Jump to content

Talk:Jews: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 99: Line 99:


::90.196.60.197—I doubt if there are many examples of people who ''"see themselves as…non-Jews by religion."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jews&diff=prev&oldid=554414394]'' I think it would be rare for any person who is otherwise Jewish to articulate that he/she is not Jewish by religion. That is simply not language that is used. More likely the sort of person that I think you may have in mind would say that they were "nonobservant" or "secular" or "not religious". They would probably not be saying that they were ''"non-Jews by religion".'' I don't think that is language in actual use. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 11:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
::90.196.60.197—I doubt if there are many examples of people who ''"see themselves as…non-Jews by religion."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jews&diff=prev&oldid=554414394]'' I think it would be rare for any person who is otherwise Jewish to articulate that he/she is not Jewish by religion. That is simply not language that is used. More likely the sort of person that I think you may have in mind would say that they were "nonobservant" or "secular" or "not religious". They would probably not be saying that they were ''"non-Jews by religion".'' I don't think that is language in actual use. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 11:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
:::It's a tough argument: that by adopting a particular philosophy one's DNA magically changes. I expect that in an encyclopedia an editor should go to extreme lengths to ensure such claims are very well documented, otherwise this is merely reposting of religious nonsense which has no place here or, if included, it should be very clear this is fable and not fact. [[User:Lexlex|Lexlex (白痴美國)]] ([[User talk:Lexlex|talk]]) 12:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


== Bible ==
== Bible ==

Revision as of 12:36, 11 May 2013

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Good articleJews has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 23, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 6, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
October 6, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
February 26, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article
To discuss the infobox in the top right corner of the article, please visit Template talk:Infobox Jews.


What! No Jesus?

Surely He should be in the photomontage? What's up with that? 76.180.168.166 (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham, Moses, David, and Solomon are not there either. It appears that the montage contains historically verifiable figures who have a reasonably accurate artistic or photographic representation. There's probably discussion in the archives. Antandrus (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brief followup: search for "montage" in the archives, for some previous discussion on this topic. Antandrus (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. It's true that Christ is not historically verifiable, but not at the same level as those you mention all of whom were a thousand years earlier or more. Solomon begins to be quasi historical, and Christ is all but. Maybe one from that set of five or at least someone before Maimonides, maybe Judas Maccabeus. Han Chinese for example has a number of personages not verified historically, though not one contemporary with the four you mention such as the Yellow Emperor. The point is though that Yeshua Bar Joseph is probably the most notable individual of all time so far, though I'll try to look at the archives later for the rationale, thx. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus was not a jew but a judean. he rejected the fact that jews dont or were against proselytize and rejected old angry god of the old testament, less eye for an eye and more turn the other cheek. so no he wasnt a jew, he didnt reject jews joining but his followers rejected the old religion considering it an enemy to all humanity according to sources. They would considered people like Ovadia Yosef and Maimonides today to be extremely anti gentile but not different from the pharasee leaders. Looking at the jewish source themself describe old jewish one of the most famous rabbi who interpret the torah,the old testament.

"According to the Talmud, "Gentiles are neither to be lifted [out of a well] nor hauled down [into it]" (Tractate Avodah Zarah, 26b). Maimonides writes: "As for Gentiles with whom we are not at war…their death must not be caused, but it is forbidden to save them if they are at the point of death; if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he should not be rescued, for it is written: 'neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy fellow'--but [a Gentile] is not thy fellow"

(Mishneh Torah, Laws of Murder 4:11)." -http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Jews_and_Non-Jews/Attitudes_Toward_Non-Jews/Biblical_and_Rabbinic/Anti-Gentile_Traditions.shtml

So no, the old judaism was rejected by Christ and his followers "Those Jewish persecutors killed both the Lord Jesus and the Prophets, and drove us out of their midst. They are displeasing to God, and are the enemies of all mankind" 1 Thessalonians 2:15 [1]


Obviously evident today, judaism is far less violent. that said, there are still todays Pharasee like Yosef ovadia who wasnt forced to step down from his position and is still a major respected person in the culture of israeli rabbis. Where as if any Muslim or buddhist said the things yosef ovadia would said today they would be in prison for inciting racial conflict for calling non jews slaves and compared them to donkeys. Imagine if they would say that jews should be slaves and that a jew is the equalant of a donkey. it would never be allowed in any western modern society.


In short, No. he rejected an apathy to extreme xenophobicculture that existed.even the crowd wanted him dead, not just the priests for saying he was the son of god. He probably would have accepted the jewish left[2] Renaloak (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed addition

By my last contribution I was trying to suggest the addition of content, and not just start a general discussion. I'm new to this, so please advise as to the proper steps to take to add content to an existing article. Thank youCuriousabouttheworld (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link to previous post: [1] Singularity42 (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a more of a general knowledge article. There is a dedicated article to genetic studies at Genetic studies on Jews. There has been some (somtimes heated) discussions of the recent paper at the article's talk page and the related archives. Singularity42 (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism is a religion not an ethinic group

A person can convert to Judaism even if they would not be considered Jewish by race. The definition is far too ambiguous in that case Also I see no proof that Jewish is an Ethnicity anymore than saying that a person of pure Spanish decent could not be considered white. This page should treat Judaism as a religion not an ethnic group Pug6666 01:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pug6666 (talkcontribs)

Please see the "Ethnoreligious group" article. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pug, you have just unwittingly stumbled across one of the origins of the Israeli-Palestinians conflict. There is no right answer to this question - people can believe what they like. This question was debated extensively amongst the Jewish community worldwide in the 19th and early 20th century. See for example Timeline of Anti-Zionism. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jews are an ethnicity and a religion, to be one you don't have to be the other. That's how you get many people who say they are Jewish and Atheistic at the same time! It means they see themselves as Jews by ethnicity but as non-Jews by religion. Jews meet all the requirements to qualify as an ethnic group, which include common identity and history. Saying that Jews are "just a religion" is a common lie among modern anti-Semites! This page talks about Jews as an ethnic group, if you want the history of the religion you can go to Judaism. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
90.196.60.197—I doubt if there are many examples of people who "see themselves as…non-Jews by religion."[2] I think it would be rare for any person who is otherwise Jewish to articulate that he/she is not Jewish by religion. That is simply not language that is used. More likely the sort of person that I think you may have in mind would say that they were "nonobservant" or "secular" or "not religious". They would probably not be saying that they were "non-Jews by religion". I don't think that is language in actual use. Bus stop (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tough argument: that by adopting a particular philosophy one's DNA magically changes. I expect that in an encyclopedia an editor should go to extreme lengths to ensure such claims are very well documented, otherwise this is merely reposting of religious nonsense which has no place here or, if included, it should be very clear this is fable and not fact. Lexlex (白痴美國) (talk) 12:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bible

Since when is Bible any trusworthy source for the Wikipedia? Please consider revising the article to quote trusted historical sources only. --Normis99 (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the fact the bible is not a trustworthy source! After all, how can you believe a source saying the world was made 5000 years ago? I do think that bible can be used, though only with a scientific source near it confirming or contrasting it. For example "bible said X, but archeological sources said Y". 90.196.60.197 (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]