal - just don't worry if someone else changes it later. Keep your comments to big moves / rewords of entire sentences / paragraphs. --Ignignot 18:44, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

The meaning is that the other groups are also small, like the first group mentioned. The various groups are indeed small, generally restricted to one "congregation" in one location; this is a relevant fact about them. Jayjg 18:57, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The point is you arwe claiming to have some (quite detailed it seems now) knowledge about their size which makes you capable of discussing their size. This is the second time I am asking now where is your evidence for all of this about the size of their congregations? Zestauferov 06:35, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Again, the article claim is not mine. If you have accurate information regarding the size of the movements, please feel free to enter it into the article instead. Jayjg 07:12, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zestauferov you're asking for an unreasonable amount of information - this is a free encyclopedia, not a thesis dissertation. --Ignignot 12:56, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Ignigot if you read the discussion on Talk:Nazarene Judaism you will see that I am only asking what Jayig himself would expect. The request is quite reasonable. Jayig claims to know that the groups in question are equal in size -also that he knows they are limited to single congregations. I would like to know upon which data he is basing this. Doesn't the fact that this is an encyclopaedia makes it all the more important that we can provide a source for the info presented upon request? If the source is not fourthcomming following this third request then it will be re-phrased. Equally small in size indicates special knowledge which should not have been claimed if non existant.Zestauferov 13:22, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Equally small groups" doesn't necessarily mean they are exactly the same size. Small implies a comparison (in this case to a normal group size) and the groups are relatively small in comparison to normal, but in comparison to each other they are about the same. Of course getting rid of "equally" would result in the same meaning and remove the basis for this argument.

Also I cringe to see so many adverbs modifying a minor note about group size; "mostly equally" just doesn't sound right. Most articles in wiki have many overly worded sentences. This is because sometimes, when they write, people have a tendancy, strange as it is, to create sentence structures that are convoluted. The previous sentence would be much better as "People sometimes have a strange tendency to write convoluted sentence structures." Direct writing is both clearer and shorter, which are good things. --Ignignot 14:07, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

I've removed any reference at all to the movements sizes. Jayjg 17:39, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

~~Please continue the documentation of your changes. Zestauferov 06:35, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)~~

As far as I can tell the documentation is complete; see earlier comments above. Jayjg 07:10, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Version Conflict

Jayig your edits conflicted while I was finishing the clean up. Please enter your minor additions again in the correct places. I am referring to your adding in of a section on Nazirites if it has not already been dealt with and the clarification of the size issue as per your latest evidence. The Theology section which needs a title. The Inclusion of Orthodoxy claims. And your small copyedits..Zestauferov 02:13, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zestauferov, your edits conflicted so they were unfortunately over-written. In any event, you still have not raised any significant objections to the text as is. If you have any please raise them here. Jayjg 02:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How could all of my minor edits be over written? How long were you editing? You should put in the points I outlined above one more time. Try to do it one step at a time as Ingingot has suggested so that they are easier to find. I started working on the first erdit at about 01:00 and finished 01:22, 27 Aug 2004. What time did you start? It cannot have been much after 01:42, 27 Aug 2004. Wouldn't it have been courteous to have waited to see when the small edits finished? Zestauferov 02:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I had a close look at the changes you made dated 02:04, 27 Aug 2004 and you essentially reverted my last several edits. This was not just a version conflict. Why did you do this?Zestauferov 02:43, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Keeping track of text that is being removed

Under the guise of correcting POV, and linking up ancient Nazarenes with modern-day revivals, and "eliminating" duplicated text, material is disappearing. Better keep an eye out. Wetman 01:30, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wetman I would appreciate it if you could keep watch if you have time. I am waorried tabout the same thing. Zestauferov 02:06, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Wetman, I'd appreciate if you could help out here, I am concerned as well. Jayjg 02:18, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jayig you were the one who made the massive changes in the first place which I was trying to revert to save info being lost.

No info has been "lost"; all deleted material has been listed here, and you have raised no objections to its deletions. Jayjg 02:52, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The way I see it the original info simply needed reorganising to first highlight redundancy and then in a second edit remove it if it was indisputably wrong. Massive edits are best carried out in small steps so missing into can be easily pinpointed as Ingingot pointed out. If such needs replacing it can easily be tracked down.Zestauferov 02:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I understand your preferred method, but I have accomodated you in every way, listing every edit made as asked. After acceding to your demand to do so, and discussing and agreeing to all changes with you, and then modifying the text to incorporate your views, it is highly unreasonable now for you to do a massive revert. Jayjg 02:52, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I only suggested that Jayjg do several smaller edits because I thought that it would eliminate the need for much of this discussion. If he wants to write it all out, that's fine too, its his time to spend. --Ignignot 13:19, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I wrote it all out, the edits were all discussed, and then after the discussion they were wholesale reverted without discussion. I consider that bad faith at best. Jayjg 13:23, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree, I was under the impression that zest would not revert. Since none of the edits have "revert" in their title it is hard to see which ones are reverts, so I apologize zest if you have not reverted. Wetman for the sections in contention please come here for discussion, also jayjg please add a disputed tag so that people will know to come here to talk about the article before reverts or big edits. In particular Wetman look at the talk sections about what jayjg has deleted, this isn't vandalism.

Just to note, here is the record of the changes that Zestauferov suddenly made [3] . These changes are, if anything, even more extensive than the ones I made originally, and which Zestauferov so strongly objected to. Jayjg 16:05, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is vandalism. The first "revert" I was accused of was a version conflict as was one other. The other reverts were revert because if you check the times on the entries of both article and talk pages you will see that Jayig knew exactly what he was doing and was blatantly making a mockery of the whole situation. I do not know why my typing revert did not come out in the summary bar perhaps it was something to do with version conflict or a bu on my computer. The point Ignignot is that I followed your advice, I let hie do what he wanted and then I went through the old version to bring back lost infoand correct the mistakes made so that they would be clear for all to see. I did not expect such a childish game from Jayig. Zestauferov 14:30, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you should go through the same process with your changes as Jayjg has been going through, and for anything beyond grammar list your reasons for making the change on this page for comment. --Ignignot 16:06, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Actually I began working on some edits, which took me a couple of hours real-time, and when I went to put them in, I discovered that you had made these [4] extensive reverts which essentially undid everything we had agreed to. I simply put my edits in, and continued to work on the article; your regular reverts of my work had nothing to do with the agreed to text in the Talk: page. Jayjg 16:05, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zestauferov's edits

My edits are easy to see but I will link them here for questions and comments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazarene&diff=5469038&oldid=5468979

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazarene&diff=5469236&oldid=5469038

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazarene&diff=5469322&oldid=5469236

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazarene&diff=5469359&oldid=5469322

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazarene&diff=5469515&oldid=5469359

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazarene&diff=5469551&oldid=5469515

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazarene&diff=5469580&oldid=5469551

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazarene&diff=5469583&oldid=5469580

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazarene&diff=5469625&oldid=5469583

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazarene&diff=5469665&oldid=5469625

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazarene&diff=5469710&oldid=5469665

The difference between my last minor edit and the following...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazarene&oldid=5469777

...is very small, but because Jayig pretended to have been working on one monumental edit the whole time I was working on all these (while in fact he was just waiting to revert my efforts) it looks like a big change. There was a version conflict which I imagined was very small since I had been just working on it hence the reversion of Jayigs efforts. Then you can see I followed this by a request for him to re-insert his new changes in the new and final format. This is turning into a farce the issue is simple and it is disgusting to see what it is turning into.Zestauferov 06:29, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can you please explain your reasoning in making each of these edits, as you demanded of me? The current situation is that at least three editors are working quite amicably on the current version of the article, which, as a result is in much better shape than it has ever been. You are the odd man out. Jayjg 02:46, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Size information

I have removed previous speculations of other authors that the movement is "very small", and replaced it with the NPOV statement that there exists no evidence the movement consists of more than a few dozen individuals. Comments? Jayjg 02:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NPOV would be "evidence needs to be found to make any accurate claims about the size of the movement."Zestauferov 02:24, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

However since the talk page is the right place for you to present such evidence your placement of your current state of knowledge in the article is out of place.Zestauferov 02:45, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is no evidence that these movements consist of more than a few dozen individuals; you have been asked many times to produce any, yet refuse to do so. The point is entirely factual and NPOV. If you have any evidence that the movements are larger, please, as you have been asked repeatedly, bring it forward. Jayjg 02:54, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Don't lie. I have made no claims you are the one making a claim. You are the one who has been asked again and again to produce evidence. No evidence = no comment possible. There is no evidence that the movement is larger thaan a few doxen individuals is EXACTLY the same as saying there is no evidence that the movement is smaller than a few thousand individuals. I have no idea baout their numbers and have never stated anywheree anything that someone else has not stated before me on the same talk page. I challenge you to proove that I have even once made a claim about their size and been asked to produce evidence about it anywhere on wiki. It is YOU who are making the claims and YOU who has been asked for evidence.Zestauferov 03:01, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Claims of Orthodoxy - NPOV

I have considerably expanded the theology section, and in particular pointed out where the "Netzarim" movement's theology agrees with and disagrees with those of other faiths. I have also included its claim that the movement is recognized as an Orthodox Jewish group. Jayjg 02:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Could you detail here the points you want to include so that they may be added to the cleaned up format please?Zestauferov 02:25, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The format was already cleaned up, and the points are clearly in the article. Jayjg 02:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jayuig what is the meaning of your edit dated 02:46, 27 Aug 2004 are you deliberately trying to provoke by ignoring all protest in this talk page from 02:13, 27 Aug 2004 which you have obviously seen?Zestauferov 02:51, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No protest remains; please list any that do. Jayjg 02:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I accepted the state that the article was following the last perio of discussion on 22:29, 26 Aug 2004 and made a series of easily traceable minor changes so that you or anyuone else could follow what protests were remaining. You have just covered it up again. I will take the time to go through your edits again later.Zestauferov 03:04, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wholesale reverts and major changes are not the same as "easily traceable minor changes". Since you have continually insisted that all changes should be discussed here before entering them, then you should model that behaviour by doing so. Anything else would be hypocritical. Jayjg 13:26, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Theology and claims of Orthodoxy

The section now reads:

The movement finds itself at odds with both Judaism and Christianity. Judaism almost universally rejects the concept that the coming of the Jewish Messiah was realized with the birth of Jesus, while Christianity overwhelmingly regards Jesus as being more than a man (see Trinity and Christology). And while the movement's combination of Jewish ritual and belief that Jesus is the Messiah is characteristic of Messianic Judaism, most Messianic Jewish groups share Christian theology, and insist that Jesus was God incarnate, part of the Trinity. The movement's view of Jesus accords most closely with those of Unification Church and Islam, which they support the idea of Jesus' non-Trinitarian humanity along with his claim to Messiahship, yet the affinity remains on the theological level and there are no relationships between these faiths and the Netzarim movement. Instead, Van Nest insists that regardless of its belief that Jesus is the Messiah, the movement is accepted by Orthodox Judaism as a legitimate Orthodox Jewish group.

This section describes both the similarities and differences the movement's theology has with those of other religious movements, as well as its claim to be accepted as Orthodox. As far as I can tell it is entirely factual and NPOV. Comments? Jayjg 02:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Section removed for discussion in Talk:

Netzarim / Nazoraios (Branches)

The term Netzarim (Hebrew) means "Branches" and was rendered Nazoraios in Greek. The towns of Nazareth and Netzarim both deive their names from this meaning. To be absolutely precise, any descendant of Israel's king David belongs to the netzarim, the term being an designation of royal pedigree rather than any religious sub-category. The modern netzarim beth-din in Israel who use this term as a self designation wile acknowledging the facts of the matter. Thus literal netzarim have continually been in existence since the demise of Jechonia upto the present most of whom who are aware of their descent being also still Jewish, and not associated with the Jehoshua Movement. The modern Netzarim have been based mostly in Israel and accept Yehoshua (Pandera) Ben Yosef Ben David (whom they see as the historical personality behind the Christian Jesus) as a Messianic figure and as a legitimate rabbi, but not as God.

Epiphanius however was under the impression that the original Netzarim Jews (Greek Nazoraios) should be classified as Christians and he called them Nazoraeans. This has been taken to suggest that a significant body of netzarim Jews had become central to a Jewish Jehoshua Movement who took their self-designation after them. They were evicted from Jerusalem in 135 CE and forced into conformity with the Holy Roman Empre in 333. By 370 CE Epiphanius wrote that only a few rare Nazoraeans were still to be found, and these were in Upper Egypt and beyond Arabia. Thus they may have had some late connection to the Arabic Sabians who preceded Islam and considered themselves to be living in the messianic era. Harvey Falk (NY 1985) argues convincingly that they were nothing more than a Davidic branch of Judaism building on Hillel's Noahide mission to the Gentiles in an attempt to bring about the Messianic Era.

I'm removing this section from the article, as it duplicates and sometimes contradicts other materials on the page, is mostly unattributed (aside from various names), is highly POV, mixes modern day and ancient material, riddled with spelling and grammatical errors, and is fairly incomprehensible. If there's anything that can be salvaged from it and inserted into the article, have at it. Jayjg 03:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Notzrim

I have removed the ==Notzrim / Nasaraioi (Watchers)/ Jewish Christians== section, below:

The original Nasoraean/Notzarim sect pre-dated the common era by at least a century but is thought to have eventually exerted its influence over the Jesus movement. Epiphanius calls them Nasaraeans (Nasaraioi) distinguishing them from Nazoraeans (Nazoraioi) and confirms the existence of their heresy before the Christian period. From the end of the 1st century onwards, Notzrim came simply to mean Christians. Famous Notzri of the pre-Christian era (who lived during the reign of King Yannai -Alexander Jannnaeus) include a rebellious student mentioned in the Baraitas as Yeishu (Ha-Notzri) and his followers. Epiphanius says it was unlawful for them to eat meat or make sacrifices. According to him they were Jews only by nationality who lived in Gilead, Basham, and the Transjordan. They revered Moses but believed he had received different laws from those acredited to him. They also disparaged the Christian books as fiction. In the Mishnah they are often refered to as Minim and are frequently been connected with the Mandaeans [5] and Naaseni/Naasenians/Naassenes but at any rate they were certainly a Gnostic sect. Thesedays however the term is most commonly used to refer to Messianic Jews.

After the word "Christian" had become established as the standard term for the followers of Jesus, there appear to have been one or more groups calling themselves "Nazarenes", perhaps because they wished to lay claim to a more authentic and/or a more Jewish way of following Jesus. Descriptions of groups with this title are given by the fourth century church father Epiphanius (flourished 370 CE), and Jerome. On the basis of their accounts, the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1911 stated definitely that the name Nazarenes specifically identified an obscure Jewish-Christian sect, existing at the time of Epiphanius.

Epiphanius gives the more detailed, though thoroughly disapproving, description, calling the Nazarenes neither more nor less than Jews pure and simple. He mentions them in his Panarion (xxix. 7) as existing in Syria, Decapolis (Pella) and Basanitis (Cocabe). According to Epiphanius they dated their settlement in Pella from the time of the flight of the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, immediately before the siege in 70 CE. He describes them as those "...who accept Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old Law." Epiphanius adds, however, that they recognized the new covenant as well as the old, and believed in the resurrection, and in the one God and His Son Jesus Christ. He cannot say whether their christological views were identical with those of Cerinthus and his followers, or whether they differed at all from his own.

Jerome (Epistle 79, to Augustine), on the other hand, says that though the Nazarenes believed in Christ the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rose again, desiring to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither the one nor the other. He wrote that he received permission from those at Beraea of Syria to translate their "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" into Greek, and criticized it for containing matter which would be damaging to Christianity. He said they used the Aramaic Gospel of the Hebrews, but, while adhering as far as possible to the Mosaic economy as regarded circumcision, sabbaths, foods and the like, they did not refuse to recognize the apostolicity of Paul or the rights of Gentile Christians (Jerome's Commentary on Isaiah, ix. I). Jerome's description, taken along with the name (cf. Acts 24:5) and geographical position of the sect, strongly suggest that the Nazarenes of the 4th century interacted with the Ebionites in spite of Epiphanius' distinction.

These two references are all we know of groups calling themselves Nazarenes in the early centuries of the church. Earlier church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Origen and Eusebius mention groups who, to varying extent, accepted Jesus as Messiah while continuing to observe the Jewish Law. It is often suggested that these are the same as the groups identified by Jerome and Epiphanius as Nazarenes, but that can only be speculation. One such group were the Ebionites, referred to in second century writings; Epiphanius draws a distinction between Nazarenes and Ebionites (he is even more disapproving of the latter). Some scholars have argued that there was no real distinction, but again this can only be speculation since there is no documentary evidence.

As you will note, it essentially duplicates the information contained in the "Patristic" section immediately above it. It, in fact, appears to be a POV re-write of the original material (the original material was no doubt copied from some public domain encyclopedia). While the original material is well attributed, giving book names and sections for each of its statements, the inserted material is un-attributed; see, for example, the last paragraph, which mentions the names of authors without quoting or referencing their work. It also repeats information, makes unsupported claims, contradicts some of the material in the previous "Patristic" section, introduces terminology and idiosyncratic spellings which are nowhere referenced or explained (e.g. Nasoraean/Notzarim, Nasaraeans, Nasaraioi) and in general seems designed to tie the ancient Nazarenes to the modern "Netzarim" movement, and prove that Nazarenes existed before Jesus. Jayjg 16:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your removal of these two massive chunks wiothout any atrtempt to replace them is a disgusting show of yout intention to blurr and confuse the issue. If you believe you have evidence to proove Netzarim & Notzrim were one in the samer them please publish it here.Zestauferov 05:53, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As I have pointed out about, this section is a POV re-write of Patristic References, so the material is still found in the article. Other objections to this section are listed above. There is no evidence presented that there were different ancient groups referred to by all sorts of highly similar names (e.g. Netzarim, Notzrim, Nasaraioi, Nazaraioi). Certainly standard scholarship does not see them as different groups. Rather, these names appear to be different modern transliterations of the same ancient names, and for some reason the POV author of the insertions prefers to assume they refer to different groups. This would be similar to the assumption that Chanuka Chanukah and Hannuka and Hannukah are all different Jewish holidays because modern authors transliterate the word different ways. However, a section asserting that these modern variations in transliteration represent ancient differences in sects would be interesting, as long as it provided some sort of attribution and evidence of its claims. I have requested such evidence more than once on this page, and still await it. Jayjg 02:40, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE TO ADVERTISE MINORITY GROUPS!!

Where is the documented encyclopaedic basis for including any of these sects of uncertain number?

193.63.129.150 14:00, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I told you, please see our policy on NPOV. It will make your time here much easier (and probably much more lengthy). Pakaran . 14:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can you give a reference to even one published work which will back up what is written about thses three groups? For all I know these may be advertisements typed up by the people who run the sects themselves.193.63.129.150 14:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm a sysop, but I'm not an expert on everything. However, one of my jobs is to make sure articles are kept balanced. That includes articles that aren't in my profession, and that I haven't personally verified. Pakaran . 14:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, there is some legitimacy to the claim. The article originally was an advertisement written up to promote one specific sect. And it's doubtful any of these groups comprise more than a couple of hundred members, and even then they're mostly people who correspond on the internet, not physical communities with more traditional ties and infrastructure. That said, the article is in pretty reasonable shape now; I was hoping to get back to it one day to add information about other similar groups, but other Wikipedia matters have kept me busy so far. Jayjg 19:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Christianity

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

Sources?

What sources in the public domain does any of this come from?

==

The title Nazarene Judaism, or Netzarim has been adopted by a subset of Messianic Judaism, based mostly in Israel, defining themselves as Jewish, and who say that Jesus (whom they call Ribi Yehoshua) is the Messiah, but not God, or part of a Trinity. The movement states that the historical personality behind Jesus was Yehoshua (Pandera).

The Netzarim movement was founded by former Baptist minister Clint Van Nest who published about their ancient manifestation in 1972. He and his wife renounced Christianity and all its works to follow a Jewish way of life and he re-named himself Yiremeyahu ben David in 1983. He moved to Israel in 1985 upon conversion to Orthodox Judaism and established what he described as a Ger Tzedek manifestation of the Netzarim movement with himself as Judge (Paqid).

The movement finds itself at odds with both Judaism and Christianity. Judaism almost universally rejects the concept that the coming of the Jewish Messiah was realized with the birth of Jesus, while Christianity overwhelmingly regards Jesus as being God (see Trinity and Christology). And while the movement's combination of Jewish ritual with the belief that Jesus is the Messiah is characteristic of Messianic Judaism, most Messianic Jewish groups share Christian theology, and insist that Jesus was God incarnate, part of the Trinity. The movement's view of Jesus accords most closely with those of Unification Church and Islam, which support the idea of Jesus' non-Trinitarian humanity along with his claim to Messiahship, yet the affinity remains on the theological level and there are no relationships between these faiths and the Netzarim movement. Instead, Van Nest insists that regardless of its belief that Jesus is the Messiah, the movement is accepted by Orthodox Judaism as a legitimate Orthodox Jewish group.

The movement uses the complete and original Hebrew Tanakh and Mishnah. While it rejects the New Testament, it has created several Hebrew works it describes as "reconstructed" , including

Matityâhu, based on the Gospel of Matthew (viewed as the only trustworthy guide to the life of Jesus), the Ma•avâr, based on the Book of Acts, and Ha-Hitgalut, (the unveiling) based on the Apocalypse of John (whom they call Yokhânân "Bên-Rōgêz" Bar-Zavdi•eil). The movement does not consider any of these works as "gospel" but rather take a scholastic approach to critically analyse any relevant early Christian writings.

The Netzarim movement does not set up its own rabbis, but rather operates under the existing Orthodox Jewish rabbinical system and its rabbis, using the Yemenite Baladi liturgy. As in standard rabbinical Judaism, the movement considers love (fraternity, charity, mercy, forgiveness, self-sacrifice) as the current "blood" of atonement and believe that the temple exists through the congregation. The movement says its primary mission is to counter Christian missionaries through proselytizing which they also see as the best way to counter anti-Judaism. One can become a member of the Netzarim movement only by obtaining recognition from the Netzarim beit din in Raanana, Israel. Recognition is afforded only to Torah-observant Jews and or to non-Jewish geir toshav disciples learning to become Torah-observant.

=

I have 8 books covering the area and the above info is misleading but my contributions attempting to correct were undone without explaination.

Here are the ISBNs

0-9676202-4-4 (two volume set)

965-7328-03-9

965-7328-02-0

965-7328-06-3

0-334-02914-7

1-59244-313-3

0-689-70151-9

Trolls sit under bridges and keep quiet when you call out, but as soon as you try to cross they stop you from doing so.

Try posting your corrections again and see what happens. 193.63.146.184 18:45, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK 81.132.98.167 22:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi. You might want to review Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you want to make major changes to this article, particularly POV ones, you should probably discuss them here on the Talk: page first. That's what the Talk: pages are for. Jayjg 02:04, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The request for discussion has been sitting here unaddressed for three days. I was just trying to catch someone's attention. Is there anyone else out there watching this page? 81.132.98.167 02:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Most of the information in the section you object to originated from members of the movement itself. Which parts do you think are inaccurate? Jayjg 06:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am watching. Anyone else?193.63.146.184 18:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Seems like there isn't anyone as eager about the subject as Jayig. Jayig said "the information in the section you object to originated from members of the movement itself" so I am reading through the history to try and familiarise myself with who put in what information, since the information is obviously erroneous/fallacious. This may take some time.81.132.100.38 17:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Phew! Well if what Jayig said i.e. "the information in the section you object to originated from members of the movement itself" is true then the only people who contributed to the section I object to have been Zestauferov and Jayig. The content which both have contributed prooves neither of them to have been members of the movement.81.132.103.113 12:26, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure others are interested as well, but not motivated to comment at the present moment. By the way, are the books you have on this group all published by the group itself? Jayjg 19:34, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well it certainly seems like you and User:193.63.146.184 are the only people interested. Jayig, I am a friend of Yirmeyahu Ben David (born Clint van Nest) and I am afraid that your consideration of yourself by your own words as a member of the movement, is very obviously problematic.

First of all you do not recognise the ISBN numbers provided 4 of which belong to the netzarim distance learning course.
The contributors obviously are unaware that the netzarim consider the New Testament Gospels to be heretical and reject Jesus and Ha-Notzri as the anti-christ. These are two fundamentals which are re-iterated time and again in all netzarim literature.
The editors are unaware of the long and painstakingly methodical academic process of reconstruction that has gone into reconstructing the Hebrew Matityahu from the earliest sources and references available, including letters from the early church history criticizing the original document. Likewise with The Unveiling, and Chapter 15 of Transition neither of which being of any importance in the netzarim movemnet.

If you wish to call yourself a netzarim you really should do the reading first. Be blessed. 81.132.103.113 12:26, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S. in the interest of accuracy and not seeking any political compromised "truth" I will be replacing the facts which our friend Jayig removed from the article unless anyone else has a comment about those changes. The changes in question can be reviewed with ease by cutting & pasting the following link into the scroll bar. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nazarene&diff=8605040&oldid=8600120

My comment about the changes was that they did no follow Wikipedia's rules regaring NPOV and original research, among others. Please click on the links to understand those policies, and please bring your proposed changes here first for comment; it is not the responsibility of other editors NPOV your edits and changes. Wikipedia is not a forum in which various sects and groups get to promote their vision of the "truth", but rather an encyclopedia in which verifiable and sourced information is included. Jayjg | (Talk) 16:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am impressed by Jayig's knowledge of wiki rules. Jayig must have been here for a while, why isn't he a moderator? Or at least why not give him a golden star? Jayig said

"the information in the section you object to originated from members of the movement itself"

Then Jayig also said

"Wikipedia is not a forum in which various sects and groups get to promote their vision of the "truth", "

I agree. Neither should it be political compromised "truth" but exactly as Jayig put it.

"rather an encyclopedia in which verifiable and sourced information is included."

Which is precisely to reason for my objection to the section. The ISBNs I have listed above are all the books I know of that cover the area in any depth for verifiable and sourced info. 4 of them are even used in the distance learning course of the netzarim movement. the section I am objecting to is about the movement itself. The info there right now about the movement cannot be sourced or verified. That was my reason for objecting. I asked the contributor to give some sources. The contributor has failed to do so. It is our job to describe with cool objectivity without slant avoiding all controversy. I have read several books on the subject 4 of which are recommended reading by the group itself and know Yirmeyahu Ben David personally. I believe this makes me well qualified to write a suitable description of the movement. the changes I propose are as follow in the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nazarene&diff=prev&oldid=8600120 please advise concerning any objection thank you.81.129.202.145 11:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, those books are all published by the group itself; it is not externally verifiable in any way that I can tell. As for the changes, it is not my responsibility to look through diff links and describe your own changes to you. Rather, it is your responsibility to bring your controversial changes here, and describe why you want to make them. Thanks. Jayjg | (Talk) 15:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jesus the Netzarim Anti-christ

The books are al sourced and published works. The diff links in wiki were designed for a reason It seems to save unnecessary wastes of space is as good as any. Which changes do you find controvercial specifically? Is it because you object to Jesus being called anti-christ? Our own individual sensibilities do not matter. What matters is that we report the facts accurately.81.129.79.125 17:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Works published by the group itself are not externally verifiable. The Talk: pages were designed for a purpose on Wikipedia, specifically for discussing proposed article content; that is not what the diff links were designed for. Wikipedia has near infinite storage, please do not be concerned about "over-filling" it by using the Talk: pages for their purpose. It is quite all right to state that this particular group views the common conception of Jesus as the "anti-Christ", as long as it is stated that that is their POV. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fine then I will adjust the section in question to harmonise with this point.81.129.206.246 00:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you just bring it here first for discussion before trying to insert it, that would be in line with Wikipedia policy. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:10, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sources on Netzarim

Jayig said

"Works published by the group itself are not externally verifiable."

though only the books by Qehilat publishers in Israel cover the beliefs of the group in question extensively, the others cannot be questioned as externally verifying. There are of course more than these but I don't have them. Jayig also said:

"As far as I can tell, those books are all published by the group itself"

This is not the case you can check it by ordering them through any major library. Here are the ISBNs

0-9676202-4-4 (two volume set)

965-7328-03-9

965-7328-02-0

965-7328-06-3

0-334-02914-7

1-59244-313-3

0-689-70151-9

Be blessed 81.129.206.246 00:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The ones that are about the modern movement founded by Clint Van Nest all appear to be written by him; are there any that aren't? The other ones appear to be about ancient history. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can you be more specific please?81.132.178.179 15:37, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

Can you specify which books appear to you to be in each category please? I am sorry for seeming so dull. Just use the ISBN numbers. 81.132.179.219 02:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

Look the discussion on sources is all well and good, but won't someone please just get rid of everything in the article which does not have a source? I have no idea whether what I am reading in it is garbage or not. In the mean time the article as it is is being regurgitated in its useless form by all kinds of sites. 193.63.146.184 17:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

Trolling

A troll takes control of a bridge and whenever someone tries to cross it the troll uses forms of ugliness to prevent crossing.

Reading through the discussions above and looking through the history pages carefully I think there is very obvious evidence of trolling going on here. Is anyone who really knows about the subject able to edit without any agenda so that someone interested like me can simply just read a well sourced fully referenced article about the different types of Nazarene and what they themselves believe? Is it possible to prevent mini dictators from weasling on it after that? 193.63.146.184 17:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please review these relevant Wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:No personal attacks Wikipedia:Civility. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Do you "dare post", Wetman?

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

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

You have indicated above that you know something more about the books mentioned than I do. Then suddenly talk about playing games and ask for the titles. Yet your action in editing out fully referenced and accurate corrections indicates that you consider yourself somewhat of an expert. My head is spinning.81.129.206.156 21:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

Revisions of Beth Din Netzarim section as of 10:46, 12 Mar 2005

If anyone has any published sources not originating from Wikipedia (original Wiki research is forbidden remember) contradicting the statement which has been issued here please provide your sources and criticise the relevant points case by case.81.132.98.139 10:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, if you have any sources for the various edits and claims you have made (or Zestauferov has made), please bring it forward. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

81.158.1.138 11:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure which sections of the existing article you object to, but replacing it with an advertisement for the "Netzarim Beth Din" is not the answer. Please review WP:NPOV, and suggest any changes you want to make here. Also, please respond to the questions above regarding the books you cited as independent sources about this group, but refused to name. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no feelings about this group, but I think that the recently introduced (as of right now, reverted) changes to this section were not an improvement. I see two kinds of problems with this edit. First of all, it is rather cryptic. a certain pharisee they call Ribi Yehoshua Ben Joseph Ben David? That would be the person usually known as Jesus, right? Why not come out and say that? This is for better or worse considered nothing more than fulfilling a mitzvot.? I don't know what that means, and I know what a mitzvah is (some readers won't). Second, the section is quite POV. It presents the views of this group as facts. For example, the claim that Jews who are opposed to this movement are less Halakhically-aware is clearly POV. ...was first to notice the documented existence of Netzarim (Branches) is another example of POV. There are many others. I see no problem with what was there before that edit, and it was much clearer. Please discuss anything you see wrong with it. Josh Cherry 17:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the minor changes made in that last round did not address my concerns. My point was that that sentence makes little sense even if one knows what at mitzvah is (by the way, mitzvot is the plural, so a mitzvot makes no sense), and the part about Jesus is still unclear. More importantly, the huge POV problem has not been fixed: adding apparently and pointing to specific Halakhah of which Jewish critics are supposedly unaware and that are supposedly relevant (I'm sure they would disagree) does not help. Also, I asked nicely if you would discuss what you thought was wrong with what was there rather than putting back your changes. Thus, as much as I always seek to avoid getting drawn into this sort of thing, I have reverted. Please state exactly what you think is incorrect or distorted in the current version. We can try to come up with something that you don't think is slanderous but that doesn't sound like a brochure for the movement to the rest of us. Josh Cherry 03:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would add that careful checking of the history will reveal that my contribution to this particular section consisted of NPOVing various previous claims, which were mostly the same kind of confusing, unreferenced, and unsubstantiated statements that the current editor wishes to re-insert. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

81.129.79.102 07:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok well lets just play along for now. Any objections to my edits?193.63.146.184 11:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You started with a POV advertisement for the sect, and then added in a bunch of "it is claimed" etc. This does not address any of the underlying issues. Why don't you both bring specific objections to the current article to this Talk: page first, rather than continuing to play around with an inherently flawed version. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey don't pull me into this! The way I see it the old section was written without any sources. Though not much better, at least the new version gives a source. It took me 15 minutes to look through the site link, come back and make my additions, so if you know so much why don't you just edit in what you know? 193.63.146.184 16:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment.

You pulled yourself into this. The new version, along with its other flaws, explictly states it has no source except "members of and freinds of the Netzarim Beth Din" i.e. original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you reading the same thing I am reading? The source is given in the article as http://www.netzarim.co.il 193.63.146.184 17:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's the source for the information in the old version as well. And you're clearly in the thick of things now, aren't you? Your protestations of non-involvement have been untenable from your first comments on this page 3 months ago. In any event, the Wikipedia:Three revert rule is pretty hard and fast, please observe it or you might well find yourself banned for violating it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The old version said stuff about them being a Ger Tzedek manifestation of the Netzarim movement, about Clint calling himself a Judge, about belief in Jesus, about Ben Pandera, about them being the same as moonies, and muslims, about them creating (by magic perhaps?) hebrew books, like the book of acts and apocalypse of John, about them using Baladi liturgy wherever they are, something about standard Judaism using love as blood, on and on. Now as I said I only skimmed through the site today, and also found another orthodox link about them, but none of this can be confirmed by the sites. I also found many Messianic Jewish sites condemning them as non messianics. You say Jewish by self definition, but rabbi moshe koniuchowsky's site doesn't seem to think there is any halakhic doubt about it. It took literally minutes for me to find this out. So where did you get this stuff from Jayig? What are your sources? I really don't want to say any more. All I want is for you and your revert possy is to put your sourced knowledge into the article so that I can enjoy reading.193.63.146.184 19:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The original information was in the article long before I saw it, created by members of the movement/admirers like User:Zestauferov - e.g. [6]. My efforts were mostly around trying to make sense of and NPOV the material that was already there, and that was found on their website. Regarding your specific issues, Clint calls himself a "paqid", which the article itself said meant "Judge", they believe the "real" Jesus (who they call "Ribi Yehoshua" and associate with Ben Pandera of the Talmud) was a Messiah, the article does not say they are the same as "moonies and muslims", they themselves say they have created these Hebrew books, that they use the Baladi liturgy etc. Why you prefer to believe the word of the current anonymous member of the sect over the words of other members of the sect is beyond me, but the issues you continue to attribute to me are not of my making. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then why not just delete it all if it is all the fantasy of Zestauferov?193.63.146.184 17:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and while we're at it, what's your real relationship with the movement? Obviously you're involved in some way; your various edits here and in other articles make that clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm a noahide, so what? Is it your hobby to criticize people on religious basis? Oh, and if you took three seconds to read http://www.netzarim.co.il you will see they don't believe noahides are legit.193.63.146.184 14:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Until the edit dated 10:46, 12 Mar 2005 the despised Netzarim Beth Din was being grossly misrepresented by wikipedia. Carefull checking through the history shows that the vast majority of the section changed was fabricated by user Jayig without any indentification of references or sources in other words the entire section is essentially unsourced Jayig POV. The edit dated 10:46, 12 Mar 2005 is not much better in as much as it is still possibly POV but is certainly better in as much as it is at least sourced. The info posted in the edit dated 10:46, 12 Mar 2005 is gathered from members of and freinds of the Netzarim Beth Din. It is the self-description of the Netzarim Beth Din which can be confirmed from the internet.

NB SINCE THERE ARE NO PUBLICATIONS ABOUT THE NETZARIM BETH DIN THIS HAS TO BUT SUFFICE AS THE CLAIM.
IT SHOULD OF COURSE BE EDITED WITH SOURCED RESPONSES TO THE CLAIM (NOT REPLACED WITH ORIGINAL RESEARCH) BY PROSECUTORS.

The request is made to encourage enlightened discussion to improove qulity for the readers. 81.158.7.194 21:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You just keep moving this inaccurate comment around, but you don't actually respond to the issues. Could you respond to the issues instead, please? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are right it is inaccurate. They have spelled your name wrongly. But hey the issues in this section are the ones they have brought up. So far I don't see any attempt by your side to edit the text they have provided for us.193.63.146.184 17:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sources?

At the present, I am strongly tempted to delete the whole section on "Nazarene Judaism of Clint Van Nest" as being unverifiable, and replace it with a one-sentence stub. Jayjg's preferred version appears to be based on a website run by the group in question, while the version advocated by a number of anons is based on that same website plus (maybe) a number of books referenced only by ISBN number -- a form that is completely useless to me. Can either side provide third-party sources in a form that other people can use? --Carnildo 23:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There don't appear to be any third party sources on this. All the information available is either on their website, or available in self-published books of theirs. Believe me, it was tough getting the information down to this version; if you read through the old Talk: pages you'll see the battles various users had with User:Zestauferov trying to get any sort of verifiable information. And based on the edit summaries, the current editors are also working with User:Zestauferov or under his direction. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear Carnildo. Jayig's version is not based upon the website at all please read through the site http://www.netzarim.co.il as you will see none of what he has written as pointed out by User:193.63.146.184 can be verified from that site. I think what all of us want to know is where did Jayig get his info from. As for User:Zestauferov, he does not seem to have really understood what it is all about either. The site is there for all of this to be verified as from them or not. And since there are no publications about the Beth Din Netzarim we can only build upon what the site claims for itself.81.132.97.153 14:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I explained before, any information I have entered into the article (which is almost nil) comes from the Netzarim website. The rest of the information in the article comes from other authors, primarily Zestauferov. This has been explained before. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg says: any information I have entered into the article ... comes from the Netzarim website

Perhaps we can start with the following pieces of your claimed accurate reportage taken from above:

One of them IS called Clint and says "paqid" means "Judge".

They say the "real" Jesus was "Ribi Yehoshua" and is to be associate with Ben Pandera

They say they have "created" (magically I suppose) all kinds of Hebrew books.

They all use the Baladi liturgy wherever they are.

There is a need to infer reference to moonies and muslims.

Where "from the Netzarim website" are your sources for all this? And please elaborate more. What other sentences which you have inserted do you claim to originate from the website? 193.63.146.184 17:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The original article said Paqid meant judge, it was not my insertion. In actual fact, I'm pretty sure that "paqid" means "deputy", but I was going by what they said. The original article also made the link between Ribi Yehoshua and ben Pandera; the fact that "Ribi Yehoshua" is Jesus is quite obvious from the site itself. One does not need "magic" to create a book, on merely needs a computer or writing untensil, and some sort of means of producing multiple copies. As for the "moonies and muslims" stuff, that was mostly written by Ed Poor; what is your objection to it? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh so now you are not defending any of these points and we are supposed to forget now that your side has been reverting an article in progress to keep these points (which you are now trying to distance yourself from) in the article for days.

Jayjg said "I was going by what they said"

Who are they by the way? Zestauferov? Well thank you at last for revealing your sources. And you expect us to believe that you don't support them. No where does the Beth Din Netzarim claim that Ribi Yehoshua is Jesus, in fact they are very blatently anti-Jesus. The neztarim website makes it clear that they believe Yeshu to be the line of Hasmonean high priests from Jason. User:81.132.182.210|81.132.182.210]] 21:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have read the arguments about Netzarim with some interest. I heard of this group many long years ago when I was in the process of making tshuva...and then only through their website, despite many attempts to contact them via the information offered on their website. I'm sure if I'd sent them the exorbitant amount they were requesting for their purported "reconstruction" of "Matityâhu", that they might have responded, but I didn't and so they didn't. One thing I remember quite clearly tho, is that on their website at the time at least, they diligently translated the word "paqid" as "secretary". These many years later, I've come to learn that it means a clerk, which is essentially the same thing, depending on the context. In any case, I have never heard, nor seen anywhere but on this TALK page (as I didn't see the article prior to the removal of the Netzarim content), the translations "judge" (shofet) or "deputy" (memale maqom). As for their inclusion in this article, I think a brief mention is perhaps warranted if more NPOV information about them can be ferretted out, as a trail to an independent article. They may very well consider themselves the inheritors of the Nazarene tradition, but they are alone in that view, and Wikipedia is not the place to indulge fantasies (ok, maybe that was a bit harsh, but the point stands). When they gain acceptance as Nazarenes perhaps then they can get a paragraph under Nazarene, or perhaps even displace the rest of the article, which will then be migrated to a page like Previous ideas of who/what Nazarenes are/were. Until then, including a complete description of them on this page very nearly constitutes a violation of the prohibition against Original Research, and indeed may require the invention of a new prohibition--namely, one prohibiting making stuff up and passing it off as indisputable fact. TShilo12 07:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Query

I'm new to this page and don't know what all the issues are, but the section about Clint van Nest at first glance looks like original research and/or is about a non-notable. Could the editor(s) who inserted this provide some third-party references? Many thanks. SlimVirgin 22:18, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to the struggle. There are two versions of that section of the article: one being defended primarily by Jayjg [7], the other by two anon users [8]. Both sides claim http://www.netzarim.co.il/ as a reference; the anons also list a number of books specified only by ISBN number as supporting documents.

Currently the anons' version of the article is the one displayed, but that is subject to change without notice, when Jayjg or another editor reverts.

At the present, given the lack of references, I think the best solution would be to trim that section of the article down to the first, second, and fourth paragraphs of Jayjg's version, as those seem to be supported by the only source available. --Carnildo 22:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Carnildo, the website you linked to shouldn't be used as a source. The claim that the movement is accepted as a legitimate Orthodox Jewish group despite its belief in Jesus as a messiah struck me as unlikely, and we'd need to see independent evidence of that. Jayjg, do you feel this is a legitimate section or is your version simply an attempt to compromise? SlimVirgin 23:01, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted to Jayjg's version in the meantime, as we seem to agree that it's the better one. SlimVirgin 23:06, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

"My" version basically took the facts from an earlier highly POV version and tried to pare it down to whatever I could find on their website and the internet and NPOV it. Regarding "Ribi Yeshoshua HaMashiach", the English translation for that is "Rabbi Jesus the Messiah". Apparently he lived in the early first century, and had a brother named "Yaakov haTzadiq" (in English that would be "James the Just"). Their "reconstructed" books regarding him come from the Books of Matthew and Acts, and the Apocalypse of John. All this information is available directly on their website; I leave it to you to figure out exactly who that individual is.

In early January our anonymous editor claimed to have all sorts of independent books about this group, but would only give the ISBN numbers for them. Yet when I checked out the ISBN numbers provided, it turned out that they were either written by the founder of the movement, or about Jesus as a Pharisee (and related topics). For example ISBN 965-7328-03-9 turns out to be "Who Are the Netzarim?" by Yirmeyahu Ben-David (i.e. Clint Van Nest, the founder of the movement), sold on their website. ISBN 965-7328-03-9 and ISBN 965-7328-06-3 are, not surprisingly, also written by the founder and sold on their website. ISBN 1-59244-313-3 is "Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus" by Harvey Falk; not about this modern movement, but rather a book which claims Jesus was a Pharisee. ISBN 0-334-02914-7 is "Jesus the Pharisee" by Hyam Maccoby, on the same topic, etc. Yet our anonymous editor pretended that he had 8 independent sources on the movement, and when I confronted him on January 7 and stated "The ones that are about the modern movement founded by Clint Van Nest all appear to be written by him; are there any that aren't? The other ones appear to be about ancient history."[9] he said "Can you be more specific please?"[10]. When I got more specific, stating "The books you have listed all appear to either be written by the founder of the group, or do not refer directly to the group. Can you name any sources which were written by an outsider, and refer to the group?"[11] he replied "Can you specify which books appear to you to be in each category please? I am sorry for seeming so dull. Just use the ISBN numbers."[12] I suggested that he supply the names and authors of the books, since he claimed to own them, and I was tired of playing games.[13] At that point our second anonymous editor jumped in and described me as a "troll"[14] Our first anon user eventually returned, still refusing to give the titles and authors of the books, and complaining his head was "spinning".

Further, when making the most recent edits our anonymous editor claimed to be working under the direction of User:Zestauferov; yet it was User:Zestauferov who wrote most of this article to begin with, including many of the sections they now claim are "unsourced"!

I don't know what games these two anonymous editors are playing, and how long they intend to keep playing them, but I'm getting awfully tired of them. My current inclination is to cut out the whole section as essentially unverifiable. Failing that, it should be pared down to a minimum. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:20, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree it should be cut out completely. If they return to this talk page for discussion, the section can be slowly reconstructed based on independent, credible sources, if there are any; but the burden of evidence is on the editor inserting the material. Carnildo, do you agree that the section should be deleted? SlimVirgin 00:35, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. I can't find anything on Google, and netzarim.co.il is of questionable accuracy, so the whole section seems to be unverifiable. --Carnildo 03:08, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted it. I spent some time looking for online references to it, but there seems to be nothing that isn't written by them, apart from a couple of critical posts to discussion groups. I wasn't sure whether to delete the link to their website too, so I left it in for the time being. To the anon editor(s) who want this material to remain, it might help if you were to read Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Cite sources so that you can see why this material is perhaps not appropriate for Wikipedia. It's not that we want to keep your information out of the article. It's just that we have to be able to verify that it does exist as a legitimate movement with a degree of notability, and for that we need third-party references; that is, articles or books, online or offline, not written by the founder of the movement, and preferably written by someone not connected to the movement. If you can provide that (and in the case of books, full details so we can find them), the information that can be verified can be re-inserted. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 05:48, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Nazarene Judaism of James Scott Trimm section is much the same; it all comes from their website. Perhaps it should go too, and a brief sentence added to the existing information about the two movements. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:36, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If these are all fringe movements, I suppose we should be careful not to hold up too high a threshold for inclusion, but then we also shouldn't publish their manifestos for them. I'd have no problem including a couple of sentences about the two movements, rather than a separate section for each, if that's what you mean. SlimVirgin 19:07, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the Church of the Nazarene is, but the rest of them are. There are other movements like this, with various inventive spelling notions, e.g. Order of Nazorean Essenes, a "A Buddhist Branch of Original Christianity"[15], The Essene Nazorean Church of Mount Carmel, an "Esoteric Spiritual Order of the B'nai-Amen Temple"[16]. These actually appear to be more "real" than the two listed in this article. Perhaps a sentence or two listing them all would work. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear Slim, I have no problem with that solution. All I wanted was to know what I was reading was accurately sourced. NB, most of what I could find on the net seems to have originated here at wiki. How are you sure what you found was written by them?193.63.146.184 08:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia-derived articles are usually pretty obvious once you know what to look for. --Carnildo 09:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh indubitably. No two ways about it.193.63.146.184 13:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, sorry about the delay in responding. I'd be fine with a sentence of two listing them all as you suggest, if you or someone else feels up to writing it. SlimVirgin 20:41, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

O.K., I've gotten it down to one sentence. Please let me know what you think. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. SlimVirgin 22:13, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with it too. As I said in my earlier comment here, if someone wants to write an (NPOV!) article on each individual group claiming to be "the real nazarenes", let them--as separate articles. Shabat shalom. -t TShilo12 23:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Only to those who don't know anything about christianity in comparison with what these movements believe, the phrase "Less orthodox Christian beliefs" would not seem completely erroneous. Are muslims then also "less orthodox" christians? The term is a stab at the whole pro-messiah community. If someone else does not rephrase it I will. Morasul 12:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I changed it--the use of "orthodox" was potentially misleading, because of the association of "orthodox" with the eastern patriarchates. I changed it to say that (the theology of) the protestant churches "of the nazarene" are considered normative by mainstream denominations. I realize that these other groups are not considered "Christian" by most Christians, but then again, Protestants weren't considered Christian by the RCC for a great long while. Christian history is rife with examples (literally hundreds) of inter-group recriminations and accusations that their doctrinal opponents are not Christians, or often, not "real Christians". Wikipedia is not the place to dogmatically declare which groups are and which are not "real" Christians. In this area, the policy is generally to call whomever considers themself Christian "Christian", and if they are not generally accepted as such by the great mass of Christianity, then that is duly noted as well. Hopefully this alleviates any unintentional insult that may have been caused, as well as clarifies the policy with respect to such matters. TShilo12 01:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear TShillo, your efforts were well intended but the problem still remains. We (Netzarim) are NOT christians at all! If your intention is truely not to insult please stop calling us that. As Morasul asks above, would you consider Muslims Christian? If not then why us? We are just as different if not more so. Like Muslims and Lubavitcher Chabadniks we are pro-messiah but would anyone call Chabadniks christians? In fact we are anti-christian.81.132.181.84 11:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lubavitchers typically (though not all) think that Menachem Mendel Schneerson was the Messiah; on the other hand, your sect believes that Jesus was the Messiah (though, of course, not Jesus as portrayed by Christians, but your own, "reconstructed" Jesus). Conflating the two movements is disingenuous. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear 81.132.181.84. I changed it so that it will hopefully be more clear on that point. Please let me know if it's still not satisfactory. If it's not, perhaps you could constructively recommend an alternative. I'd like to see both groups further elucidated with articles of their own. -t TShilo12 17:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your re-write is good, but the whole "further articles" idea won't fly, precisely because there is no verifiable information about any of these movements. The only information one can get about them comes from their websites, or from books they publish about themselves. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since 81.132.181.84 claims to be a member of this group, or one of them, if they are, in fact, two different groups, s/he should be able to write an article about it. I'm assuming that members of the group should be in a position to know about the group/s, and since websites and books published by them are most likely the most authoritative about them and their beliefs, I think it is foolish to dismiss such sources out of hand as irrelevant or unusable in the writing of such an article. I'm not saying that such an article is going to start out as the best possible article in all of wikiland, but a lot of articles start out rough. At the same time, to say that the membership of these groups cannot or should not be trusted to write such articles is analogous to saying that Jews shouldn't be involved in writing the Jew article. If articles on these groups do appear, this discussion can be taken up on talk pages more germane to such articles. For now, I think the discussion about them has been settled with respect to the Nazarene page itself. TShilo12 04:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This leads to the problem of verifiability. If the only source of information on a subject is the personal experiences of the author, it's generally considered "original research", and thus not suitable for Wikipedia. I agree that the members of a group are usually the people in the best position to find sources for writing an article on that group, but they should not consider themselves to be sources for writing the article. --Carnildo 05:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the most part, I concur with this opinion. Let us reserve judgment on the matter, however, until such time as such an article is actually written. What disturbs me about the whole tack this discussion has taken almost since the outset, is that it seems that, for whatever reason (or lack thereof), certain individuals are inexplicably opposed to the writing of such an article under whatever circumstances, outside the bounds of whether or not it might be POV or original research...using the spectre of these wikiboundaries as weapons, rather than as guidelines to determine the acceptability of text after it has been written. :-/ TShilo12 08:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And which individuals might that be? I'm certainly not opposed to seeing an article written that is not POV and original research. However, the first version, written by Zestauferov, was both. The second version, written by anon, was both, and contradicted the first. My own attempts to NPOV Zestauferov's version had to rely almost exclusively on the Netzarim themselves for information. Exactly what is the NPOV, No original research version of this article going to use to gather its facts? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:20, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I actually have no idea...which is why I'm not writing the article. :-) I am willing, however, to reserve judgment on such an article wrt those two wikiquirements, until the article has actually been written. -t TShilo12 23:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes something is certainly odd. In this article self-description is not permitted by some users, while in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Noahide_Laws#Anti-Catholics you can see the same users defending self-description (despite protests) because it fits with their agenda.193.63.146.184 08:55, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've only glanced at that, but it seems it's just a website that's linked to, but not used as a source in the article itself; and the Nazarim website remains in the external links here too. SlimVirgin 09:37, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

But the conflict over phrase under which the link is disguised reveals a lot about those who put it in the article.193.63.146.184 11:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, it only reveals your rather silly campaign against me. An anonymous IP editor insisted on excommunicating the author of that article, because he/she didn't like its contents. And you, or the other anon, are free to "self-describe" as "Netzarim" or "B'nai Noach" or anything else you want. But what you cannot do is insert unverifiable POV original research into Wikipedia, even if you fill it with "they claim" and "they assert" disclaimers. What's "odd" is the game you and the other anonymous editor have been playing here for months now. Though your compatriot seems to have vanished since I actually printed the names and authors of the ISBNs he claimed were independent sources on the movement, this game-playing by both of you on the talk: page and article need to come to an end, this is not what Wikipedia is for. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it's sometimes possible to tell in advance that a subject is not notable enough to be given its own article. If the editors who have worked on this section weren't able to find enough (or, indeed, any) credible third-party sources to confirm a small section of one article, it's unlikely that other sources will emerge to support an entire page. Articles must be based on independent, credible, published sources. Editors may cite their own work if they are published authors, but only if the publisher is in some sense recognized and credible, and they're not allowed to engage in self-promotion. The problem with the group I looked up is that there appeared to be only one website, and a request for independent sources met with no response. Any Wikipedia article based solely on that website will count as original research, and then we'll have to go through the VfD process. This isn't to use the policies as weapons; it's simply using them as they were intended to be used — as editing criteria designed to help Wikipedia become a reliable source. SlimVirgin 09:04, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

We appear to be talking past each other here. :-) I'm not advocating making junk articles. I'm only advocating not quashing valid contributions. TShilo12 09:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree.193.63.146.184 11:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear TShilo12, SlimVirgin and Carnildo. Thank you for your objectivity. The Netzarim Beth Din of Ra'anana, Israel was founded in accordance with Halakhah by Halakhically Orthodox Jew Yirmeyahu Ben David, and those orthodox Jews with him who felt that there was no orthodox Beth Din which adequately suited the community. The estblishment of a Beth Din to suit each community is a requirement of Halakhah. Documented proof that Yirmeyahu Ben David is a halakhic orthodox Jew in good standing with the Jewish community may be purchased for a small fee by anyone who requires it. Clint van Nest no longer exists, and, according to the religious beliefs of all non-selective and halakhically observant Jews in the world, any attempt to remind a Jew of any pre-Jewish past they might have had is Halakhically illegal and is considered by the upright Torah observant community to be the hight of very bad taste. The sources for the various points in this post are 3:-

1. Halakhic points of Jewish law as stipulated in the Mishnah, Talmud and the writings of great sages like the Rambam, verifiable through study or taking the word of any well-versed orthodox Rabbi.

2. That Yirmeyahu is an orthodox Jew in good standing with the Jewish community the documented proof of which may be purchased for a small fee by anyone who requires evidence through the netzarim.co.il website. This is testified by an independent source on rabbi moshe koniuchowsky's website. Alternatively one can write a letter asking if Yirmeyahu Ben David is a real Jew to the Orthodox Beit K'nesset Moreshet Avot in Raanana Israel.

3. That the Netzarim Beth Din has been established, which can be verified through meeting members of the Netzarim Beth Din at a ralley. Or again by writing a letter asking about it to the Orthodox Beit K'nesset Moreshet Avot in Raanana Israel. No independently article has been written about it yet.

It is not necessary to have an article about the Netzarim beth Din. The link itself is enough for anyone interested in reading accurate info. I hope all this helps.81.129.79.76 23:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

81.129.79.76: I don't think this really has anything to do with the discussion one way or another. Wikipedia linking to the Netzarim Beth Din has not really been the subject of much controversy on this subject...incidentally, where is the link to this purported bet din? On the other hand, the verifiability and authenticity of your claims with respect to this Beth Din have been questioned, and to this point, no evidence independent of the claims of this group itself, have been presented, either by you or by anyone else. That's the problem, and has been all along. The verification that this Yirmiyahu is an "orthodox Jew in good standing with the Jewish community", whatever that means, constitutes original research, and the ludicrous statement that it "may be purchased for a small fee" only furthers the criticism I myself obliquely made earlier, that this group's primary interest seems to be in swindling people. :-/ Tomer ^TALK 10:54, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

TShilo12, if someone asked you to send them a copy of your passport over the internet would you think it "ludicrous" to ask for some means of ideitification? What safer way than through a bank?193.63.146.184 17:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's your English, but I completely fail to understand what you think is your point...Tomer ^TALK 22:11, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Just link "Nazarite"

"the word nazir, meaning separated. There are a number of references to Nazirites in the Old Testament. A Nazirite (נְזִיר) was a Jew who had taken special vows of dedication to the Lord whereby he abstained from alcohol and grape-products, cutting his hair, and approaching corpses for a specified period of time. At the end of the period he was required to immerse himself in water."

This somewhat shortened description of the Nazirite laws hurts the credibility of the article because it is innaccuate wrt the termination of the vow. Why not just use a link for the word "Nazirites" & end it at the second sentence? If that is too short, then please kill the forth sentence. If someone wants details, they should see the entry! NathanZook 06:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You mean immersion vs. sacrifice? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nazarene Karaite group is Nonexistent

A while back some information was posted about a so-called "Nazarene Karaite" group, but as it turns out, there is no such group. I was the one who wrote most of that information. I apologize for doing so, and I can only say that I did it out of excitement. I had been talking with Jacob Moak...a Southern Baptist who works with Messianic Jews, about the possiblity of creating a Nazarene Karaite group, which at first interested him. A few days after I posted the information that we had been discussing, Jacob said that he wanted no part in dividing Christianity more than it already is. Basically, the whole idea fell through, and I shamefully admit that I am to blame for any controversy about the matter on this site. Only one other person, my friend Lee, has posted information, but only to help quiet any debate. Sorry.

It's OK. As, fortunately, is usually the case here at WP, the edit was caught and legitimately questioned re:Source. There is no problem with having a POV, and you should be ashamed that you got excited about something you'd like to see happen. Of course my own personal POV is that any hopes for "Nazarene Judaism" or "Nazarene Karaitism" are inherently ridiculous and pathetic, but I do my best to avoid allowing that POV to influence my editing. I hope that your "shame" doesn't prevent you from becoming a useful editor now or in the future. Meantime, please consider getting an account so that we can identify you as an individual, and also please consider signing your talkpage comments by closing them with a quick "~~~~". :-) Kol tov. -Tomer ^TALK 05:29, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

The Nazarenes fled to Pella, Perea

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

Could Eusebius be saying the Nazarene's were Christians?208.95.49.236 (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to your question, I think we can say that some early Christians were called "Nazoreans" or Nazarenes sometimes even in the Bible, most likely in reference to Jewish Christians, and then we can assume from Eusebius that they fled to Pella temporarily.

Another question- do we have any indication what finally happened to the Nazoreans? What is the last reference to them still existing at a time? It seems to me that the Muslim conquest about 690 AD would have indirectly forced them to conform to orthodox Christian society.

I'm challenging the Jesus-Nazarite connection

The article said this: "Matthew 2:23 says of Jesus, "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." But had the prophets said 'Nazarene' or 'Nazarite'? It appears that they said ‘He shall be called a Nazarite’ because reference bibles state that the prophecy cited in Matt. 2:23 is in reference to Judges 13:5 concerning Samson the Nazarite, and there is no word translated ‘Nazarene’ or any reference to a city of 'Nazareth' in the Hebrew Scriptures."

If you look at the passage, Matthew 2:23 clearly connects Jesus' living in Nazareth with the fulfillment of the prophecies, not with taking a vow. I know there is no actual word-for-word prophecy in the OT of "He shall be called a Nazarene", but if you notice, Matthew says "prophets", not a specific prophet. The Biblical Commentator Matthew Henry had this to say about Matthew 2:23: "To be called a Nazarene, was to be called a despicable man, a man from whom no good was to be expected, and to whom no respect was to be paid. The devil first fastened this name upon Christ, to render him mean, and prejudice people against him, and it stuck as a nickname to him and his followers. Now this was not particularly foretold by any one prophet, but, in general, it was spoken by the prophets, that he should be despised and rejected of men (Isa. 53:2, 3), a Worm, and no man (Ps. 22:6, 7), that he should be an Alien to his brethren Ps. 69:7, 8."

If anybody would like to challenge me, feel free to do so, but the context clearly connects the prophecy with Jesus' living in Nazareth! =p Glorthac (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Nazareth did not exist in the time of Jesus. It was an Arabic coty which Dark Age Christians decided must be Nazara of the Gospels. It has now become such a popular belief that people who do not know better can imagine that there was a place called Nazareth and they can forget about the original community called Nazar (Nazareth is simply Koine grammar for "of Nazar" and is not a place name at all).

Indeed. The prophecy was that he would be a Nazarean, i.e. a member of one of the sects that were widespread (at Mt. Carmel, etc.) where Nazareth was later named, so why do you think it got that name? That is interesting Matthew is said to mention Nazareth: maybe the Codex Sinaiticus should be checked. It seens the previous commentor knows enough about that though: I too, challenge the the challenge.