Talk:Shituf

Copied from Talk:Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms

Trinitarianism, shituf and Arianism

Tim wrote: "Okay, so is Lisa right and there are NO Rabbinic sources that disagree with Christianity? Apparently so."

Am I the only one who is getting tired of this? Tim, if you want to retain an assumption of good faith, you have to stop this. Seriously. All rabbinic sources disagree with Christianity. You are engaging in spin, based upon your personal POV opinion of the issues, and it's just wildly inappropriate. You've been called on it by myself and by Slrubenstein, and possibly by others, but you don't seem to have any willingness whatsoever to acknowledge that you are mistaken.

You are saying this:

Fact: Shituf = Arianism
Fact: Shituf ≠ Trinitarianism

This is your personal opinion. It may be the view of Christianity as well. It is not fact. Fact is:

Jewish view: Shituf = Trinitarianism
Christian view: Shituf ≠ Trinitarianism; Shituf = Arianism

Consider the path of a disagreement. You want to start after a determination is made about whether trinitarianism is or is not shituf, and look at what Judaism has to say. But the disagreement starts further back on that path. With the very determination of whether trinitarianism is or is not shituf. That is the disagreement.

You cannot say that it is not. That's OR. That's POV. That's simply one view. There is another verifiable view of the matter, and you keep trying to sweep it under the carpet and pretend that it either doesn't exist or has no validity.

You've said "Christianity defines Christianity". And the answer to that is "not here, it doesn't". Here, Christianity only defines the Christian view of Christianity.

Please take a step back and try and realize that continuing to say things like "are there are NO Rabbinic sources that disagree with Christianity?" only places you further outside of Wikipedia policy and makes it impossible for this conflict to end. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- on a complete aside here... this is important even for anti-missionary work. Right now the sources we've found are okay to keep most Jews from going to Christianity if they are taught it well enough to not pay attention to the Christian view. But what about those who are already converted to Christianity? In years past Jews weren't allowed to engage in persuasive dialogue to get their own back. We really didn’t need to address the Christian view of itself because we’d be physically attacked if we tried. But if we want to persuade Christian Jews to return from their apostasy, we need to give answers to what they themselves think. It is their minds we are trying to reach. So, looking for 3 is good for interfaith dialogue (if you’re into that), and it’s also good for polemical attack (if you’re into that). It’s like those well guided bombs we use nowadays. In previous wars we just made bigger and bigger bombs and hoped they hit something. Now we have a bomb that will fly across two countries, down an alleyway, through a window, and into the enemy’s lap. Big bombs, or laser precision? Maybe both is best in warfare, but definitely get that precision if it’s available. Is it correct to say that Judaism teaches the Trinity is Shituf? Well (now that there aren’t any exceptions anyone is aware of, absolutely). And in a Jewish paradigm, that’s about as good as you can do (our concepts don’t fit in their language either). But we live in a new day, where the old truths have an audience that wasn’t available to us before – the lost Jews. Let’s reach them exactly where they are so we can bring them back, shall we?Tim (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Process

Lisa, there are several layers to this:

1. Each religion defines itself
2. Each religion defines its own view – even of other religions
3. If you can find a view of another religion that is recognizable by that religion, use that citation
4. If you cannot find such a citation, recognize that they are not talking about the same concept, make the best citation you can, and move on

Our disconnect has been that I’ve been searching for item number 3 before settling with 4.

“Okay, so is Lisa right and there are NO Rabbinic sources that disagree with Christianity? Apparently so.”

That statement was simply giving up on 3 and settling for 4. I agree with you that 4 is absolutely valid for Wikipedia. It’s just that 3, if it exists, is even better.

That’s all.

The statement wasn’t being argumentative. It was just saying, “Okay, if I a universally intelligible statement can’t be found, file it away in our heads and move on.”

Hope that clears it up.Tim (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And the specific example

I just realized that it may be helpful to translate that process to this instance:

1. The Christian view of the Christian doctrine is the Christian doctrine
2. The Jewish view of the Christian doctrine is the Jewish view of the Christian doctrine
3. If you can find a Jewish view of the Christian doctrine that ADDRESSES the Christian doctrine, that’s the perfect citation
4. If you can’t, then settle for a citation that shows the Jewish view of the Christian doctrine, and move on

Is it acceptable to give a citation of a Jewish view that doesn’t match the actual doctrine it’s addressing? Sure – but for the sake of the readers do a second check to see if there could be an even better citation.

I had thought Telushkin to be that citation. He seemed to be the greatest scholar in all of Judaism to actually fill number 3. Is he the greatest scholar in all of Judaism? Of course not! From Moses to Moses, there has never been another like Moses… (but there are a lot of great men with different names nonetheless).

I was okay with “the vast majority in all of history thinks thus and so” even if it seemed there was an exception. I wasn’t comfortable with “EVERY Jew thinks thus and so” when I was looking at one Rabbi who I thought was an exception. “Every” statements are tough to document on Wikipedia. But, if there really isn’t an exception, THEN “every Jew thinks thus and so” is okay as well. At least we took the time to look.

Fair?Tim (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I'm not sure where you (and others?) have come up with #1, that each religion defines itself. This is too narrow for Wikipedia policy. Granted, for article names, religious groups are self-identifying entities. But for religious terms etc., we don't rely only on what religious "insiders" and their primary sources say ("first order" definitions) but also on observations by reliable secondary sources ("second order" definitions). For a recent discussion of 1st and 2nd order definitions, with Judaism as an example, see Michael Satlow's "Defining Judaism: Accounting for 'Religion' in the Study of Religion" in the Journal of the Amer Acad of Religion (Dec 2006). Thanks. HG | Talk 14:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

HG -- my idea is that when "first order" (1) and "second order" (2) definitions match (3), that's the first citation to look for. If not (4), then have 1, 2, and 4 instead. I'm not saying to AVOID 4. I'm just saying to check for 3 first. That's all.Tim (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with #1 as well, but I particularly disagree with Tim's rule that 3 is better than 4. It's not. Tim wrote: "If you can find a Jewish view of the Christian doctrine that ADDRESSES the Christian doctrine, that’s the perfect citation". But that's not true. Not unless it's a representative Jewish view. Telushkin's, even had he meant what Tim thought he meant, was not. Furthermore, the view of a rabbi in a popular book is not considered an authoritative Jewish view. If Telushkin were to write a scholarly book, using Torah sources and Torah methodology, it would be considered a valid source. Not a major one, because Telushkin is not a major halakhic authority, but at least he'd be a source to use for this. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- for one thing, you and I are in the minority of the "Jewish view." Only 10% of us are observant and give a bleep about halakhic authority. You and I do for our personal lives. Certainly we'd like to encourage more of that in the other 90%. Also, I'd like to be able to lean on you for the big bombs. I'd just appreciate it if you could try to aim them where I'm pointing the laser beam if at all possible. I had THOUGHT it was possible in that instance. I was wrong. But that doesn't mean it's wrong to do so when you can. But more to the point -- a big bomb 3 is MUCH better than a little nugget 3. Absolutely! And should it be "representative"? Yes, again. But, still, look for the 3 if you can. You pull out the guns and let me communicate the location of the target. If you have a gun pointed in that direction -- please, shoot that one first.Tim (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim, you are asking us to violate WP:NPOV, our non-negotiable policy. NPOV demands that all notable views be described in the article. When you write,

1. If you can find a Jewish view of the Christian doctrine that ADDRESSES the Christian doctrine, that’s the perfect citation
2. If you can’t, then settle for a citation that shows the Jewish view of the Christian doctrine, and move on

You seem to be saying that when Rabbis make claims about trinitarianism or Christianity they are not "really" talking about the "real" trinity or what Christianity "really" is. So what? It doesn't matter. I do not care if you think Rabbis misunderstand trinitarianism or Christianity, and I do not care whether you understand judaism, because these matters are irrelevant to writing a WIkipedia article. The issue is NOT this argument over shituf. The issue is much simpler: NPOV. You are putting a condition on what views can be included in an article. You are simply wrong. ANd I am ending discussion on this. You are welcome to argue all you want to, but you would better spend your time reflecting on our NPOV policy and the fact that it requires all of us to accept in article views we consider wrong, bad, inaccurate, or even misinformed. That's it. This is the key point you refuse to accept. I am not going to try to explain it to you again, and Lisa's explanation was clear enough too and I can't imagine she would want to waste time explaining it to you again. If you distort or remove a view on the grounds that you do not believe it is accurately addressing what it claims to be addressing, I will just revert you, and with no further explanation, this paragraph IS the explanation. I will revert you, or others will revert you. And if you see mediation or orbitration your case will be rejected or you will lose, because you cannot violate NPOV. Period. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

All I see Tim saying is, don't use the OR of "every Jew thinks/doesn't think thus and so" as has been done with figs and everything else under the sun here (which is a major reason for my AfD), find some cites. If you can't find cites right now then move on to the next item. Is that a big problem? -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm also saying that if 98% of your audience won't understand what your citation is saying (or will know immediately is on the wrong subject), see if there is a better one. Don't distort the Jewish view, by all means. But see if there is a source that makes some kind of sense to everyone else. If not, go ahead with the unintelligible one until someone finds something better. It is a valid back country view that "I vote democrat because I'm against abortion." Okay, that IS a valid point of view to a lot of people. But, uh... see if there are any others to throw in there too, if you can. And if it's minority or lacks authority -- or distorted -- then it's not good for a source either. But if you HAVE two valid Jewish sources, one of which 100% of the audience can make sense of, and one of which 2% of the audience can make sense of... then do the math. Does that violate NPOV? Excuse me while I see what planet we're all on...Tim (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, I have to add -- this whole line of conversation is a little bizarre. I never said "don't use 4". I just said "check for a 3". Even if you HAVE a 3 and the 4 is more representative of the "Jewish view", well, you're stuck with the 4. But checking for something all the audience will identify is called... uh... writing.Tim (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You're complaining about this:

1. If you can find a Jewish view of the Christian doctrine that ADDRESSES the Christian doctrine, that’s the perfect citation
2. If you can’t, then settle for a citation that shows the Jewish view of the Christian doctrine, and move on

At NO point do I intend to suggest that you avoid the Jewish view. I'm just suggesting to double check sources that make sense to the public forum we're in.Tim (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with finding cites saying something like this:

• Some Jews view Trinity as three separate and equal Gods.
• Some Jews view Trinity as lesser deities leading to the one true God.
• Some Jews view Trinity as being the one God with two manifestations, like Shechinah = Holy Spirit and its presence in humans = tzadikim, rebbes.

The last view is scarce but I've seen it out there. That covers every possible view, doesn't it? -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

BB, the problem would be, as Lisa is saying -- what is the normative and authoritative view? I had thought that the majority view is Shituf but (I think) I've heard Lisa say otherwise. So, you don't want to misrepresent the Jewish view, and you don't want to distort the Jewish view by giving undue weight to a lesser view. To put my own OR and POV in the discussion -- the trinity really doesn't logically "fit" in a Jewish paradigm. I remember the first time I "got it" -- it REALLY looked polytheistic! Shituf was... the most polite way to dismiss it, and it was going over backwards to do even that. I had to pull out Calvin's Institutes and reprogram my brain in the trinitarian operating system before I could get back to work as a pastor. After a while I could go back and forth -- seeing the two views. There actually IS a Jewish response to why the trinitarian's own doctrine is theoretically idolatrous in Judaism, and it's found in Maimonides' Guide to the Perplexed. It has to do with ANY definition to God. A definition is a limitation -- a conceptual handle. The actual trinitarian doctrine is refuted on those lines. But I have never seen any authoritative Jewish sources that applied Maimonides explanation of conceptual idolatry to the trinity, and I was REALLY banking on Lisa being able to find one. I couldn't find it, and I certainly couldn't say it -- but if I kept asking Lisa to look, if it DID exist out there, she had a good chance to find it. Is shituf and idolatry more mainstream than the conceptual issue (which may not even exist)? Absolutely! But I had thought Telushkin had hit it on the Maimonidean angle (I've asked Telushkin and am waiting for an answer) -- which, WOULD be notable enough to include even if a minority view, because Maimonides (if he had been applied that way) is a foundational representative of Jewish thought. I'll have to research Nachmanides now -- he had a debate with a converted Jew that I want to read. He'd also be a good source. But if it did exist it would be SO minority that it fails the notability enough to include it. Again, I only suggested to look for 3. I never said don't do 4 if 3 didn't exist.Tim (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... looks like we're both going to be blocked. I'll meet you in an afterlife somewhere, BB.Tim (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he will block as long as we don't attack anymore. At least I hope he sees blame needs to go all the way around, not just heaped on one side.

Anyway...so is it that you are looking for something that says Gentiles shouldn't even think about God in limited terms, or being of a partnership? The long lists of Noahide laws I think covers a lot of that, I gave a link to one but there are other versions. -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, more of something that Gentiles CAN but Jews CAN'T. I have no idea if this is the right track, but I'm looking to see what people have said on it. If it's notable within Judaism, at least Christians would have a definition that helped them figure out what the idolatry isn't idolatry thing is. Again, I could be on the wrong track, but I'd like to know. And if there is something Jewish, mainstream, and notable along those lines -- that's a definite 3 to include in there along with all the 4s.Tim (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we kind of leave off with that being unresolved? In the archives I posted:

Most recent authorities agree that Children of Noah are forbidden to believe in a partnership. But even according to these, the Children of Noah are permitted to swear by the name of an idol in combination with God (to swear by the Lord of Hosts and a Hindu deity, for example).Idolatry

Well, this says MOST. So they have reason to think that SOME don't agree they are forbidden, right? So you are on the right track, if you want to give all sides of the story. I don't think it matters that one is way more notable than another, for simple honesty's sake if not every single Jew on the planet believes it is forbidden then you still kind of have to say some don't, which is a lot of what I've been griping about here, the desire to make it black or white when it's not really that way. The question now is finding a source that says some believe it is specifically not forbidden. -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this is more to the point:

So long as ascribing power to a deity other than the Creator remains conceptual, it is permissible to the Children of Noah according to many authorities[6]. But worship of this independent being is clearly idolatry. Idolatry -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to say conceptualizing Jesus as a deity other than the Creator is permissible (for Gentiles), as long as you don't worship him. So if it is true that Arians don't worship Jesus but only honor him as this lesser created deity -- I don't know if it is true with all of them -- then that idea of Trinity is permitted, if that's what the Arian Trinity is. Only the idea of Trinity with Jesus worshiped as God is idolatry and forbidden. That's what I'm getting here, anyway. -Bikinibomb (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"I'm just suggesting to double check sources that make sense to the public forum we're in" BEEEEP! WRONG! We do not cherry'pick sources to find ones that figt certain expectiations of hopes we have. We donot look for sources that support points of view we like. We research reliable verifiable sources to dientify notafiable points of view, period. It does not matter wheher you or I ´´think´´ the source makes sense, let alone makes sense to the general public. Yes, we try to ´´write´´ an article that is clearly written. But the standard for sources is that they are reliable and verifiable, NOT that some group finds them sensible. And we include views because they are notable, not because we think some readers will find them sensible. That´s all there is to say. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sl -- once again, I've never said you couldn't (or shouldn't) have a 1, 2, 4 citation. If 4 is more representative of (in this case) Judaism, by all means use 4. But check to see if there is an equally valid 3. If not, stick with the 4. If you HAVE to choose between reliable and verifiable and intelligible, then go with reliable and verifiable. But if you can make sense to all the readers as well, that's even better. I don't know why you keep bleeping intelligibility. It's not about liking something. It's about talking so that a general audience can understand. If the reliable and verifiable (and normative) views Christians have of Jews is that Judaism worships "Shane", then, well, say it. But if something seems off to someone (particularly a Jew), then, well, double check the sources. If there is no better (and equally or more) reliable and verifiable source, then stick with the one you have. But if there is something equally verifiable that says "HaShem" well, look at that too. All I'm saying is that if something's a little off to someone, double check. And if your source is still the right one, well, then it's the right one. But at least you DID check. You can make noises all you like, but it's a process that you would want Christian editors to make as well. Don't you want to know what they heck they are trying to say?Tim (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's say there is a major Jewish view that blah blah is ok for Christians but not for Jews. Sure you can say that, but someone like me who thinks it makes no sense is going to add a little sourced reminder/criticism that ethnic Jews can also be Christians since once a Jew, always a Jew, and then the reader may also see that this popular Jewish view makes no sense, since how can something be ok for Christians but not for Jews if Jews can also be Christians? So if you found a source using the term "Gentiles" rather than "Christians" and better yet another saying that most Jews believe Christians are also Gentiles and not Jews, you'll clean up that messy view so that it doesn't need to be rebutted. Sometimes you need to go looking for sources and cherrypick a little if you are interested in getting the spirit of the correct view across, if not the exact words. Unless as I said you want a rebuttal that makes it look nonsensical to the reader. -Bikinibomb (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

I'd like to suggest folks here carefully review WP:NOR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Note that religious scripture is specifically listed as a primary source. I would include classic Rabbinic works, such as Mishneh Torah in that category. To quote the policy: "To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source."--agr (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of this is if the Bible says Jonah was in the whale, then it's fine to use that primary source to say "the Bible says, Jonah was in the whale." We don't need find where it's used in another source, we can say that right from the Bible. However if one says, "Jonah in the whale is symbolic of purgatory" then that must be found in another source, not synthesized from the Bible by an editor. Same with Jesus, Arianism, and conceptualization. We can only use a source saying that, not add all that in ourselves. Maybe that's what you were getting at. -Bikinibomb (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Re-org

We should keep the Jewish cites in the Jewish section and the Christian ones in the Christian section. Readers might mistake Louis Jacobs for a Christian and get a bit tangled.Tim (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

May need another source

The statement that Judaism rejects trinitarianism as Judaism understands it is not going to be helpful to the Christian readers, since Christianity also rejects trinitarianism as Judaism understands it (i.e. Arianism).

Guys, I am NOT trying to defend Christianity here. Keep the Jacobs source, but can you help me find another one in which Judaism rejects trinitarianism as Christians understand it? We really DO reject trinitarianism as Christians understand it, BTW. Anyhow, I'll do some hunting for a more on target source. Please KEEP the Jacobs source, but I'd appreciate some help finding an on target source as well. I'll start with Schechter, Cohen, and the Rambam.

Thanks.Tim (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's see...if the Judaism idea of Trinity follows Arianism...does Judaism reject it because of the inherent nature of the setup, or just because Jesus is involved? Because if there is a Father God, a Holy Spirit, and a created lesser deity who is also human, how is that really tons different than God, a female Shekhinah manifestation of God, and a Tzadik who is God Himself clothed in a human body? -Bikinibomb (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Tzadik problem is another matter -- and in fact what I am looking for would be helpful there as well. I've seen some instances in which the Tzadikim were treated in an Arian way. For instance, the Chofetz Chaim treats Josephs brothers as Tzadikim, and incapable of sinning. Their treatment of Joseph becomes a righteous beit din condemning him to death for lashon hara, and their action was treated as mercy. So, when I gave a talk at a Lubavitch lunch, I used Joseph as a human example for us to learn from, knowing to stay away from treating his brothers as human. Wrong move. JOSEPH is the Tzadik in Lubavitch tradition, and his brothers are treated as human. Let's forget the different groups, the Jesusers, the Josephers, the patriarchers -- and look for a principle involved... I'll describe it better below.Tim (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Inter vs Intra

More specifically, I'm looking for a citation in which Judaism prohibits an intra-divine relationship, instead of just an inter-divine relationship. For instance, we need something that denies that God can function as his own mediator, or that he would even need to do so.Tim (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, Parts (transferred from Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms discussion)

"God has no body, parts, or passions" (Westminster Confession, 1689 London Confession, etc.) is a foundational statment for Christian doctrine. If we include a Jewish statement that "Worship of any three-part god by a Jew is nothing less than a form of idolatry" -- well, in all fairness we should give a similar statement from Christian sources. Dagg, or Berkhoff, or even Calvin are clear examples, as well as the confessions I just pointed out. Both religions reject a God with parts for a simple reason: both religions insist on monotheism, regardless of what they think about each other. Do we REALLY need a joint statement against a partitioned deity?Tim (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

1689 Confession 2:1 "The Lord our God is but one only living and true God; whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself; a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; who is immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, every way infinite, most holy, most wise, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him, and withal most just and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty." I can find a more concise example, if necessary.Tim (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I see that inclusion is just more POV push and whimsy, a random irk that came to mind. Aren't there more important things to say regarding the Jewish view of Christians, like maybe, Jews don't believe Jesus is Christ as they do, to start off with? From the AfD this article may be going away anyhow, which is good since there will be less problems with sticking to introduction content and cherrypicking quotes like that... -Bikinibomb (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it is whimsical to add to this, and the corresponding Christian glossary, a clear explanation of trinitarianism. If I am right however that this is shared by all Christiand, my suggestion would be to indlude as early a statement as possible - is this not part of the Nicene Creed? Also, if Arianism was decreed heretical as a form of tritheism, can you provide a good secondary source on that conflict (trinitarian vs. tritheism; orthodoxy vs. Arianism)? I am not challenging your claim, I just think more specific sources on this would make the glossaries and any corresponding articles more educational. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Part of my problem is that I gave away two bookcases of Christian theological books because they were giving my mother-in-law the whillies. I kept Berkhof and Calvin. Calvin isn't very helpful, and although Berkhof is a perfect one size fits all theology, I hate to keep quoting from the same source. I might talk my brother into shipping some of my books back. I'll need them anyway for my next book. If needed, I can quote some relevant passages from Berkhof. A. H. Strong, Dagg, Boyle, and some others are available online or on PDF as well. I also have the ante-Nicene fathers collection. Schaff's Creeds of Christendom would be the perfect source for what you are describing.... maybe I can get those online in PDF. I'd hate to buy the three volumes again just for Wikipedia... Hmm... Berkhof's History of Christian Doctrines may serve as well... Next time I take a break from galley proofing I'll hunt down some refs.Tim (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I am in no position to judge your sources, I only know of a book by a historian named Hall on the early Church ... I do think that to comply with NPOV we should use primary sources only when the meaning is plain, and good secondary sources when any interpretation or generalization or synthesis is involved, if you say Berkhof is well-regarded, okay. And if we are discussing Orthodoxy versus heresy, I want to make sure it is clear what Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and mainstream Protestants agree on. As long as you are confident that your sources are appropriate, that is fine with me! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. And anything you can find on Jewish sources prohibiting an intra-divine relationship instead of just an inter-divine relationship would be great. Also, how detailed do we want to be? There are a number of different spinoffs of the Trinitarian idea:

1. Modalistic Monarchianism -- God changes states or manifestations. Sometimes he is father, sometimes son, sometimes holy spirit.
2. Dynamic Monarchianism -- God is simply the father, with the son only human and the spirit just a divine influence.
3. Arianism -- the son and spirit are created partners of the father.
4. Tritheism -- God is three Gods who cooperate.

All these were summarized on Berkhof's Systematic Theology 82-83. Berkhof gave Augustine's De Trinitate as a complete statement in the early church. That should be available online in the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL.org, I think).

The simplest way to "get" the Christian idea is to think geometrically. A physical analogy to the spiritual concept would be a dimensional one. Any physical object is spatially triune in a similar way that Christians have God to be spiritually (NOT spacially) triune. The dimensions are not "parts." Take away any dimension and you do not have 2/3s left. You have 0/3s left.

Their conception of Jesus as fully human and fully divine is similar. Infinite in the divine dimension, and finite in the human dimension. Humanity is NOT deity, but in their doctrine Jesus is both. Not 50% one and 50% the other, but 100% and 100% the other.

Although Jewish responses like Kaplan and Jacobs are perfectly legitimate, a Jewish source that drives against this dimensional concept would be even better to include as well. In Christianity God is infinitely just and infinitely merciful. The mercy must satisfy the justice. In Judiasm God isn't really "merciful" or "just" per se. These are words we apply in a limited human capacity. Therefore they do not need to satisfy each other. There is no spiritual dimensionality to God, and in fact ANY definition is conceptually idolatrous because a definition becomes a limitation to God. All of that's in the Guide to the Perplexed. We've been too busy arguing to get to what I'm looking for, here, but that's basically it.Tim (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's what I mean by whimsy. In one article an editor insists on saying the Jesus has no role whatsoever in Judaism. The lo and behold, in another article sees fit to make "Christianity" a shared term just to add the view of Judaism that Christianity is generally considered idolatry according to Jewish theologians, first unsourced, then after some reverts with a source that doesn't really say that. So if Christianity is about Jesus, one role of Jesus in Judaism is a view of idolatry.

So as a test I changed "Christ" to a shared term to see if she would revert it and of course she did as a Christian only term, she did the same with Yeshua even though it was a common Hebrew name. If Christianity is a shared term, why not its base of Christ? That's the kind of POV spewing game playing bullshit I was trying to help put an end to with those guidelines. I guess the solution is probably to create a new account, keep my nose clean in it, make admin, then if I encounter this in the future I can use my superpowers to clamp down, just as an admin was used to twist and shape this article. -Bikinibomb (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Codes of Jewish Law

The material on oaths is not ancillary. They are the only source in Jewish for this topic. Moses Iseerles is almost the entire discussion in Jewish law on this topic. In contemporary times, these short statements have been used to produce broad theories of how Judiasm views Christianity. But all the tradition of Jewish law has is Isserles. Any statement like "they accept the same God" `is already a contemporary interpretation usually reflective of the author-even if they start off by saying "in Jewish law."--Jayrav (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anyone who disputes that they accept the same God. The question is whether they accept other gods in addition. That's the question at issue here. "They accept the same God" isn't only contemporary. It's probably very close to unanimous, even across the centuries.

The issue of "oaths" is ancillary, because the source in question states that we can cause non-Jews to take an oath without regard to the issue of shituf. In other words, even if shituf is outright idolatry for non-Jews, as it is for Jews, the issue of oaths would not change. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I take it back. I looked at the Tosfot in question, and I was wrong. For those who'd like to actually see it, you can go to http://www.e-daf.com/ and page to Sanhedrin 63b.

The Tosfot in question is commenting on the words "It is forbidden for a person to associate [another deity with God]." Tosfot brings Rabbi Samuel, who says "how much more so is it forbidden to accept an oath from them". After discussing the issue a bit, Tosfot concludes "Nevertheless, in these days everyone swears by what is sacred to them, and they do not thereby imply godhood to them. And even though they specifically mention a vain name, and their intent is to Jesus [lit. davar acher], nevertheless, this is not considered idolatry, and their intent is also to the Creator. And even though they are associating the Creator with Jesus, we have not found that it is forbidden to cause others to associate, since the prohibition of causing others to sin does not apply to [causing] Gentiles [to sin].

Still, the issue of oaths is absolutely ancillary to the issue of shituf itself, since it is only an example in which the question could arise. Furthermore, Tosfot does not suggest that shituf is permissible for non-Jews. Only that it is permissible for us to accept their shituf-oaths, because we aren't forbidden to cause or participate in their sinning. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What I understood from Novak was that the the initial ruling regarded our ability to partner with Gentiles, and then spread in later generations to their theoretical theological partnership constructions. Novak started the history on this with Tam, I think. Does that correspond to what you are saying here?Tim (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done

The article looks like a real encyclopedia article now. Thanks, everyone.Tim (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What I'm Looking For

I responded to Lisa on another page with the following. This may not be the article for it, but this is the idea that I'm trying to find documentation for:

Lisa, I wasn't saying that the "persons" of the trinity are considered to be attributes. Attributes are something that God has in Christianity. What I was pointing out was that Maimonides regards God as not even having attributes. God simply is what he is. We call him certain things and speak of certain attributes based on our experience of him -- but he remains beyond our experience and cannot be defined. Although attributes and persons are not the same thing, the beyond-definitionality of the Jewish God is what will negate both the presence of real attributes and distinct persons. God cannot, in fact, even be callled "a person" in Judaism. The closest we can say is "God is Person" but even that is only... experiential. The Jewish refutation of the Trinity is not in the simple idea of unity so much as in the Maimonidean idea that ultimate unity cannot be defined. Once you call God one thing in a real way, you are at the same time indicating either that he is not another thing too (like mercy AND justice), or that he is not "one" in every possible way. "Mercy" and "justice" are not the same thing in our experience. God cannot be called "merciful" or "just" in a real way. God is simply -- whatever he is. He will be whatever he will be. He will not be (fill in the blank), because (fill in the blank) will be a definition -- and definition is a limitation -- and a limitation negates the utter limitlessness of God, and therefore his unity as well. I'm simply looking for some good sources to say exactly this -- because THIS is the Jewish refutation of the Trinity. Do Jews think the trinity is arianism and reject that conception? Sure. But Jews ALSO do reject the logical foundations that are at the heart of the Christian idea, namely, a DEFINITION called "Trinity." God cannot be defined. The trinity is a kind of definition. Therefore God cannot be triune. God cannot, ultimately, by ANYTHING that you can name.

Again -- it may not belong here, but it will belong somewhere.Tim (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting, doesn't that seem contradictory, to reject Trinity because it attempts to define God, but then define God as having a female presence in the Shekhinah? Or as a human presence in Tzadikim? -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be if these were taken as absolutes. Jews say a lot of things about God, with the caveat in their head that "God isn't REALLY what I'm describing." The problem, though, is that over time this cavet can be weakened, which could have been what happened in early Christianity. Analogous references were taken as realities. Philo had a kind of trinity, for instance. Did Philo think that God REALLY was what he was describing? I haven't read Philo deeply enough to say. Because the caveats can be weakened with time, such descriptions do have a risk. But, well, Judaism is fuzzier than Christianity. Christianity tries to put everything in logical propositional terms. It is full of theological systemizations, while Judaism is not. Can you GET a systematic theology of Judaism? Sort of, but not exactly. In the same way, descriptions of God are, sort of, but not exactly. God is "sort of" masculine and "sort of" feminine. But you won't find Jews thinking God is LITERALLY such things.Tim (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, Christians are less likely to say such things as "God is feminine here" and "masculine there." The reason is that if they focused on that, they would have to define it -- systematically. Christianity is what happens to Judaism when you try to think in Greek.Tim (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Christians do that a lot in relation to the marriage of God to Jesus, the marriage of Jesus to the Lamb's Bride (righteous), and within the Lamb's Bride the marriage of man to woman (systematically in 1 Cor. 11:3), with God at the top of the hierarchy being masculine in all cases.

If Jews say God has a female presence in Shekhinah, what are they literally thinking about it? Either there is just God in one form and He goes everywhere in that very same form, or there isn't and He goes in different forms. Do Jews think He goes in different forms and presences? If they really think that then they are still defining God as being in different forms. And if not, they are still defining God to be in one form. So I'm not convinced that anyone can claim not to literally define God somehow, though of course you can still reject certain definitions. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The femininity is a metaphor. The divine name has a feminine ending and is associated with the feminine idea of mercy. The divine title has a masculine ending and is associated with the masculine idea of justice. The kabbalistic writings exist entirely in metaphors. The only literal aspect to them would be the Ein Sof. I personally don't like the kabbalistic writing for that very reason -- they are literally metaphors and since that is all they are, they speak metaphors in a literalistic way. I think 40 is too low an age to set for the beginner to read them. 80 would be better.Tim (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim is absolutely correct that it is a metaphor. But it's more than that. The Shechina is not God. Nor is it a part of God (any more than you and I are). It is a creation of God, just as everything else is. A vehicle through which we are able to perceive/understand God in a certain way and to a certain degree.

So, too, are the various "attributes" of kindness (chesed), restraint (gevurah), justice, mercy, etc. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Maimonides regards God as not even having attributes but isn't God defined as having attributes of mercy, justice, kindness, etc? So is the real problem with Trinity its basic attempt to define God, if some defining is done in Judaism even if abstract? Or does it have more to do with saying that the father attribute of God sired a son attribute of God giving God a physical attribute? That was always my problem with Trinity, making God Himself a man. Rather than saying God is God and never a man, but He can control and give power to men so much that they became as God over the people, in the case of Moses in Exodus 4:16, and the role Jesus is said to play. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

BB, look at that word "defined" Finite. It sets boundaries on God, dictates something about him, limits him as "this" and therefore not "that." Christians get around that by saying that he is infinitely everything and more. Jews say, "well, he's, hmm... what-he-is." We can say he has attributes, perhaps, but they don't have him. At best they are things he has made or perceptions of him created by his actions, which are themselves created, etc. Again, Christians put terms and names and definition and dimensionality to all of this. But Jews say, "God is..." and anything that we can name is just some limited approximation but not really "him." Here's the interesting thing: Christians look like polytheists to Jews; Jews look like atheists to Christians. We each know that the other is somehow monotheistic in some way, but both sides scratch their heads.

As for "the father attribute" -- the persons are not attributes to Christians. They are, in a way, personal dimensions. Each is all of God but not the other, which is also all of God. Take away 1 and you don't have 2/3s left. You have 0/3s left. Dare we apply math to God??? Jews don't. I imagine that Muslims don't. But both were giving birth in semitic language. Christianity is written in Greek. Philo was written in Greek. Even Messianics have trouble -- often stumbling into Compound Unities which are anathema to both Christians and Jews.Tim (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess why I keep asking about Shekhinah is that I've always seen that it is a dwelling, settling, or presence of a female attribute or dimension of God Himself, and the assumption is that if there are really 2 dimensions or attributes or whatever you would call it, you couldn't take away the female part leaving one male God, you would have no God, since there are two dimensions but only one God.

I've never seen Shekhinah described as a created thing to act as a doorway, window, etc. -- if most Jews view it as that, why don't they say that instead of saying it is a feminine aspect of God dwelling on earth? -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish Deity has no dimension. That's the maddening thing for Christians to get a handle on -- God has no handles. Logically, it's difficult for a Christians to conceptualize just where the Jewish God is. He is everywhere, and nowhere. The Shekhinah -- although I went with the "created" term for continuity, I'll have to research on that. My understanding is that the Shekhinah is God's presence. My presence isn't really me, but the presence of me. Do I create my presence? Only by my Self. As for masculine and feminine -- the Jewish God is both, and neither. I know -- it's maddening. It took me years as a Christian to "get it" and then I got stuck for a few weeks until I could figure out how to reconstruct the logical geometry of the Christian Deity. It's probably easier for a Muslim. Or maybe not. Does the Muslim God have positive attributes? I mean, is he REALLY merciful, or mighty, or just, or...?Tim (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The wiki entires for Jewish view of God, God, unity of God, attributes can all use work. Most of them are messes. Maybe you can put you conversation to work fixing up these articles? --Jayrav (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at them. It may be a few days. I commute over two hours each way to work each day and come home to proof the galleys to my book. But Sunday I may be able to take a crack at the pages. The problem is documentation -- but you know that. That's what takes the time. Get the idea, look for the sources, make sure that's it, put it down in a neutral way...Tim (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying like, this post here is my presence, but it was a created thing and can be deleted and I'll still exist -- and so...the Shekhinah can be deleted and God will still exist?

I can't speak for all Islam since it is as diverse as any religion, but yeah, Genesis says we were created in God's image, and He does things that are loving, compassionate, etc. He can also be hateful to His enemies, but you know, with a perfect hatred that is always justified. It's like, what you see God do is what He is, there's not one God making things happen here to create the illusion of a different God feeling a different way. That kind of seems like polytheism and idolatry, where you have all these attributes that seem like God and you worship as God, but in reality they are created things, windows, channels, etc. and not God. Either you are worshiping a God you know and believe in because of that knowledge, or you are worshiping a creation and something other than God. -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If the Shekhinah is God's presence, how can it be in one place and not another, or at one time and not another? God is everywhere and everywhen. He is "present" even in the most unholy place and unholy act. In the same way, he is experienced even in evil and darkness. He creates all these things. Can the creater be perceived in his creations? In a way. But there is still the need for revelation -- because our perceptions are limited. Even so, no one can comprehend "God" perfectly or completely. One can say, "I know of God because of thus and so" and not be an idolater. Once one says, "God is thus and so" the line to idolatry is crossed.Tim (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What about Psalms 116:5 Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; yea, our God is merciful.? It sounds like you are saying God is not really merciful Himself, mercy is just a thing He created. I get the image of an emotionless computer hooked to our brains giving us the illusion that it has mercy, when it's only a set of instructions. So the merciful thing we worship is just an illusion, which would rather seem to be idolatry. Do you think Psalms is really divinely inspired, if it leads us to worship only the illusion of a merciful God, if in reality we can't really know anything about attributes of God? -Bikinibomb (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

BB, let's move away from the "created things" idea for a sec. What is "merciful" and is that all God is? Is God anything other than merciful? Can he be contained in that word? All I'm saying is that words such as "merciful" or "patient" or "righteous" are never big enough. God makes light AND darkness, good AND evil. The same God does all this. But is he two gods or does he change? You can't contain him in any of those concepts. Is he merciful? In our experience, yes. Is he merciless? In some experience, yes again. Is he sometimes merciful and sometimes merciless? Well, no. He's what-he-is. It is the creation that has different angles of experience. The deviations are in us, rather than in God.Tim (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What is your interpretation of being created in God's likeness? Since it's not about flesh I always believed it was about emotions, thought, etc. That He experiences love, hate, etc. as we do, so that a human is a reflection of God making Him knowable, even with our limitations. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for Judaism on that subject. Personally, this has never been theoretical to me. It's not a statement about God (God is not in our image) but a statement about man (man is in God's image). What we do to men is a statement for what respect we have for God -- which is why the golden rule is found in both Judaism and Christianity as the central statement. In Judaism, this is the highest of all. In Christianity, it is in the top two. Don't do to others what we would not want done to us; this is the whole Torah (Judaism). Do to others what we would have done to us; on this depends the law and the prophets (Christianity). How central is this in Islam?

And yes, we have strayed from Shituf and should probably be working on a different article with this...Tim (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

We were made in God's image. Basically, Judaism doesn't say that usages such as God having an "outstretched arm" are a metaphor for our arms. Rather, our arms are an approximation of that "attribute" of God which is referred to in Hebrew as zero'a or yad. I'm not going to keep putting quotes around the word attribute, so just assume that when I talk about one of God's attributes, I don't mean that it's actually an aspect of God Himself, but only one of the aspect/attribute/middoth through which God is perceived by us.

Bikinibomb asked why most Jews don't say it that way. I'd answer that it's because most Jews don't know. Most Jews aren't theologians, or even particularly learned (from a Jewish POV). Judaism is a religion of tiered knowledge. We don't believe that it is appropriate to teach higher concepts to the average person. At least in principle, we teach people according to what they need to know.

It's like a translation. I'll use the words "pure/impure" or "ritually pure/impure" or similar bad translations for the Hebrew tamei/tahor for the simple reason that the actual words have no accurate one-word translations in English, and I prefer not to give a dissertation every time I have to talk about the concept. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

parts of this talk belong at God in Judaism--Jayrav (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Major edit

See, this is what happens when I take things for granted. I've removed the Isserles quote. Here are the reasons. One is that the quote doesn't exist. Not in Yoreh De'ah 15, at any rate. Maybe it exists elsewhere. Another is that it's not a quote from R' Isserles, but a quote of R' Isserles quoting the Tosfot on Sanhedrin 63a. You can go to E-daf to see the actual page and read the Tosfot for yourself, if you like. A third reason is that the translation was incorrect. And not in a small way. The Tosfot there does not say that shituf is permissible for non-Jews. It says that "we have not found that causing non-Jews to commit shituf is forbidden, as lifnei iveir (lit. placing a stumbling block before the blind; i.e. causing another to sin) does not apply to non-Jews". The Tosfot there is clear that shituf is forbidden for non-Jews. While I am under the impression that sources to exist that permit it, this Tosfot is not one of them. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You do not remove something - Moses Isserles becuase the number in source was incorrect. You are to add a tag - check source or add source. I meant to write 156 but worte 15 instead. I will try to find time to double check. Also I added a full translation of tosafot.--Jayrav (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)And if you do not like my translations then fix them or make a comment - do not remove them.--Jayrav (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

She has also removed my sourced contributions and replaced them with her unsourced OR when she just doesn't personally agree or like it. Get used to it. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ignore Bikinibomb. I apologize, Jayrav. Thank you for adding the full translation. I added the note about davar acher, which is the way Tosfot referred to Jesus generally. So yes, that Tosfot did refer explicitly to Christianity. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

davar acher does not refer to Jesus in tosafot. Use any search engine or reference. That is already a big assumption. Something else may mean saints, angels, the holy spirit, or Tosafot really did care what Christians believed. From the context there is no indication that it refers to Jesus. We are not even certain if tosafot could even distinguish between a statue of Jesus or a saint. If you have a text that translates davar ahar as Jesus, I would place that in the 20th century section--Jayrav (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"common euphemism for Jesus in rabbinic literature." The common usage is that man "otoh haish" neither in Sefer hasidism or Toldot Yeshu or any other text is Jesus davar ahar. Please check your sources. --Jayrav (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Jayrav is right. The claim that davar acher means Jesus is an interpretation. WP:NOR forbids editors to forward their own interpretations of a primary source. If there is a secondary source that makes this intepretation, we should by all means include it. Policy tells us to remove the claim until a citation is provided. Without the citation the whole quote seems irrelevant. I will give people some time to provide the required secondary sources for interpretations of this quote, though. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Monotheism

Lisa, Christianity is a monotheistic religion. That's also the Christian view. That's also the definition given, cited, and accepted by Wikipedia standards.

It's also the reason Christianity rejects divine partnership.

The short version is this: Judaism allows polytheism (shituf) to gentiles. Christianity does not allow polytheism (shituf) to anyone.

Christianity is actually MORE monotheistic in their position than we are. Fair is fair. We tolerate this polytheism and they do not.Tim (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source. That's Wikipedia 101, Tim. Christianity considers itself a monotheistic religion. But to state that it is, as fact, in an article which is about the fact that Judaism does not completely agree, is highly POV. You can say, "which considers itself a monothestic religion", but you cannot say that it is one. Not in this article.

And I'm really getting tired of your POV insistence that trinitarianism is not shituf as a matter of fact. That's not true. It's one opinion. You can't use it as a fact, no matter how many times you want to repeat it.

Personally, I'd like to remove the business in the God in Judaism article about henotheism, but that'd be POV on my part. So I'm not doing so, despite the fact that I find it grossly offensive. You need to learn to do the same. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- Christianity is a monotheistic religion in about 99% of the sources you'll find out there. It's not the place of Wikipedia editors to removed SOURCED statements and replace them with their UNSOURCED POV.Tim (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You could say "which considers itself a monotheistic religion" to make it clearer even though it is under Christian views. But removing references for no reason needs to be stopped, it's just a big "FU" to other editors. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we have to put such a caveat for every religion on every page? In lists of monotheistic religions, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are right up there together on almost every list. Plus, the section is the Christian view. Their VIEW is that they CONSIDER themselves thus and so? That's a bit redundant, don't you think? Instead of having to document their normative status both internally and externally "as a monotheistic religion" I would think rather that we would have to heavily document any position that stated they weren't.Tim (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Her pattern is to obviously get as close as possible to saying "Christians pretend to be monotheistic" without actually saying it. Just another POV push. If it was in Judaism and Christianity in the Christian view sections, I'd refuse to change it. But since it is in a strictly Hebrew term article, it probably can't hurt and will avoid another battle with her. -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I put in caveats stating the views are... views. Anything more will make us look like some kind of antimissionary site.Tim (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Years ago I first heard the phrase "Christians in Jewish drag" -- take a wild guess who said it. Just for kicks I think I'll whip up a Jews for Judaism Seal of Approval image to tag these articles so we know they have been deemed acceptable by the appropriate authorities. -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not me. I just Googled the phrase, and found two sites where it appears. I went to Usenet and found two more. But I kind of like it. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What I put there is nothing even close to what Bikinibomb says I want to put there. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What do I need to do here? I've given one Jewish source for Christianity being a monotheistic religion. I can add others from all branches of Judaism (I started with Orthodox). Also, I can quote the Christian positions against any multiplicity of deities. Christians do not regard polytheism to be acceptable for ANYONE. Do I need to quote those positions as well?

This is getting tedious. I think the Christian section is cited twice as much as all the Jewish sections of this article combined.

Although I've had friends in Jews for Judaism, Wikipedia is NOT J4J (on either side of the acronym).Tim (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with having contradictory sources in an article, Tim. That just means that there are contradictory views out there. But in such a case, you can't say that one of them is a fact and the other is just opinion. That's both POV and OR. Adding more and more sources to support one side of the disagreement does not take away from the existence of the sources on the other side. This isn't a majority vote kind of thing.

I'm not putting in text that says "Christianity is polytheism". I'm simply insisting that their claim to monotheism be given as one side to the dispute. Nor am I saying that this has to be done in every Wikipedia article, but to omit that caveat from this article undermines the entire article. Which is obviously your intent. You have no right to dismiss all sourced views to the contrary and insist on your view. You've been doing this all along. I'm not sure why you converted, Tim. Your connection to Christianity is way too strong. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- I'm simply insisting that the Christian view be stated. That's all. Look, you had the luxury growing up of simply being Jewish. You didn't need to reject anything, real or imagined. You simply needed to accept what you were born with. I didn't have that luxury. To convert I had to do more than reject some fantasy religion you keep making up and calling "Christianity." I had to reject the real thing. What I have a strong connection to is reality, Lisa. Christianity is a monotheistic trinitarian religion. I didn't have to reject shituf ideas because I was never a Jehovah's Witness.

As for contradictory views -- I have not attempted to change the Jewish views. You've correctly stated them, although they show us to be, as a whole, largely ignorant of Christianity. But let's be fair and not look intolerant at the same time.

Everything I've put in is sourced and acceptable by Wikipedia standards, and the more you change it, the longer and more sourced it will be. How deep do you want to dig?Tim (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Judah Ha-Levi’s Kuzari 1:4 refers to “monotheists” when the Christian spokesman say’s to the Khazar king: “for we are truly monotheists, although the Trinity appears on our tongues.” Saadayah lists Christians among the monotheists, not among the polytheists, even as he rejects the trinity. The phrase the community of monotheists (jama`at al-muwahadin) in Jewish thought as applying to Jews, Muslims, Christians, is in Saadyah, Bahye, Maimonides, and others. This discussion belongs on the Jewish conception of God page. God in Judaism--Jayrav (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, Lisa -- the continuous smacks about my conversion are inappropriate and offensive. I have a thick skin, but they are getting in the way of any kind of rational discussion. As a Jew, I object to your making our religion appear to be intolerant: intolerant of Messianics, intolerant of Christians, and -- even more bizarre -- intolerant of people who are fully aware and understand Christianity and choose to embrace Judaism anyway. Treatment of a convert in this way is a violation of Torah as well. I have no interest in being a poster child for conversion, I have little patience for polemics on either side, but I DO insist on factual presentations in an encyclopedia on subjects I know something about and have sources to back it up.

For the record, Judaism is authoritative for itself regarding its treatment of Christianity even if that is based on a misunderstanding of Christianity. We do not have to understand something perfectly in order to make a decision for ourselves. As such, the decisions on shituf are both unnecessary and valid. They are unnecessary because Christians do not believe in partnership. They are valid because to us it seems as if they do and we have to make a rationale regarding our relationship that makes sense to us. Our treatment of Christians, then, is more lenient than it needs to be, but that's perfectly okay. Jews cannot be expected to understand Christianity, nor should they be required to do so. The amount of education required to make a ruling regarding Christianity as it really is would be impractical for the Jewish population and would be dangerous as well -- because people have a way of getting stuck inside paradigms they were merely trying to understand. I would say the same regarding Christian decisions of how to relate to us. They should relate to us based on how they understand us. They do not have to relate to us based on how we understand ourselves. To do so would require them to understand us as we understand ourselves -- something only truly possible with a lot of education and a huge paradigm shift that could lead to a lot of conversions (in either direction) if it was tried.

Ultimately a religion (such as our religion) must make decisions for itself based on the best of our understanding. That's valid. However, Judaism remains self defined. Christianity remains self defined. Our relations with each other do not have to match those self definitions -- and it would be impractical and religiously dangerous for individuals to try.

All that being said -- an encyclopedia that has the temerity to object to Christianity being presented "as a monotheistic religion" in a section titled the "Christian view" -- well such an encyclopedia is not NPOV, is it?Tim (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And yet, I never wrote that it isn't monotheistic. I'm simply insisting that it be presented as the opinion it is. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And I added more opinions, and will continue to add more opinions every time you make a change.Tim (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Polemics

Tim wrote: Uh -- try keeping polemics out. When describing the CHRISTIAN view, describe the Christian VIEW of "persons."

I'm not engaging in polemics. Post Christian apologetics on a different page if you must. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely engaging in polemics, Lisa. Present the Christian views as Christian views -- not the Jewish views of Christian views.Tim (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, "imply" speaks of the speaker's intent. "Infer" speaks of the hearer's understanding. Don't negate a Christian implication with a Jewish inference.Tim (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Peace

I suppose that conflict is part of the NPOV process here. Let's, please, have some peace. I really need to finish proofing my galley and have no interest in being the defender of Christianity on Wikipedia.

Also, R. Wurzburger is cited on this page. He was a most peacful man, and I still mourn his passing. In fact, he is the one who made the decision for the Beit Din to encourage me to finish my book. In his name, Lisa, let us please move on from this.Tim (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

How about creating a R. Wurzburger wiki page? --Jayrav (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Oh, I see you just did. nice idea. --Jayrav (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Done! It's ALREADY being slammed for notability issues. Apparently people think the Rabbinical Council of America lacks notability!Tim (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew for Shituf

Could any one provide the Hebrew graphics for the term, please.Muscovite99 (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Orthodox and Non-Orthodox

Lisa, I was content with Novak and wanted to leave Telushkin out of it since you told me that he wasn't happy with his terms "the trinity represents three aspects of one God". Can we just go back to the edit before today and leave this alone? This is completely unnecessary.Tim (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't start. Telushkin himself disagrees with your interpretation of what he wrote. We went through this. Do I have to e-mail him again? "Three aspects of One God" is not monotheistic in the Orthodox Jewish view. You're reading your personal views into what Telushkin wrote. No Orthodox Jews say that Christianity is monotheistic. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- if "one God" isn't monotheistic, then we need to define the term a different way. Also, Telushkin (if he indeed wrote you) rejected your representation of what I was saying -- which does not resemble what I was saying. I NEVER said that Christianity was okay for Jews, EVER. Nor would I EVER use Telushkin as a source to support something that I do not myself believe. I merely left him out to be polite. Now, I wrote Telushkin myself and received no response. Until then, "one God" sounds pretty mono(one)theist(God)ic to most folks.Tim (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You saw Telushkin's e-mail. I'll reproduce it here for all to see:

Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:53:59 -0600

From: Lisa Liel <lisa@starways.net>

Subject: help, please

Dear Rabbi Telushkin,

I am engaged in a debate with a person I'll call T. T is an Orthodox Jew who converted from Christianity. Previously, he was a Christian pastor and theologian.

The debate revolves around the issue of shituf and the Christian trinity. I have stated that the unanimous view of Jewish authorities is that worship of the trinity constitutes idolatry *for Jews*. T insists that this view is not unanimous, because there is one notable Jewish authority who says otherwise. That authority, he says, is you.

He bases this claim on the following quote from your book, "Jewish Literacy":

Throughout the centuries, more than a few Jewish thinkers have argued that the idea of the trinity (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) seemed idolatrous. Ultimately, however, the majority of Jewish scholars concluded that although Christianity speaks of a trinity, it does not conceive of the three forces as separate with different and conflicting wills. Rather, the trinity represents three aspects of one God. While Jews are forbidden to hold such a belief, it is not avodah zarah."

I read this as you saying that trinitarianism is not idolatry for non-Jews, but T insists that you are saying it isn't idolatry even for Jews. He wants to post this publically on Wikipedia as a notable Jewish position.

Thank you for your help.

Kol Tuv,

Lisa

Rabbi Telushkin wrote back as follows:

Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 15:40:37 EST

Subject: Re: help, please

To: lisa@starways.net

Your explanation is correct. If he posts it as he tells you he wants to do he is falsifying what I said.

Thank you.

WIth best wishes

Joseph Telushkin

If it is avodah zarah for Jews, then it is either avodah zarah or shituf for non-Jews. There is nothing that is avodah zarah for Jews which is not in one of those two categories. And both of those categories are essentially polytheistic.

You read his e-mail back 6 months ago. Posting that quote from his book to give the impression that there are Orthodox Jewish authorities who view Christian worship of a trinity as monotheistic cannot be seen as a good-faith edit in light of your knowledge that Telushkin himself disagrees with your reading of his words.

I will only allow you to keep that quote there with the caveat I added. Remove the caveat, and I'll remove the quote. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- I'll do you one better. How about we just go back to the way it was worded YESTERDAY with just Novak? As an author, I have no intention of using an unwilling source from my own camp! Fair?

As for the subject at hand, the information you supplied Telushkin did not explain that I always held his statement "it is forbidden to Jews" to mean that "it is forbidden to Jews." If I were Telushkin, with just your note, I would have said something similar to what he said. Although "falsifying" is a word I would not have used on so little information. That being the case, out of politeness I would rather we leave the poor Rabbi out of it and go back to yesterday. Or, if you prefer, we can leave it as is. I'll leave the call to you. But I doubt your personal email line would survive any other editor -- so I'd suggest going with my idea.Tim (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's "better"? You originally put that in because you wanted to make it look like Jews don't say what Jews say. I must have missed it at the time, but I think it's important and notable that not one Orthodox Jewish authority, ever, has identified Christianity as monotheistic. If you want, we'll take out the Telushkin quote, along with my caveat. But the "non-Orthodox" stays in, because leaving it out is deliberately misleading. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Then we'll have to leave it as is, since "one God" is, uh, by definition "monotheistic."Tim (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So you're deciding that not only do you know better than all the Orthodox rabbis there've ever been what Judaism says shituf is, but you know better than Rabbi Joseph Telushkin does what he meant by what he wrote? I don't think so. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- what part of "one God" doesn't mean "one God"? Eh?Tim (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The "three aspects" part. Judaism says that God is utterly One. It doesn't matter. I'm declaring that Telushkin quote to be "non-notable" on the basis of his e-mail. You can't use it as a citation. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Declare all you want. It's in print, and it's explicit.Tim (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's your original research. He doesn't even use the word "monotheism" or "monotheistic" in that passage. Your conclusion that "three aspects of One God" means monotheism is nothing but original research. And given the fact that he has specifically disagreed with your interpretation, it isn't even good originally research. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- Telushkin did NOT disagree that "one God" meant "one God." That's not OR. That's just mono(one)the(god)ism. I accepted your compromise and offered you one better, and I cannot fathom why you are baiting and switching. I'm restoring it to your last offer and asking you to call your OWN edit a day.Tim (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No. I was mistaken to let you get away with that. And it isn't right for a Wikipedia article anyway. My bad. No, we're going to go back to the "non-Orthodox" edit, which is non-POV, non-OR, and appropriate. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- Telushkin, an Orthodox Rabbi, manifestly states that (at least) GENTILE Christians are not worshipping multiple deities. This isn't OR. If "one God" isn't monotheism, then NOTHING is. The only OR here is that "personal email" that you claim to have from him (which BTW, no one could verify).Tim (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, he does not. He says that GENTILE Christians are not, by some views, violating avodah zarah. You tried, 6 months ago, to infer from that that it wasn't avodah zarah for Jews either, and he specifically stated that your interpretation of his words was incorrect.

There's only one thing that's avodah zarah for Jews and might not be for non-Jews. And that's shituf. Which is not, by Jewish definition, monotheism. Three aspects to a deity or three deities or one deity and two sub-deities... all three of these are less than monotheism in the eyes of Judaism.

But let's get this straight here. I'm not going into the Christianity article and writing that Christianity is polytheistic. On the contrary. I'm simply trying to prevent you from coming into an article about a Jewish concept and falsely claiming that Orthodox Jews see Christianity as monotheistic. Do I need to write to Rabbi Telushkin again and ask that he intervene personally? After all, you are the one who is libeling him by attributing views to him that he never wrote. "One God", left alone, is monotheism. But "three aspects of One God" is not. Not in the absolute monotheism of Judaism. Christians may have redefined monotheism for themselves by including their trinity in it. Fine. That's term switching, which you ordinarily rail against yourself, but in this case seem to be fine with. Judaism's definition and understanding of monotheism pre-dates even the existence of Christianity, and it is the definition that rules in an article about the Jewish concept of shituf. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- he says that Christians worship "one God" and he even says this is the majority Jewish view. It's not my fault that he didn't STATE "only Gentile" Christians. Of course you inferred that, and if your unverifiable email did come from him, he apparently didn't mean "Christians" when he said "Christians" but only meant "Gentile Christians." Fine -- I accepted that on face value. But the subject of Shituf IS about (at least Gentile) Christians, which has to be included in Telushkin's comment or else you include no Christians at all. It's not me who made an inference that "Christians" means "Christians." It's simply the English language. And, in fact, one would have to radically reword his statement to MAKE it say what you CLAIM he says it means:

• Telushkin, Jewish Literacy, page 552: "Throughout the centuries, more than a few Jewish thinkers have argued that the idea of the trinity (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) seemed idolatrous. Ultimately, however, the majority of Jewish scholars concluded that although Christianity speaks of a trinity, it does not conceive of the three forces as separate with different and conflicting wills. Rather, the trinity represents three aspects of one God. While Jews are forbidden to hold such a belief, it is not avodah zarah."

• Wording required to force Lisa's inference: "Throughout the centuries," every orthodox authority without any exception has held that "the idea of the trinity (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost)" was unquestionably "idolatrous. Ultimately, however, the" unanimous agreement "of Jewish scholars concluded that although Christianity speaks of a trinity, it does" in fact "conceive of the three forces as separate with different and conflicting wills. Rather, the trinity represents three aspects of" three separate gods. "Jews are forbidden to hold such a belief, it is" in fact "avodah zarah."

I'm not the one falsifying Telushkin here -- you are.

And one other thing. Not only is Shituf forbidden by Jews for Jews -- it is also forbidden by Christians for Christians. Christianity holds the concept we call Shituf to be polytheistic and forbidden, and the fact that we allow it for anyone makes us far more permissive about idolatry than they are.

As for Telushkin intervening, he is most welcome to answer my email to him from six months ago.Tim (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I think I've got a great idea. How about we delete the section on "Christian views" entirely, since, as far as I know, shituf is a solely Jewish concept and Christianity has no view of it, per se. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Steve, Christians actually DO have very strong views of the concept we call "Shituf" -- and they roundly condemn it as a polytheistic heresy called "Arianism." Since we APPLY "shituf" TO Christians, the fact that they actually reject the concept is most pertinent. To give an example, let's say that a group of people had a concept for "Jews need human blood for passover" (i.e. the blood libel), and they made a term for it and applied it to us in governing their relations with us. The fact that we ourselves condemn the consumption of ANY blood (even animal blood) would have a place in such an article. I'd like to add that the comparison is no hyperbole. The concept of multiple deities in partnership is as anathema to Christians as the concept of eating human blood is to us.Tim (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Steve is right. This is like having a "Jewish objections" section in the Trinity article. It's a pathetic addition made by someone who can't accept what Judaism says about Christian polytheism. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- the Trinity is not a Christian statement about Judaism. Shituf is a Jewish statement about Christianity. What Christianity actually teaches regarding the concept of divine partnership is as essential as authentic Jewish dietary rultes would be in an article about the blood libel. To bury it is a violation of NPOV. Just tonight I brought the subject up with an aquantaince who is an Eastern Orthodox Monk, and he was completely floored that anyone would allow Arianism (i.e. Shituf) as an acceptable belief for Gentiles. Arianism is explicitly forbidden within Christianity as polytheistic.Tim (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop with the "Arianism" nonsense. Shituf has nothing to do with Arianism. It has to do with any form of worship that does not conform to what Judaism deems to be monotheism. No Christian rationalizations change the fact that Christian worship is not monotheistic as Jews understand the term.

I've seen converts and I've seen converts. And the ones who spend all their time worrying about points of Christian belief and defending Christianity are the ones who don't last. -LisaLiel (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- stop with the personal attacks. They are unseemly, and definitely un-halakhic. And if you think the concept of lesser deities in partnership with God has nothing to do with Arianism, then you absolutely demonstrate that you do not understand Arianism. I've offered a broader definition of Shituf that would actually ADDRESS Trinitarianism and not just Arianism. But until we find a sourced text that does this, then we are stuck with Arianism. If Shituf is supposed to be about Trinitarianism, then please find that definition that does so.

This is ridiculous -- just leave it to the edit from last week and call it a day. We can both walk away and forget about it.Tim (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If you re-insert a section on Christian views into an article on a Jewish concept again, this is going to arbitration. I'm tired of your agenda. I don't care if you created this article with Christianity in mind; the concept of shituf exists with or without Christianity.

Do you know any Wiccans, Tim? I do. I've heard them express this sentiment: "All the gods are one god, all the goddesses are one goddess, and the god and goddess are One." Here's a clear example of people expressing a view that can be seen as "monotheistic" in the sense that it comes down to a single deity. But they pray to a multitude of deities, even if they also see those deities as aspects of a single deity.

Just like Christians do with their "father", their "son" and their "holy ghost".

This is it, Tim. Leave the article alone, and stop trying to force Christian ideology into a Jewish concept, or this goes to arbitration. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- I'd welcome arbitration. To have an article about Jewish concept of a Christian concept without mentioning the Christian concept itself is like having an article on the blood libel without mentioning that Jews forbid eating blood.Tim (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Then you should not have a problem with the article as Lisa wishes to write it; it's NOT a "Jewish concept of a Xian concept". It's a Jewish concept that has been applied after the fact to Xianity. Not the same thing at all. FlaviaR (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine. We start with an RfC on the subject. If necessary, we'll escalate it to an RfC on you. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Should there be a section on Christian views in this article?

Should an article on a Jewish religious subject include a section on Christian views just because the subject is viewed by some Jewish rabbinic authorities as pertaining to Christianity? -LisaLiel (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- third party opinion is the first step. RfC is after that. I've asked for third party opinion on the WikiProject Christianity and the WikiProject Judaism pages. If third party opinion doesn't work, then RfC is a later step. Let's do this correctly this time, instead of the weird escalation like last time. There's a process. Let's follow it. Thanks.Tim (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• You both have been edit warring way too much, and violated 3RR. STOP NOW, or risk consequences of having the article locked and possibly both of you temporarily blocked from editing. I'm glad you have taken steps to get another opinion, but the edit warring must stop as well.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew!Tim (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've reviewed the Christian views section briefly, and it appears that not a single source mentions the term "Shituf". It also appears that whoever wrote that section strung together a handful of different sources to come to an original synthesis in order to rebut some of the claims in this article (even though the cited sources aren't rebutting or even discussing "shituf"). I also do not think we need a Christian view's section. The first paragraph seems off topic. The other two paragraphs may be able to be integrated into other sections. For example, if we have a section specifically referencing a Christian belief, such as, "Jews think the trinity refers to 'three persons'", we should then have the Christian response sentence (but we have to watch for original research as mentioned previously). -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, you have a good point, and I apologize for the edit-warring. I should have taken this to RfC a lot earlier. I've rewritten the article and limited it to an article about the Jewish concept of shituf, without polemics for or against Christian beliefs. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• As promised, the page is protected (for 5 days). During this time, please try to work together to reach a consensus for the direction for this article. Feel free to use a sandbox to make proposals for changes. Also, give the RfC some time for other editors to weigh in. If you reach a consensus sooner than 5 days, feel free to request unprotection. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, THANKS! Geeze, now we can rest for a bit with some rationality. I'm going to pop off for the rest of the weekend. I have a second galley proof to finish and a screenplay submission to make. Stick Shabbat in between there and that leaves no Wiki time. In any case, there won't be any consenus between Lisa and myself. Believe me, I've tried. Please go through some of the edit history to see how I've tried repeatedly to compromise. I even offered to let her remove all references to Christianity -- but she cannot do so, because the concept is applied primarily TO Christianity. In any case, I've asked for third parties to look in from both Christianity and Judaism. I actually SUGGEST that Lisa and I BOTH avoid future edits for at least a month to give others time to do what they want. I suggest this, because the issue seems to be personal (I could be wrong). But even if I'm wrong, blocking BOTH of us from this page for a solid month would be well in order. Can you do that?Tim (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, you have placed protection on this article after Tim vandalized it twice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shituf&diff=223539106&oldid=223537299

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shituf&diff=223539293&oldid=223539106

And after he reverted it from a NPOV article about a Jewish concept to his highly polemic article claiming that the Jewish concept is "all about" Christianity. This is the diff between the two versions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shituf&diff=223539958&oldid=223539783

I would like to request that you lift the protection, revert that diff, and then replace the protection. Wikipedia should not be a place for polemics. This article should contain encyclopedic content; not one person's religious beliefs. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew -- the page right now is the same as it has been FOR MONTHS before Lisa got annoyed with me on a different article's talk page and decided to retaliate with a Wikiwar here. I'd suggest, if you DO any reversion, please revert the page to the way it was before the edit war began this week, and then block BOTH of us for a month to let non-combatants fix it. This is nothing more than a personal issue.Tim (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't "retaliate". Good Lord, do you have some sort of persecution complex? I noticed that you'd written that there were "some Jewish" views that Christianity is monotheistic, and I felt that this was misleading, as there are no Orthodox Jewish views to that effect. All I did was add "non-Orthodox" as a modifier, and you went berserk. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, folks, I guess I'll try to weigh in. I think in theory the idea of a "Christian Response" section would be acceptable, since we are talking about a major and well known criticism of Christianity here. However, as it stands, the section is badly written and doesn't really provide any useful information. I think it goes without saying that Christians would deny that their religion is polytheistic, since we share the Ten Commandments with them and it does say quite explicitly that we are not supposed to have any God before Him. So, my !vote is get rid of the section for now, but if we can work to improve it I would support adding it back.
I would also strongly suggest to both Lisa and Tim that you guys seriously take like a day off of editing and try to put things in perspective. You are obviously both very worked up and you need to chill out and stop undermining each other. It's not very becoming, take it from me. L'Aquatique[happy fourth!] 17:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Comment In general I agree with Andrew C's comment above. But I have problems with both "competing" versions of the article. The problem with this article is that its form has been dictated by a conflict between two users concerning Christianity. It is not really what an article on "shituf" as such means. I suggest it be rewritten as a serious article on the concept "shituf." The structure and the contents of the article should follow from this principle. First, the word should be translated immediately - "partnership" is how Jastrow translates it. Second, we should provide a history of changing ways the concept has been used in Judaism. To my knowledge it plays no important role in the Tanakh/Israelite religion. It is important in the Talmud although you wouldn't know it from this article - in the Talmud, it is used in relation to matters of kashrut, and there should be a section on this. At a later date it came to be used to apply to issues of monotheism and the article should discuss this as well (as it currently does). Now, if non-Orthodox rabbis have written about shituf in any notable way then their views should be included as well and this goes even for Christian theologians; if any have written about shituf then their views should be included. But if no Christian has explicitly discussed the Jewish concept of shituf, I see no place for any discussion of Christian views. Including them would not comply with NPOV and would violate NOR (SYNTH). Slrubenstein | Talk 22:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. My competing version of the article was intended to be along these lines. That it's merely a stub of it is my own fault, but I did want to move it away from the original "all about Christianity" business. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

To help with this discussion, I'd like to add this link [1], which is where the current discussion began.

This article should be changed to the version in this diff [2] and the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism template should be added. Because this is a Jewish term. A technical one which did not originate with the Tosafists, and did not come into being to deal with Christians or Christianity. The novelty introduced by the Tosafists was merely the idea that perhaps Christian worship fell into the category of shituf, rather than that of avodah zarah. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa- This article is already a part of WikiProject Judaism, if that is what you are asking for. L'Aquatique[happy fourth!] 22:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Procedural comment I believe an RFC may be a useful step in this case and suggest letting it proceed and seeing what happens. In general, dispute resolution steps don't have to be done in precisely the suggested order. Nothing is served by getting into sub-disputes about the "correct" way to do dispute resolutions. If it works, it's good enough. At this point, suggest that the parties to this dispute stop adding comments to this section, chill a bit, and wait and see what outside editors have to say before proceeding further. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'm going to rewrite this article as it should have been in the first place. Tim created it with Christianity foremost in his mind, but shituf has nothing to do with Christianity, even if there is a minority view that Christian worship is shituf rather than avodah zarah. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- did I just read you right? "Shituf has nothing to do with Christianity"??? Okay, be my guest, rewrite the article without ANY reference to Christianity and see if you have any article left.Tim (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Shituf is a Jewish concept. You should never have been allowed to create an article on shituf that contained a section called "Jewish views", let alone "Christian views". The first is redundant, and the second is inappropriate.

As you yourself have pointed out, the Tosfot didn't mention Christianity when they discussed shituf. Shituf is also mentioned by Rashi, who predates the Tosfot. According to Jewish authorities, worshipping Baal and God is shituf. Worshipping Zeus and God is shituf. Not everything revolves around Christianity. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh -- try again, Lisa. There are references to Christianity ALL THROUGH the article. If it's not about Christianity, then remove all references to Christians and Christianity. But you can't -- because that's the whole point of Shituf.Tim (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I just removed any reference to Christianity. Since Shituf is primarily applied to Christianity, the article now meets Andrews requirments.

The article itself, however, is now false. But that's up to you and Andrew. If Wikipedia is about making falsehoods -- enjoy.Tim (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

False dichotomy. Shituf is a Jewish concept that existed before Christianity, and is not dependent upon Christianity. The fact that an opinion exists that it applies to Christianity as well is incontestable, but doesn't make shituf about Christianity. And what you've just done is out and out vandalism. Stop it now, or I'll go straight to an RfC on you. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- you said that Shituf "has nothing to do with Christianity". I then invited you to delete all references to Christianity. You failed to do so, and when I deleted paragraphs that mention Christianity, you labelled that as vandalism.

Well, make up your mind. If eliminating references to Christianity is vandalism, then Shituf is being applied to Christianity. You can't have it both ways.

That being said, Andrew -- thanks for the block. I'm going to stay off until I finish a screenplay submission... which will take me a few days. I leave the helm in your capable hands.Tim (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

False dichotomy. Your personal religious views should not have a showcase here, Tim. Shituf is applied to Christianity. It is not about Christianity. And your edit was absolutely vandalism, by any standard you like. It was unreadable and unintelligible. And it was another attempt by you at playing games.

If I have to wait 5 days, I'll wait 5 days. But I will not allow your exercise in polemics to stand. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew -- notice the "I will not allow". Can you just block us both for a month and let people who are not the target of a personal attack do some real work?Tim (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Preemptive and cool-down blocks are against our policy, Tim, and as a general rule we do not block by request. You can get approximately the same results from the WikiBreak Enforcer, but you cannot force Lisa to do the same, nor would it be ethical to try. I strongly suggest that you instead try to find some way to reach a middle ground- perhaps you would like to open an informal case with the Mediation Cabal? L'Aquatique[happy fourth!] 22:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to try that, please. I think it's clear that Tim and I aren't going to agree about this, and I don't think the warring that's been going on is good for anyone. Can you please explain how one opens an informal case with the Mediation Cabal? -LisaLiel (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that this is purely a personal event, and the persons involved should step back and allow both sets of affected parties (Christians and Jews) take an equal look at it and apply Wiki-good-sense. I've addressed Christians and Jews equally. Lisa, on the other hand, has been only enlisting one side.

Here's what's going to happen: an artificial consensus is going to be generated and Lisa's edits will be enforced. Only Christian sources that use the JEWISH term for Arianism (Shituf) will be allowed, instead of Christian sources that use the CHRISTIAN term for Shituf (Arianism). It will appear by an artificial constraint that Christians have nothing at all to say about their own belief, in spite of the fact that they have a great deal to say about it, and have roundly condemned the concept of partnership for the past 1600 years.

And here's what else will happen -- I will no longer care. A personal agenda, and a personally enlisted single side of eyeballs will honestly enforce a single POV upon both Wikipedia and a major world religion.

And hopefully, no one else will care as well, and we can all get a life.

I will point out that the enlistment of a single POV will bring people of good faith and good will who will believe they are applying things even handedly -- but judged by a limited POV that needs balance according to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I'll drop by in August and assess the damage.Tim (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Tim, shituf is not the Jewish term for Arianism (unless you can provide me with a reliable verifiable source for a notable point of view that claims that it is) and your insisting that it is seems at this point to be only tendentious. I frankly do not undersstand your motive. You know, "polytheism" is not "the English word for Arianism" either. (I know you did not claim this; I am trying to use an analogy to make my point clearer for those who do not speak Hebrew). Surely you would not have us write an article on "Polytheism" that assumes that this is just a fancy English word for Arianism, would you? Why then insist that shituf is just the Hebrew word for Arianism? Shituf isn't even the hebrew word for polytheism, it is the Hebrew word for "partnership" and it has been applied to a range of issues in Jewish law. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Tim, unless you can provide me with notable Christian sources the provide an explicitly Christian POV on "shituf" - something that in many months of argument I do not recall you haveing done even once - I just do not see how you can expect anyone to assume you are acting in good faith. And if you indeed provided a reliable verifiable source for a notable Shristian POV on shituf and i mised it, I APOLOGIZE but please, please remind me what the source is and what it says about shituf. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't take my word for it -- give the definition for Shituf to any Christian theologian or pastor and ask him the term used for that definition. The concept of the "spirit" and "son" as lesser beings in "partnership" with God is Arianism. If you want sources, there's a whole Wikipedia page on it. Again -- don't believe me. Check out with any ten theologians or pastors and you'll get a very quick consensus. The fact that we use a different term for Arianism doesn't change it. Now -- if you doubt my motives, DO THE TEST I just suggested. But if you won't, then don't doubt my motives. Doubt your own. Now, also, I'll be back in August. That gives you plenty of time. If you can't be bothered to read the Arianism article and ask the participants to see if this is the same concept in an entire month... then there will be no doubt about motives, will there?Tim (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Tim, do you think that everyone is against you? Let's do the mediation that L'Aquitaine suggested. Anything is better than slamming this back and fourth. Well, anything other than just leaving an article that (a) falsely claims that shituf was created as a means of looking at Christianity and (b) insists that Christian theology be given a voice in a Jewish topic. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with mediation -- as long as both Christians and Jews are involved in the mediation. I've enlisted both sides into this, and I only see you enlisting one. Further, your removal of Christianity's self identification as a monotheistic faith on the Christian page tonight [3] is begging the question. I REALLY do not have time for this. I would prefer that we both step back and stop the war of attrition. Stop stalking my old edits. I don't have time to keep restoring them.Tim (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "both Xians and Jews"? How about Muslims & Hindus? Atheists, Zoroastrians & Mormons? Your entire line of argument sounds like an agenda that has no place in Wikipedia - to try to slant the tenets/terms/articles (etc) of one religion to suit another is shameful; maybe you aren't aware you're doing it, perhaps you don't even realize how you sound. Take a step back & think about what would happen if Jews & Muslims insisted on re-editing any part of Xian pages that could possibly be said to refer to their religion as actually part of their religion. It would be at best chaos, at worst an insult. FlaviaR (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

New section

It's so good to see such a fine collection of editors at this page. I find myself in agreement with almost everyone, and that doesn't surprise me given what I have heard from them in the past.

As far as I can see, there is a basic idea that all agree on (though there is disagreement on how to implement it). This article is first and foremost about a technical Jewish term, and it is Jewish usage in Jewish context, sourced therefore upon Jewish writings that needs to form the substance of this article.

Were this a dictionary, there would be no more to say.

This, however, is an encyclopedia article, which means it addresses published opinion on a topic (often involving alternate views of the subject matter). We are not simply identifying and disambiguating the range of usage of shituf; for this to be encyclopedic, the significance of the idea in the history of thought must be cited. Naturally, this is predominantly Jewish. However, Jewish sources will be the most reliable about the meaning of the word when it is applied, but not about the "truth value" of propositions formed by such usage.

For example, "shituf means associating some additional element closely with the Creator" crudely describes one meaning. However, "the Christian view of Trinity is shituf" may be true, or may be false, it is a POV and invites responsible editorial efforts to obtain any relevant alternative. At that point, trinity becomes our "search term" in querying the literature. To deny this option is to deny a POV to any scholar that is knowledgable about the Trinity but not with Jewish terminology. It undermines the possibility of Wiki presenting a NPOV. It permits Jewish scholars to be experts on the Trinity, merely because they use the word, while denying others to be experts on the Trinity unless they use the word shituf. The whole point of first defining the meaning of shituf is to introduce reliable words and phrases entailed by that term, which permit responsible comparison with literature that interacts with the idea if not the word itself.

If what I am saying is reasonable, I think the problem is that in the clash between Tim and Lisa, the idea that shituf is defined as the Jewish view of the Christian Trinity has been proposed. I'm not sure that is actually the case. Were it so, though, it is clearly essential to clarify what the Trinity actually is in Christian teaching. Christians have the exclusive right to articulate what they believe, everyone has the right to criticise that.

In a nutshell, the problem boils down to the question of whether shituf is a misunderstanding of the Trinity or a criticism of the real thing. So what if it is a misunderstanding, Christians misunderstand Jews dreadfully, can it never be the other way around? Even Christians misunderstand the Trinity!

I would also add that I don't think we're looking hard enough. There are many Jewish scholars with profound insight into Christianity who will probably articulate the misunderstanding. It's not "us versus them" and a Jewish scholar who makes the point would be ideal, but any scholar ought to be fine. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It does seem that this would be the right place in which to deal with jewish criticism (or defenses) of trinitarianism, and that christian defences of trinitarianism as monotheism should go in articles about trinitarianism & monophysite christianity. But more importantly for the moment, Arianism is not a form of polytheism. It's central difference from most other chritianities is the belief that Jesus of Nazareth was not divine, that is he was simply a human prophet. As such Arianism is further from polytheism than trinitarianism (if indeed that is accepted to be so.)--Bsnowball (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not relevant here. And no, this is not the right place to deal with Jewish criticism of trinitarianism. If someone wants to do that, they can create an article for it. Shituf, contrary to the false statement currently locked into the article, was not created to deal with Christianity. It is a basic Jewish concept that applies to a lot more than just Christianity. In fact, not all Jewish authorities view Christian worship as shituf. Some regard it as outright idolatry. But that's not relevant to this article either. This is about shituf. A Jewish technical term. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's Keep This Simple, for everyone's sake

Folks, this shouldn't be that complicated. We're all agreed (and have been) that:

1. Shituf originated as a concept a long time before it was applied to Christianity.
2. Shituf became the basis within Judaism as the reason Jews are allowed to associate with Christians.

Lisa's position (if I understand it) is that Christianity is EITHER Shituf OR flat out idolatry.

My position is that Shituf either DOES or DOES NOT describe Christianity.

If it DOES, then we should fine tune the wording in our definition so that it actually addresses Christianity, and not just Arianism. This is, by the way, an astonishingly simple fix.

If it DOES NOT, then we should admit it, give a pointer to Arianism, and call it a day.

I really don't care which solution is picked. I would even invite Lisa to decide whether the article should apply Shituf to Christianity or not.

But please don't insist that it DOES apply to Christianity and leave such a laughably obvious definition of Arianism up there. It does Christians no good, it makes Jews look horridly ignorant, and it leaves Wikipedia with an easily avoided self contradictory article.

If Lisa choses to say that Shituf DOES apply to Christianity, then my proposal is that I modify the wording of the definition so that it actually does so, and then get help finding a reference that matches that target.

If Lisa choses to say that Shituf DOES NOT apply to Christianity, then she can give the caveat and pointer to Arianism and call it a day.

I think that this is eminently reasonable on my part, it gives Lisa the absolute control she wants, it keeps Wikipedia from contradicting itself in a single article, and it saves all of us a lot of time and energy better spent elsewhere -- like having real lives.

BestTim (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If we all agree that Shituf originated a long time before Christianity, why does this article contain "It originated in reference to Christianity" in the header?

I have said, and will repeat, that Jewish law looks at actions, and not at intent. This is most specifically true when it comes to laws relating to idolatry. Non-monotheistic worship is non-monotheistic, in the view of Judaism, regardless of whether the people worshipping interpret their actions as being to three deities, three persons, three aspects, three facets, or three anything else. Such interpretations are of no interest to Judaism, and do not play a part in the determination of Jewish law.

Tim insists that the interpretation placed on the Christian worship of a trinity is of utmost importance, and that the Jewish evaluation of that worship must pay heed to the Christian interpretation. I've already given Tim a source, which is given in the Talmud, and which is brought down as practical halakha by all decisors in Jewish law and (as a bonus) can be found in the Wikipedia article on Baal Peor. Jewish sources say that this idol was worshipped by defecating in front of it. And the law is that one who defecates in front of a statue of Baal Peor, even if the person is doing so for the express purpose of demonstrating scorn for Baal Peor, that person has committed idolatry.

Worshipping a trinity is non-monotheistic in the eyes of Judaism. It makes no difference whether the Christians doing it have in mind that they are worshipping three persons or three entities or three aspects or three separate powers or a single triune deity. Those distinctions may matter to Christians. They may create ideologies such as Trinitarianism and Arianism and Any-Otherism. But as far as Judaism is concerned, it's still the worship of a trinity. Judaism's take on monotheism is much more extreme than that of Christianity. I've personally heard Christians claim that the word "One" in "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One" means a plural unity. From a Jewish point of view, this is gibberish. An oxymoron. Judaism says that God is singular and unitary and has no divisions. He is not triune or biune or quarune. Just One.

Slrubenstein and I have both suggested that the article be completely rewritten. I agree with this. The fact that there exists a view that Christianity may be considered shituf rather than outright idolatry in Jewish terms does not make shituf about Christianity. Shituf may apply to Wicca as well, but it's not about Wicca either.

My contention, and this is as simply as it can be put, is that shituf has absolutely no relationship to Christian theological concepts such as Trinitarianism and Arianism, both of which are Christian intents behind an action (worship of a trinity) which is inherently non-monotheistic by Jewish standards. Every time Trinitarianism and Arianism are raised in regards to shituf, it is a total red herring. Judaism evaluates worship as monotheistic or not based on form and action, and not on philosophy and theology and rationalization. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- it's a simple choice that I give you full control over:

1. Shituf is applied to Christianity or
2. Shituf is not applied to Christianity.

I don't care which you pick. I only suggest that the wording in the definition match the intent of the article. That's all. But please don't say, "this applies to Christianity" and then give an definition that obviously does not.

It's VERY EASY to reword the definition so that it is authentic to Judaism AND actually applies to Christianity.

Pick one solution or the other; all I'm asking is that the article not contradict itself.

Pick one -- not both, please. I really do not care which you want. I simply care that the article not contradict itself.Tim (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Try this [4] -LisaLiel (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And let me add that you don't get to say whether it applies to Christianity or not. That is a matter for Jewish authorities to say. Not Christian authorities, and not you. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- I have no intention of making the determination that the "authorities" DIRECT it to Christianity. My only point is that if our definition doesn't match the INTENTION of the "authorities" then either our wording doesn't do their intention justice, or they missed the target. Either way will be instantly obvious to a Christian, so we owe it to the good name of the "authorities" to make darned certain that our definition is properly worded. YOU make the determiniation, but if YOU determine that the article should direct it to Christianity, then make a DEFINITION that really does so.Tim (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- for the sake of everyone's time and my screenplay and book deadlines, I would stipulate to something similar to the wording in your link as long as Arianism and Trinity are both listed in "See Also". You may wish to include Telushkin's statement however, to make the "three aspects" more comprehensible to Christians unaccustomed to that wording. It's not perfect, but as I said before, Telushkin's wording may be as close as you can get from within a Jewish paradigm.

Now for the wording -- one minor change. Right now you have

"Shituf or shittuf is a Hebrew term which describes the worship or belief of other gods or divine aspects in addition to the God of Israel".

That's not even what Telushkin meant. If you can agree to the links and the following wording we can be at peace:

"Shituf or shittuf is a Hebrew term which describes the worship of the God of Israel with a "partnership" of multiple aspects or additional gods".

How's that? The wording is precise enough to be recognizable in application to Tritheism, Arianism, or Trinitarianism.Tim (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Not good. L'shattef means "to include" or "to associate". Yes, shutfut is "partnership, but shituf is not. Different forms of the same root in Hebrew. They're closely related, of course. What is translated today as "partner" could as easily be translated as "associate".

I don't want Arianism or Trinitarianism listed in See Also, because those are utterly irrelevant. If you want Trinity listed there, that's okay.

And Telushkin's quote isn't relevant. This isn't an article about Christianity. It's an article about shituf. It is no more relevant to Christianity than it is to Wicca. Which is to say that there are those who would apply it to each, and there are those who would not.

Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship which associate other powers with the One God of Israel. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship"; "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of non-monotheistic worship which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.

Now how is that for a header paragraph? -LisaLiel (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And we label the article as a stub, so that it's clear that it's unfinished and needs source work. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- either the definition deals with just Arianism or also Trinitarianism, but it's obvious by the content that it does NOT deal with Trinitarianism alone. And in fact your new header didn't even touch Trinitarianism. Here's another rewrite:

Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship"; "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of non-monadal worship which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.

Okay, this actually addresses Arianism (powers), Tritheism (deities), and Trinitarianism (mostly, with the aspects). Also, "non-monadal" keeps the definition as applicable toward Christianity itself. "Non-monotheistic" only really touches Tritheism, and some forms of Arianism, but not Trinitarianism itself.

Deal?Tim (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept the changes to "external powers, deities, or internal aspects", but non-monotheistic has to stay. Like it or not, Judaism doesn't view Christian worship as monotheistic. I accept that Christianity does view it as monotheistic, but Judaism does not. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And the Philo stuff stays out. That was just synthesis and OR, and doesn't mention shituf. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Lisa -- non-monadal is required in that definitin or it will not apply to Christianity. The sages say that it applies to Christianity, so let's honor their intent by writing our definition so that it does so. Besides, your own write contradicts itself. "Any worship that falls short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zara" but somehow you have shituf being both non-monotheistic but not avodah zara! I'm trying to help you from contradicting yourself in a single paragraph. As for Philo, I didn't write that -- but it appeared to establish your contention that shituf predates Christianity. To remove it makes the article look like we made up shituf just to deal with Christianity. I've given my offer on the definition and the two links, even without Philo. Please take it.Tim (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Sages never mention it with regards to Christianity. The Tosafists (Sages is the term used primarily for Tannaim and Amoraim) did, but without mentioning Christianity explicitly. And the paragraph as I've written it is very clear that the definition of monotheism being used is the Jewish one. And Christianity is not monotheistic according to that definition. Try this, if you need the point beaten to death:

Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship"; "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of non-monotheistic (by Judaism's definition) worship which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.

And I'm not contradicting myself. Shituf is clearly avodah zarah. It's just a lesser form of avodah zarah that non-Jews may be permitted. That's a matter of semantics, though.

It seems that you are intent on preventing anything that says Judaism views Christianity as non-monotheistic. I'm not willing to go along with that. I'm writing this without even thinking about what Christians may or may not think, because what they think isn't relevant to an article about a Jewish concept.

Please accept the above version. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Or this:

Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship"; "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.

Lisa -- you finally did it. Yes, this last definition is not internally contradictory. It contradicts Telushkin's statement that "it is not idolatry," but given the email you say came from him, his own statement cannot be taken in a non-contradictory way.

I would edit only one thing -- the semi-colon into "or":

Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.

And we will still need the links to Tritheism, Trinitarianism, and Arianism. Can we rest, now?Tim (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Done and done. Do you want to do it (when the 5 days are up) or shall I? -LisaLiel (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Lo chashuv. Since we're all agreed, whichever of us does it first, it shouldn't matter.Tim (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Procedural comment I would suggest that the parties to the edit dispute stop making comments to this talk page -- completely stop -- and let outside editors have a chance to put a word in. Having requested comments from outside editors, the next step is to listen up and see what the outside editors have to say. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Really? Even if we reached a consensus before most of those outside editors replied? -LisaLiel (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well -- since we've reached the consensus, at least now all the reviews have a single thing to judge instead of several! I'm happy for the break.Tim (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Kudos for reaching consensus, I'm truly impressed. Procedurally, you might now want to restate the consensus text, and any associated agreements, in a new Talk section below. Especially is you still seek outside feedback. For my own sake, also, I'm curious about what Reliable Sources you all would plan to cite to support your carefully worded statement. After all, as you can imagine, WP statements tend to get edited by Anyone over time, even if once supported by consensus. Since it's not a quotation, it'd help to see strong sourcing. Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 04:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

This text is ok. But I would still use Christianity as an example so people know what the heck you are talking about. Since, what else is the term gonna apply to except Christianity, it's not like there are a bunch of other religions with a Thor or a Diana co-ruling with the one God of Israel. Christianity is the only one that has that, as I'm aware.

Example (Caps added):

Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel. AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE CONSIDERATION OF THE SON JESUS AS A LESSER DEITY RULING ALONG WITH THE ONE GOD OF ISRAEL IN SOME FORMS OF CHRISTIANITY.

-Bikinibomb (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)