Talk:Nazarene (sect)

Nazarene Judaism discussion archived in Talk:Nazarene Archive1 Talk: Nazarene Archive2

Nazarene Judaism discussions said to be archived in Talk:Nazarene Archive 1 Talk: Nazarene Archive 2 are blanked. The present Talk:Nazarene page begins 15 November 2003. Has any earlier discussion been lost? (Wetman 20:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Oops, I put an extra space in the names. It's actually Talk:Nazarene Archive1 and Talk: Nazarene Archive2 Jayjg 21:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good! It's the "history" feature that keeps Wikipedia transparent. And its the transparency factor that keeps us all honest. Wetman 23:04, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

"Nazarene" in Matthew ii.23

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

with the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have replaced

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

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

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

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

Netzarim material

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

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

Merge Needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sections moved to historical section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standardized usage changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scripture

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

was changed to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Founding paragraph

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

was changed to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deleted stuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Version Conflict

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

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

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

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

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

Keeping track of text that is being removed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Size information

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

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

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

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

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

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

Claims of Orthodoxy - NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theology and claims of Orthodoxy

The section now reads:

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

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

Section removed for discussion in Talk:

Netzarim / Nazoraios (Branches)

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

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

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

Notzrim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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