Talk:Hebrew Roots

Do Not Merge With Sacred Name Movement Article

1. This article, as written, contains serious technical errors, as already pointed out by Namikiw, it is fatally skewed from a Judaic viewpoint.

2. The fact is that the Hebrew Roots movement is now popular in among many Christian groups too.

3. This article can be edited to stand alone encyclopedic standards and deserves a separate page for itself after appropriate editing.

4. The "Sacred Name Movement Article" may be better treated as a minor article referenced by hyperlink in relevant articles like this one. Xfileexpert (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

5. A comment below also indicates that the Sacred Name Movement is Adventist in origin. Mainstream Christian Hebrew Roots movement opposes, in particular, the Seventh-Day Adventist proposition that the Levitical feasts of the Lord in Leviticus chapter 23 are abolished except for the seventh-day Sabbath. If in fact one denomination of Christians is attempting to subjugate the "Hebrew Roots" wiki article under a banner more suitable to their brand of religion, that would be a colossal mistake.

6. It is also suggested below that the article does not prove the existence of a Hebrew Roots movement. I will make edits in the near future to correct these technical deficiencies in this article. There are many facets to this movement; it is a bona fide "movement" transcending many different brands of Christianity and Judaism as opposed to being one single established "church."

Xfileexpert (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

7. Article title of "Sacred Name Movement" violates one or more of the five principles of naming wiki articles: 1) the ideal article title will resemble titles for similar articles; 2) precisely identify the subject; 3) be short; 4) be natural; and 5) recognizable. In fact, it is my opinion that it violates ALL FIVE. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles

8. The article title "Hebrew Roots" fulfills all five article naming principles; and, is important.

Xfileexpert (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

9. The article "Hebrew Roots," after appropriate rewriting, will fulfill the Five Pillars for core content: 1) neutral point of view; 2) no original research; 3) verifiability; 4) article titles; and, 5) biographies of living persons. As the article is today, it is my opinion that it violates ALL FIVE, in particular the fact that it is NOT a neutral point of view as also noted by Namikiw below. The naming of a specific contemporary person who allegedly "published" a "prophecy" violates core content pillars #2, 3, and 5.

10. When these glaring deficiencies are cleared up, AND THEY CAN and WILL BE, this can be a useful standalone encyclopedic article within the robust wiki standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xfileexpert (talk • contribs) 03:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Xfileexpert (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

POV/Weasel Words

This article is still very skewed in point of view. I am posting the notices again where citations are required that definitely require sources. Remember, this is not a forum for original research or experience, but rather is a sourced article.

Please do not remove these flags unless the content is changed or valid citations are posted. Also, do not remove the NPOV/Weasel Word banner. Allow a consensus of editors to make that decision.

If uncertain, "weasel words" include phrases such as "legalistic bondage." Non-POV phrases, likewise, will read, "this view holds..." rather than stating a disputed idea as fact.

This is not an unworthy article for Wikipedia, but it must be encyclopedic. As it is, it is not. Namikiw 21:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Bible translations

Do people in this movement prefer using any particular Bible translations, such as those that preserve Hebraic forms of the sacred names, the Sacred Name Bibles? Pete unseth (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Two that are popular include The Scriptures from the Institute for Scripture Research and The Complete Jewish Bible, translated by David Stern. In addition, the Companion Bible (KJV 1769) with Dr. Bullingers notes is also well received. MusicMan1008 (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The word "Torah"

The use of the word "Torah" with a non-standard definition, an innovative definiton unique to this movement, can confuse readers. If the term is used to refer to all 66 books, why not simply say "Bible" and be clearer for readers? Help me understand. Pete unseth (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The word "Torah" refers to the first 5 books of the Old Testament. Those in the Hebrew Roots movement find there what they call the "righteous standard of God". MusicMan1008 (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

During the time of Jesus' earthly personal ministry, the Pharisee sect had "scribes" whose job was to interpret the Torah. Some have likened the scribes to our Supreme Court inasmuch as the scribes were called upon to teach the law of the Torah and interpret issues arising in daily life in accordance with a legal principle called "stare decisis" -- based upon prior scribe interpretations which were in turn supposed to be based on the oral traditions. JESUS first came into conflict with the Pharisees because he exposed the hypocrisy of the scribes (e.g., requiring the cleaning the outer parts of cooking vessels while ignoring good works, etc.). The scribe's decisions were called the Talmud. Another sect, the Sadduces, were really only a handful of upper class wealthy Jews who had political clout but were held in contempt by many ordinary Jewish citizens. The populace also disdained the Pharisees but since they ministered in the Temples, they had closer contact with the Jews who still worshiped under Roman occupation. THE PROBLEM WITH the article, as written, is that it discusses Judaic Hebrew Roots movement and ignores Christian Hebrew Roots movement which certainly does NOT wish a return to the Torah which Jesus freed Christians from. In fact, that was the most important teaching of the Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul. Xfileexpert (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Xfileexpert (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Xfileexpert (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The other important difference is that Christian Hebrew Roots acknowledges and practices ALL the feasts of the Lord in Leviticus chapter 23 which includes the seventh-day Sabbath. The Seventh-Day Adventist church officially rejects the feasts of the Lord in Lev 23:1-44 EXCEPT for the Sabbath Day. You see, the Sabbath Day is the first and original feast practiced at the Creation and it is listed in Genesis. The article as now written complete ignores this difference between Christian Hebrew Roots and Judaic Hebrew Roots movements. Jesus, His Apostles, and Disciples, continued practicing the feasts of the Lord in the New Testament EVEN AFTER the Resurrection and Ascension. THE STANDARD DEFINITION OF THE WORD Torah must be used, and likewise with every reputable article --- to that extent, you make a good point, Pete; what good is it if an article invents its own definition? Xfileexpert (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

References?

The article does not establish that there is such a movement. It cites books that examine 1st-century Christianity.

Please present evidence that there is a "Hebrew Roots" movement distinct from both (a) generic Jewish Christianity and (b) the Adventist Sacred Name Movement.--dab (𒁳) 12:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Music Man is right. There is independent verifiable EVIDENCE of a "movement." There are Facebook groups. There are professional articles and professional recognized books about the movement like christianhebrewroots.org. There are other sites I can gather for the article. Scribd.com, a platform of many of the major BIG publishing houses has papers on this that have received wide attention, in excess of hundreds of thousands of unique hits over several years. There are numerous youtube accounts posted by professionals as well as amateurs who teach this topic. Reputable newspapers on Scribd.com have published interviews with authors on this topic. This can all be worked into the rewrite of this article. Want more proof? Go google christian hebrew roots or judaic hebrew roots, or hebrew roots. The first two would be subtopics of the latter. Xfileexpert (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, this has some notability, but it is difficult to find references as it is very recent, emerging after 1990, and probably hasn't seen much attention. Proponents seem to come from the far fringe of crackpot Christianity, basically those who were too eccentric for British Israelism. But perhaps the article can be salvaged by cutting it down to the bare facts of who advocated this, when and where. --dab (𒁳) 14:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab! "...far fringe of crackpot Christianity..." ! The article will be more than just who advocated this, when, and where. It is alive and EXTANT, not extinct. There is a large body of professional literature in the marketplace, on amazon, at scrib.com, in blogs, and perhaps your comment makes me think you are prejudiced against this topic, as is MAINSTREAM DENOMINATIONAL DOGMA which is afraid of losing its tithes to those who wish to exercise a higher form of spiritual belief. If the article were limited to who advocated this, when, and where --- it would not be worthy of a wiki treatment per the core content guidelines. THIS ARTICLE WILL BE MUCH MORE when we are all done with it. Please reconsider your position, Dab. Xfileexpert (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What evidence do you want? There are many websites that represent congregations all around the world and there are "scriptural Feasts" gatherings yearly as well. These people wanted Messianic Judaism to work but they went to a class system of (1) Jewish and (2) Gentile, a teaching that is opposed clearly in the New Testament. So they didn't have a lot they could do so many went a different way (where Jews and Gentiles are equal) and it got called "Hebrew Roots". In the days ahead, I will provide many qualified references that should go a long way toward meeting your requirement. For more info, MJAA and Mark S. Knizer's work "Postmissionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People" should help.

Concerning your unacceptable quote "Proponents seem to come from the far fringe of crackpot Christianity, basically those who were too eccentric for British Israelism.", I would love to see your evidence for that. Actually, Proponents have come to their decision somewhat like this: 1. Protestant Christianity = "the law has been done away with" 2. Who is observing the law but believing that Yeshua is the Messiah? Let's try Messianic Judaism 3. Their class system is un-scriptural and their position on the "law is not required for Gentiles" is just a re-hash of Protestant Christianity so we need to look elsewhere. 4. Hebrew Roots believes that Jews and Gentiles are equal, Yeshua is the Messiah, the law is required for both equally, and we are going to go back and study the history from the first and second century without the current baggage foisted upon us by Protestant Christianity. WE may stumble along the way, but we will eventually get there.

Finally, "Please present evidence that there is a 'Hebrew Roots' movement distinct from both (a) generic Jewish Christianity and (b) the Adventist Sacred Name Movement." The answer is: Wiki Jewish Christianity quote: "Jewish Christians are ethnic Jews who have converted to Christianity. They are mostly members of Protestant and Catholic congregations, usually are not strict about observing the Laws of Moses, including kashrut (Jewish dietary laws) or the Sabbath, and are generally assimilated culturally into the Christian mainstream, although they retain a strong sense of their Jewish identity." Those in Hebrew Roots are Jews and Gentiles (not just Jews), they are definitely not members of any protestant or Catholic congregation, they are strict about the law of Moses, definitely including clean and unclean as it relates to food, they observe the Sabbath weekly and all 7 high Sabbaths, and they are definitely not assimilated culturally into the Christian mainstream.

the Adventist Sacred Name Movement Wiki Sacred Name Movement quote: "Adherents: The Sacred Name Movement is today organized in the congregations Assembly of Yahweh (Michigan) and House of Yahweh (Texas) and Yahweh's New Covenant Assembly (Illinois)."

While I'm not here to debate whether these are a part of the Sacred Name Movement or not, and while those in the Hebrew Roots movement advocate using the sacred name for the Father (Yahweh) and the son (Yeshua), the hundreds of congregations that state that they are part of the Hebrew Roots movement do not attempt to align themselves with the 7th day Adventists or any sacred name group that I am aware of. Since Wiki defines the adherents as just those three organizations, all the others it would appear are not.

Final statement. The Hebrew Roots Wiki needs some extra heavy duty clean up and I hope to provide just that by bringing it into the 21st century. MusicMan1008 (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Music Man 1008 makes excellent points about this article. This movement is as important as the "Great Awakening" of the 19th Century (the 1800s) because it is truly global in scale and not limited to what one or two self-proclaimed contemporary "prophets" wrote on wikipedia. Please let this article title stand alone until we all have due time to fix it. As can be seen from these few participants on this talk page, there is enough brain power to rewrite this and make it the informative article it deserves to be. Xfileexpert (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Music Man's Edits and Article Revisions are Illegal Under Wiki Terms of Use

First of all, I am putting this discussion here because in my edits of July 19 posted circa 11:38 E.S.T., I forgot to summarize what I edited. Here is most of it, along with a warning about Music Man's illegal edits ---and this is not just a difference of editorial opinion as adjudged by the wiki standards cited below.

As shown by the discussion on this article, Music Man is one of the ones making edits to revert this article to be a definition of his own private religious viewpoint of what he WANTS "Hebrew Roots" to mean.

His edits are ILLEGAL because: 1) he makes personal opinion statements not verifiable per wiki terms; and 2) he deleted my reference to Dr. Scott's historical published book which I either quoted or paraphrased with proper citation to his work (the very definition of how to make the article "verifiable" and NOT PERSONAL OPINION.

I found also found and DELETED three illegal links to books for sale on Amazon.

Please do not repeat these editorial abuses. You obviously hold to the Judaic Hebrew Roots movement which viewpoint is clearly characterized in Dr. Scott's history book; and, made erroneous edits to the "Christian Hebrew Roots" section for the deliberate purpose of mischaracterizing that sect as inferior to the Judaic sect. THIS IS ALSO A VIOLATION OF WIKI EDITORIAL RIGHTS because you cited a long, NON-VERIFIABLE list of contemporary persons you personally hold to be "leaders" in the Hebrew Roots movement without citation to proper authority. FOR THIS REASON, your edits also constitute an "original" previously unpublished treatise (your own opinion) IN VIOLATION OF WIKI terms.

I deleted the portion "In that year, Dean Cozzens of ..." because the wiki link you added in support does not exist; and, Mr. Cozzens' so-called contemporary "prophecies" are again, YOUR OWN PERSONAL OPINION unsubstantiated by the Wiki requirement that articles not be original treatises, and consequently statements must be supported by already published material either reputable bona fide books or web sites subject to scrutiny of the editorial community.

Music Man's edits were an unjustifiable attack against the corrections made to this article as proven by ALL OF THE ABOVE, the least of which is not the deletion of the reference to Dr. Scott's historical book published in 1936 which made my posting VERIFIABLE in accordance with Wiki standards.