Previous discussions archived in Talk:Nazarene Archive1

Messianic or Orthodox?

Whether any Jew likes it or not, no single Jew has the authority of the sanhedren to rule on what branch of orthodox Judaism is or isn't heretical. However all of orthodox Judaism is united in the belief that Reform Judaism is heretical so if there was a Sanhedren there would be a certain chance of the movement being outlawed. As for speaking out against a "J-sus movement started by a baptist minister" you make several mistakes. 1st is that they consider Jesus to be more like the antichrist for Judaism than anything else. 2nd you break halakha in that you are not supposed to Judge a Convert to judaism by their past. 3rd you are atrtempting an ad hominem attack using both the irrelevant terms J-sus and "Baptist Minister" with all their loaded potency to defame a movement which is connected to neither. Your argument is thus also straw-man in that youare right Baptist ministers and Jesus have nothing to do with judaism, but as with all strawman arguments you fail to address the treue issues at hand. Finally if you are convinced that you are not guilty of a straw man attack then you are certainly guilty of Leshon Ha-Ra. If you are a reform Jew then this will not matter to you, but that is becuase your movement is more like that of Yeshu Ha-Notzri's (i.e. anti-torah) than any other major Jewish heresey in history. Lets hope that this is not the case. And no I am not speaking from an orthodox bias but rather as an objective outsider you can check my user page for details.Zestauferov 11:24, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Whether or not one believes in the legitimacy of the Reform or Reconstructionist or Conservative movements, there is no question that they were started by Jews, coming out of a Jewish milieu, and having certain fundamental beliefs in common, one of which was the Jesus (in whatever way modern people wish to reconstruct him) was neither a prophet nor a messiah nor a god.

In contrast, the various Messianic Jewish movements were started by Christian ministers, and have a special place for Jesus in their theology. So to with the Netzarim movement (if one can call a few dozen people a "movement"), which was founded by a non-Jewish Baptist minister, and which affords Jesus a unique and highly influential role in their movement.

This group is not recognized as authentically Jewish by any other Jewish movements, and in particular not by any Orthodox groups. The fact that the Christian founder had an Orthodox conversion is irrelevant; if he had his current views at the time of the conversion, and had expressed them to the beit din, he would not have been converted. If he developed them later, then he would be viewed as an apostate.

There is more to being an Orthodox movement than simply accepting halacha. As for lashon hara, your understanding of it is flawed, and misapplied in this case. Jayjg 14:59, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jayig, you make 4 points so lets address them.

Your claim that one of the common beliefs held by all the Jews (as if there has ever been a round table discussion laying out the pillars held by all the schizms) "was the Jesus (in whatever way modern people wish to reconstruct him) was neither a prophet nor a messiah nor a god" is verifiably erroneous either you are not very well educated or you are deliberately attempting to misinform again (Lashon Ha-Ra). But since you are the one making the claim then the burden of proof is upon you so please produce your source if you can. I promise I will be happy to accept it. The one point in your claim that would have been true is that a man cannot be a divinity, but you spoil it because you mention reform Jews who clearly believe in the ultimate divine authority of the human spirit which is able to abrogate torah as binding upon legal Jews.
You are right that Messianic Jewish movements were founded the way you described, but you are dreadfully misinformed about the Netzarim movement. It came into re-existence in accordance with Halakhic demands by a Jew who had the same point of view as the original Netzarim Beth Din. They do not acknowledge J-sus as anything but a pagan construction. Nor do they acknowledge the christian testament.
I have checked into the matter, and the group is indeed to my surprise absolutely beyond reproach from the international orthodox Jewish community UNTIL the sanhedren is re-established to make a ruling on the matter. In fact I personally believe that could be one of the reasons it has come into existence to force a legal unity into being. He and his wife were converted, because of his adoption of a totally orthodox way of life, by an orthodox rabbi in florida in good standing with the orthodox community who knew very well about his beliefs. He himself is still in good standing with his orthodox community. Their members worldwide are in the high thousands. None of this information is a secret, you are welcome to confirm this for yourself. They will be happy to oblige you with all the details you need. Again your claims are dreadfully misinformed, or you are guilty of deliberately trying to spread a false testimony about the movement. But be prepared to erase all of your comments here about them, because they are very much into persuing legal action and have the finances to do so. It is very easy to track any regular wiki user down for legal identification. As I may have mentioned before on wiki, they are not very tollerant. By the way are you a legal Jew?
You are absolutely right that there is more to being in an orthodox movement than accepting Halacha, but I am afraid that if pressed you will not know what that entails. I am afraid to say that sadly it is your understanding of Lashon Ha-Ra that is obviously flawed. To understand anything in Judaism means to put it into practice not just to give something lipservice or philosophical consideration. It is very clear to me that you are either a reform Jew in which case you don't really have any right to condemn anything inside orthodox Judaism since it rejects you as an apostate. Or you are simply one of the millions of assimilated jews in ignorance in which case don't get angry, get legal. Do some reading and CYLOR you might also actually try reading the mishnah instead of simply believing popular folklore. I am defending the objective truth not because I agree with it but because I see the need for objective truth unclouded by emmotions.

Zestauferov 16:14, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NB it is has been established (since the 1970s) that the term netzarim literally applies only to all descendants of king David from a line other than Jechonia's. The term is only being used by the Netzarim Beth Din because they are the only beth din which seems through its beliefs to fill the place of the original Jewish beth Din by that name because it was predominantly composed of people of such lineage. Today most people who could be known to literally be classified as netzarim (small n) would be orthodox Jewish, and in no other way affiliated with the Netzarim (capital N) Beth Din.Zestauferov 16:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your points, all Jewish movements reject Jesus in any way, shape, or form. For example, regarding Reform, "For us in the Jewish community anyone who claims that Jesus is their savior is no longer a Jew and is an apostate... Such individuals should not be accorded membership in the congregation or treated in any way which makes them appear as if they were affiliated with the Jewish community..." [Contemporary American Reform Responsa, #68] As for the founder of this movement, he was a gentile-born Baptist minister, as with other Messianic movements. Regarding all the information you have regarding the founder, I'd be interested to see it, and to see who you think speaks for the "international Orthodox community". Regarding the dubious claims regarding the size of the movement, I'd love to see some facts on that as well, which has been asked for before in this Talk: and not been provided. Regarding your threats of legal action, I just laugh. Regarding the personal stuff about loshon hora, I'm not going to respond to any more personal statements, accusations, claims, insults, etc. Jayjg 17:11, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ok 6 points.

1 Thankyou very much for the reference with regard to J-sus in the Reform movement of america. This should be put in the article on Jews. But you have also now shown that as a reform Jew Jewish law is irrelevant to you and to be perfectly honest so is your attempt to decide for the international Jewish community what is and isn't Judaism. They are a branch of modern orthodox Judaism. But as you know the Reform movement is regarded by the international orthodox community as apostate. As you can imagine, apostates denouncing others as apostate is quite ammusing. From the orthodox perspective you trying to say they are not is paramount to a catholic deciding who is and who isn't inside Judaism. Also the exact phrasing is "Anyone who claims Jesus as their saviour is no longer a Jew". The code only applies to those Jews who claim J-sus as their saviour. This is not the case with the Netzarim. So even according to Reform codes, they are still within the folds.

2 The founder was an orthodox Jew. As a reform Jew you will not care about the laws of that movement which include not to remind of a convert's gentile past. But please respect the fact that no matter how much Reform Jews hate Orthodox Jews, there is no secret about that in the press, you should not be tramplingh over the Halakha which they hold dear. Halakha speaks for the international orthodox community. The movement is witrhin the confines of Rabbinical Halakhic debate, and so it is not beyond the fold. Unfortunately, as a Reform you really are disqualified from debating about orthodox matters. Can't you see how Bizzare that is? If you were conservative it might be a different matter depending upon which Beth Din the orthodox members of the debate were from.

3 All the information about the founder is available online at the netzarim pages which you should have read through before making your comments http://netzarim.co.il there is nothing hidden here. Allow me to criticize you in one way here. This is not a personal attack. Please do not try to shift the burden of proof having had it pointed out that it is upon you. You have claimed that they are messianic Jews, so please proove it.

4 The number was mentioned in earlier discussions on this page. A list of who belongs to that movement worldwide is available from the Netzarim if you write to them. I did not make the claim if you read this page carefully, so I will not uphold it if it is wrong. But you are the one making a challenge to a person who is no longer here, which in legal process (as far as I am aware) puts the burden once more upon your shoulders.

5 A threat is made by someone who may be the one intending to follow through. Please don't take this as an attack, it seems you might have some kind of ADD. It might help you to get that checked out. If you can muster the patience to read again you will notice that I am not threatening you I am letting you know about the character of the people in discussion with whom I have repeatedly confirmed that I am in NO way affiliated. I am simply reporting the facts as they are, and I was being neighbourly.

6 It seems you don't actually know what Lashon Hara means. Disparaging Speech. You are very sensitive if you think that this is a personal attack. I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt and talking to you as if you were an orthodox Jews to remind you of what we hold sacred. However it is now clear that you do obviously have some kind of contempt for the Jewish laws which is why you seem to be under the impression that I am making a personal attack by suggesting that you might be guilty of it IF indeed (as you will see in my posts) you really are attempting to defend your position as accurately researched. But you are a Reform and anyone who has read a little about them will know that the movement has no regard for Jewish Law and has prefered to create its own pillars of belief.

Zestauferov 01:54, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there is very little that is not ad hominem in your response to me. You premise all of your statements on the ridiculous assumption that I am Reform, not that it really makes a difference what movement I identify with, or even if I'm Jewish. The issue here is fact (and Wikipedia standards), not about the religious beliefs of Wikipedia editors. As for the claims made on the netzarim website, they are just that, claims, and completely unverified. The founder of this movement was born and raised Gentile, and was a Baptist minister long before he got involved in Judaism of any sort. Messianic Jewish movements are formed by these kinds of people, who then go to great lengths to try to prove that their movement is really Jewish, even though incorporating a belief in Jesus as a "Messiah" or "Prophet" or "Ribi" or "Paqid" or any other religiously significant term they can dream up. The Netzarim movement is just one stream of Messianic Judaism, which is why it is discussed on the Messianic Judaism page, and not on the Judaism page. If you could bring evidence from any major Orthodox group that they accept the Netzarim movement as a legitimate Orthodox movement, then I would take the claim more seriously. Is the Netzarim movement part of any Orthodox organization? Which Orthodox leaders have stated that it is legitimate? All I have seen so far are dubious claims. Jayjg 03:14, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please refrase any comments in my writings (just edit them as you would any article) which you feel are Ad Hominem and then address the issues which I am trying to draw your attention to. Ad hominem was not at all my intention, I am simply trying to pin you down.Zestauferov 16:11, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have already addressed the issues. To summarize:

1.Like other Messianic movements, this one was created by born gentile Christian clergy

You are judging an orthodox movement by Reform standards. Orthodox Jews do not look at a converts past.

What nonsense; I am not judging them "by Reform standards", you have just made a silly assumption that I am Reform, and therefore feel you can dismiss my points based in this. The founder of this movement was born gentile, and was a Baptist minister. These are facts. Jayjg 16:20, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

, But it is you above who quoted the reform info stating "WE" therefore you gave me very good reason to believe you are reform. If you could give me proof of the the beth din you belong to and that you are in good standing with it then I will of course change my mind. To the orthodox (which you obviously do not belong to for no knowing this) becomming a Jew is literally like being born again. You cannot say this movement was started by a Baptist minister because in orthodox eyes, it just wasn't. It was started by a jew. Zestauferov 23:05, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I quoted the Reform position, I did not use the word "WE". As for the rest, ad hominem. Jayjg 17:53, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

2.Like other Messianic movements, this one attempts to combine some form of Judaism with a veneration of Jesus (under whatever name they prefer)

No it does not your claim is blatantly false, and you are refusing to show your evidence.

Look at their website, and this article. They consider Jesus (or whatever they prefer to call him) to be a "Messianic figure). Jayjg 16:20, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Now you are really making me worry about you. Veneration. Which denomination of Judaism except Messianic Judaism considers a messianic figure as an object of veneration? Do you think the Chabadnicks venerate their messianic figure? Are the Chabadnicks outside of the fold of Judaism? Who gave you the power to judge upon this matter if you think that they are? Remember only the sanhedren has the authority to rule on such matters. NOt any single individual.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines "veneration" as "Profound respect or reverence"; you appear to have mistaken this with worship. Jayjg 17:53, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

3.You have provided no evidence of this movement being aligned with or working in any formal way with any Orthodox movement

You have not read this page. You have not looked at site sourse in question. You have not contacted the person in question for varification. I cannot contact that person for you. I have told you what you have to do. You are the one making the claim it is Messianic Judaism. You are the one on whom the burden of proof lies.

I have looked at the website, and it provides no evidence regarding this. If you think it is somewhere on the website, why not provide a link, or copy the information in here. Jayjg 16:20, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ok you say you read the site but what about reading THIS page though. You must only have skimmed the site in question though. WRite to THEM if you have any questions ask THEM to proove whatever you want. I'll even give you the link http://www.netzarim.co.il/MisrQlit/CntcQlit.htm just state the same things you have stated here and print their response here.

You keep telling me to write them for information; my point was that the site itself provides no such proof. Please provide a link to a page which does provide such proof. Jayjg 17:53, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

4.You have provided no evidence of this movement being approved of by any Orthodox leader

You have provided no evidence of this movement being condemned by any orthodox movewment. You came along in the last few days and tried to make a claim which you are not backing up. This discussion was settled long ago in the previous debates (please read them above). If you have new wevidence then present it.

The Orthodox movement does not "condemn" every Messianic sect with a website and a few dozen followers. If this is a legitimate Orthodox movement, it will be part of some organized and recognized Orthodox group. As for "the discussion being settled", indeed it was, by user JFW on May 19 (see above), in which his conclusions are much the same as my own. Jayjg 16:20, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

They don't condemn every messianic site because none of them claim to be orthodox. Have you ever seen ANY orthodox group condemning the beliefs of other orthodox groups? P.S. his conclusions were not the same as your own. He simply belongs to the many orthodox Jews in the world who do not hold the state of Israel in a good light, hence he stated that the opposite was probably the case -which it may be if one belongs to Neturei Karta, but if Neturei Karta was aware of what the Netzarim Beith Din in Raanana Israel actually practice they would probably rather try to win them over to their side by illustrating the anti-zionist perspective than denounce them as Zionist apostates.Zestauferov 11:58, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This logical fallacy is known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You say that the Orthodox don't condemn them, and this proves they are accepted. I point out that that Orthodox don't go about condemning such groups. You say "the Orthodox don't condemn the other groups because they don't claim to be Orthodox". Please reasearch the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Jayjg 17:53, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

5.You have provided no evidence regarding its size, membership, etc.

This movement is no different from other "Torah Pole" Messianic movements (see Messianic Judaism#The_.22Torah.22-Pole, Talmidi Jews, Messianic Renewed Judaism). Each one claims to follow Torah while affording a special place for Jesus (or Yeshua or Yehoshua or whatever name they prefer). Each one claims that Christanity has perverted Jesus' message, and that they have restored it. Each one claims to be the "true" successor to the Ebionites/early Jewish church of Jesus. There is a reason that these movements are included in the Messianic Judaism article, and not in the Modern Orthodox Judaism article.

Yes the reason is because no-one has entered them in the Orthodox Judaism article, and they were initially entered in the Messianic article by myself while I was under the same convictions that you are under. There are some important and fundamental differences however.

Name these "important and fundamental differences", and provide evidence for them. As it stands, they do not differe at all. Jayjg 16:20, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You can read all of this for yourself on the website which clearly outlines the fundamental differences. Read the article here too. You could also read the books! What books? Oh I am sorry I thought you said you readthrought the website? Try these for starters ISBN 965-7328-03-9, ISBN 965-7328-02-0, ISBN 965-7328-00-4. If you have any further questions please write to them. There is not a thing written in the article which is not independently varifiable. If you have contrary new evidence please relevant to Orthodox Judaism (not Reform quotes), please post it here.

Name these "important and fundamental differences", and provide evidence for them. As it stands, they do not differ at all. Jayjg 17:53, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Again, if you can provide some evidence of them being part of Orthodox Judaism (aside from their claim and your belief) please do so. Jayjg 17:55, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is no claim being made, they are. You have been invited to check this out for yourself many times CYLOR. You are the one making the claim that they are not. You claim to have new evidence then please present it.Zestauferov 02:34, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have checked this out. My research hasn't been able to come up with anyone who is even aware of them, much less thinks they are Orthodox. Any group can put up a website claiming anything it wants, but that doesn't make it true. Jayjg 16:20, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do you know what CYLOR means? "Not heard of" is not "proof of absence". "Not thinking a group is orthodox" is not the same as "knowing they are not orthodox". And how did you present your question? "Is there any Messianic Judaic subset of Orthodox Judaism which believes in Jesus?" in which case the answer is of course categorically NO. Q: Is there any orthodox organization which regards any specific Hasid to be a messiannic figure? A: Yes, maybe several. Q: Is there such a group which believes the historical pharasaic Rabbi behind the person venerated by christians was such? I don't know maybe. There are certainly many orthodox Jews who have defended the historical personality behind the object of christian veneration as being a Hasid Pharisee Rabbi and failed messianic figure. Remember failure is no reason to rubbish the life of such a man. Shall we condemn Menachem Mendel Schneerson for failing and confine all his work to the back of a bottom shelf?Zestauferov 23:05, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please name the "many orthodox Jews who have defended the historical personality behind the object of christian veneration as being a Hasid Pharisee Rabbi and failed messianic figure". Jayjg 17:53, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Locked

I haven't the slightest idea what this dispute is about. Why can't you guys cooperate? You know, agree to disagree!

Say that Source A claims this, while Source B maintains that. Okay? --Uncle Ed 21:14, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First of all, you haven't gone to the pre Zestauferov version, but rather have included the very claim in question which Zestauferov inserted on July 5. So your "protection" hardly seems neutral.

Regarding your suggestion, how about "Zestauferov claims this group is part of Modern Orthodox Judaism, but no Modern Orthodox groups recognize it as such". Jayjg 21:27, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That is a blatant misrepresentation. Everyone knows that Orthodoxy operates according to a system and as long as you are within that system you are withing Judaism. I.E. all orhodox groups recognise each other as long as they don't slip. Are there any two orthodox groups which officially recognise each other? to do so would be to identify all other orthodox groups as not being regognized and that would make the orthodox groups which acknowledged only each other into a new sect, while the rest of orthodoxy remains united. What we should be looking for is one orthodox group which openly denounces the netzarim beth din in Raana Israel specifically as outside of the fold of Orthodoxy. If you can find this then I wholeheartedly agree that the facts of the article should be altered to reflect this.Zestauferov 23:16, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I know that I chose the "wrong page" and I was pretty sure it wouldn't be neutral. Sorry about that, but I didn't have time to look into it any further.

Would you two like to suggest a version even further back in history, to roll back to? Or would you like me to unlock the article and take a crack at rewriting it myself? Or turning it into a toothless, bland stub?

I'd rather you both took a fresh look at the NPOV policy page or the NPOV tutorial. --Uncle Ed 14:32, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with NPOV, which is why I'm trying to inject some. I'd actually recommend reading this Talk: page to understand the debate that is going on here. The group itself appears to consist of a few dozen individuals at most, residing in one location in Israel. Although Zestauferov claims that the issue of whether they were "Modern Orthodox" or "Messianic" Judaism was settled, in fact all the contributors to this page have insisted that they are not "Orthodox", long before Z.'s July changes. There also appears to be an on-going dispute between Zestauferov and Shmuliq about "Nazarene Jews" vs. another tiny group called "Talmidi Jews"; although the two groups are nearly identical, the proponents on each side insist that their own group is the real "Jewish" group, and the other group of Jesus followers is not. It's unclear whether this tiny group actually requires a Wikipedia article, a point which is raised in the Talk: pages. A "toothless, bland stub" might indeed be more appropriate, though I'd be interested in seeing what you could come up with. Jayjg 15:37, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All right, I did a bit of research and did a thorough rewrite. I hope that the stub I created is solid enough to hang all the other stuff on, like Z's Nazarene Jews and S's Talmidi Jews.

Hint: say that according to X the only "real" group is X, but also be sure to include Y claims that the only "real" group is Y --Uncle Ed 18:18, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unlocked

Okay, is everyone happy with the version of 18:15, 26 Jul 2004? --Uncle Ed 21:26, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not. I very much prefer the pre-24 July version, which has, I recognize, its POV-flaws and factual inaccuracies. It is, however, fixable. I would very much prefer a detailed, scholarly article (the pre-24/7 version) to the practically informationless-stub that exists now. I have seriously considered reverting the article and then NPOVing it, but I will not go against consensus here. In short, I think the pre-24/7 version needs to be fixed; the current version needs to go altogether. David Cannon 11:06, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I guess the first question (which I've asked before) is how much of an article a group of a few dozen (or perhaps a couple of hundred) people need. As well, the POV stuff was fairly overwhelming, and had spilled over into a number of other articles. Also, as you can see, the debate about factual inaccuracies led to a revert war. A detailed scholarly article would be great, but is there anyone who really knows anything about this group, aside from the claims they make on their website? Jayjg 16:27, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with quoting POV, provided that we are not stating it. There is a difference between the two. To quote from Nazarene Judaism's website is okay, IMO, provided that we make it clear that we are not endorsing their beliefs. But you are right, we need somebody with factual knowledge. I did come across a piece about this - someone on the web (a Christian theologian) published some correspondence he had with one of the leaders of Nazarene Judaism. I will try to find it again, and if successful, will ask for permission to reproduce part of the correspondence, or at least quote from it, here. David Cannon 21:30, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with quoting POV stuff (although the article should not just be a website for promoting the sect's views). I do have a problem with stating POV as truth. Jayjg 22:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mystery solved

I have discovered why Zestauferov has been silent on this page, and on the issue of mediation, for so long. On July 31st he created an article called Nazarene Jews which contained his favorite version of the information here. To be frank, I think this whole thing needs to be cleaned up; between the articles on Nazarenes Nazarene Jews Nazarene Judaism Talmidaism Messianic Renewed Judaism and Messianic Judaism#Torah Pole this whole subject is a mess. I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place for each of these tiny, highly similar groups, to spread their own particular versions of their message. Jayjg 21:01, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jewish Christians is another part of this mess. Jayjg 22:28, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually I have been away. You are still wrong about the messianic bit. Netzarim are modern orthodox Jews and there is no orthodox group which denounces them as apostates and certainly not as non-Jews. It is the Notzrim who are so-called Messianic Jews. What you are basically doing is paramount to trying to classify evian as artificial spring-water simply because you personally don't like the taste. And you have managed to get an awful lot of good info thrown out in the process. The article is now bumf. The netzarim were the first to re-establish Nazarene Judaism and the name was quickly adopted by messianic Jewish christian cults. The original article was about the historical Nazarene movement, now it is like filling an article on the Celts solely with info about modern day re-enactment societies from around the world. It is very poor quality indeed. Ah well, I suppose we can't expect too much objectivity when there are so many sensibilities at stake. Lets just leave it for those who are interested to research the truth of the matter for themselves.Zestauferov 16:38, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are all sorts of tiny Messianic Jewish movements like this group, and few or none of them are "denounced" by Orthodox groups, partly because Orthodox groups generally don't bother with them, and mostly because they are not even aware of these miniscule sects. I understand that you believe that this particular Messianic sect is valid, and all the others are invalid; your edits and comments on this page and others (like Talmidaism) make that clear; but promoting one of these sects as valid over another is simply POV. As for the rest, I don't plan to "leave it", but actually plan to clean up this mess of a bunch of tiny Messianic sects, each with their proponents claiming their validity, each contradicting the other, and all cluttering up and subverting the intent of Wikipedia. Jayjg 04:36, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jayig, you seem like an intelligent person, so just do the reading for yourself as I did. I was VERY scepticle when I first heard about them. The info in the article I put together was very carefully checkled out. I am not favoring one over any other. I am simply opposed to unsubstanciated denunciations. I am pointing out that Netzarim sect is fundamentally different from and is not recognised by (nor desires such) the Notrzim sects which all recognise each other, though its inclusion in orthodox Judaism has been confirmed by certain orthodox bodies which all reject categorically the Notzrim sects as illegitimate Judaism. While the Notzrim groups are christians under a different guise, the Netzarim are Modern Orthodox Jews. Just go to any orthodox body for confirmation one way or the other on the Netzarim beit Din in Raanana Israel you will be surprised. They were the first and then the Notzrim sects started to raise their heads. They are fully Halakhaic Torah observant Rabbinical orthodox Jews who do not carry out conversions and whose members pray with orthodox Jews in orthodox Beitei Kneset around the world. What you are implying Jayig is that this is the most successful messianic sect of apostates the only one which has managed to infiltrate orthodox houses of prayer all around the world without any secrecey and without being thrown out being fully recognised for what they are by the other orthodox Jews amongst whom they pray. When you finally do check them out properly you will at last realise how obvious it is to me that you are voicing your own opinions without checking out the objective truth. The sad thing is that there is no-one here who understands the orthodox system properly who can see through all of the smoke. I do not support messianic sects, nor am I a netzarim nor am I interested in becomming one, I think they may be a little off-base, but even when I thought I was a legal Jew I did not support anyone but orthodox Judaism and am only backing them up because they are part of legitimate orthodox Judaism the only way to confirm is for you to CYLOR and ask him to check them out (based upon who they really are and not based upon a misinformed testimony) with his Beth Din. Zestauferov 11:39, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zestauferov, I state again that I'd very much appreciate any evidence of your statements above, other than your claiming that they are true, and insisting that I "check them out" myself. From what I can tell, they consist primarily of a former Baptist Minister and his wife and their daughter (who claim to have converted to Orthodox Judaism), and a website filled with these and many other claims. One of the claims is a relationship with Yemenite Judaism; I hope you understand that Yemenite Judaism is not in any way shape or form "Modern Orthodox Judaism". In any event, they are a group founded by (former) Christians which claims Jewish practice but allegience to Jesus and at least parts of the New Testament; as such, regardless of any other claims, by definition they fit squarely in the "Torah pole" section of the Messianic Judaism movement. Jayjg 16:41, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok I think we are making progreess here now. I am surprised that you do not understand the halakha that myself being a person in the process of being confirmed, orthodox Jews are not actually permitted to converse with me on anything beyond what is required for my conversion. In the past I was privy to much more because there was no question about my moving to Israel, it is only when we started looking into the possibility of me making Aliya that a question came over my Jewishness until my maternal line has been confirmed. It seems to me that the only problem on the netzarim question is that you still insist that all of these things are only claims. I don't know what I personally can offer you, considering you should know the protocols which demand you to make the contact for yourself. Even if I purchase a facsimily of the conversion documents and proof that the paqid is in good standing with the orthodox community the best I can do is email a scanned version to you which could be manipulated. And why should I pay for such proof when it is you who are the one demanding it. You know where to get hold of it so why not just get it? I have given you all the directions. Would you like me to re-iterate the steps for you? Have you not been able to follow them? Or is it that the legality of your Jewishness is also in question thus preventing you from accessing the required info? In which case we need to find a neutral third party whose legal Jewishness is not in question. The only thing I can think of if this is not possible is to write to a Yemenite group like http://www.chayas.com and ask about the difference between Netzarim & Notzrim, how you can tell the difference, and if the Yemeni Jew Yirmeyâhu Bên-Dâvid claiming to be Pâqid of the Nętzârim is actually an apostate. As for Yemenites not being modern orthodox Jews, you are right that they are infact the most pristine and unchanged pharisaical Jewish tradition in the world, but you seem to not understand what makes an orthodox Beth Din into a modern orthodox Beth Din. It is an intellectual movement which has some fruit in orthodox communities around the world and does not stem from one person or one group following one ideology. It is simply an orthodox reaction to the modern world. I think erhaps chayas.com themselves may be classified as modern orthodox (unless the meaning is vastly different in america from what people understand it to mean outside of america) but as you will see from their website they are without a doubt orthodox Yemenite Jews. So don't hesitate. Write an email or two today. The point of contention is that Messianic Judaism is not recognised as Judaism, while Netzarim are orthodox Jews and are not in apostasy. Netzarim are the original Nazarene Jews all others which post-date them are Notzrim and are classified as being in apostasy and are in fact branches of Messianic Judaism. I am not familiar with the "Torah Pole" you mention.Zestauferov 03:56, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the first half and much of the rest of your paragraph, it is personal, ad hominem, and irrelevant. Regarding providing evidence, a good start would be pasting into here a copy of any e-mails you have received on the subject. Regarding "the Yemeni Jew Yirmeyâhu Bên-Dâvid", a gentile American convert by definition cannot be a Yemenite Jew. Regarding Yemenite Jews, your claims that they are "the most pristine and unchanged pharisaical Jewish tradition in the world" are both inaccurate and highly POV; in fact, they tend to follow Maimonides' Mishne Torah, a work written by a Spanish Jew in the 12th century, over 1,000 years after the last Pharisee disappeared. Regarding "Torah Pole", please see Messianic Judaism#Torah Pole. Jayjg 04:58, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I thought my response was rather cordial. Please point out EXCACTLY what you took offence to? This is the second time you have accused me of such and ther second time I have asked for you to point out what you feel upset you. Both these times came after the innitial ad hominem you made against me which I pointed out but which you have made no attempt to indicate such was not your intention. I hope that you are not just saying ad hominem against me because I pointed out the attack from you first and you could think of no other way to respond. From the very first time you leveled the accusation against me I have indicated that this was not my intention and have asked you to QUOTE what I have said that you feel is such so that I may appologise for it or rephrase. This is much more than I can say for you. Regarding Pharisees, there is no other living Jewish tradition closer to the pharisees than the Yemenites hence my comment. They are the most unchanged. Regarding Yirmeyâhu Bên-Dâvid anyway you know who I mean. Regarding evidence, you are the one making the claim that they are outside of Orthodox Judaism so you should be the one to post the evidence. All it requires to know that they are part of orthodoxy is to CYLOR and I have directed you how.Zestauferov 09:52, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've listed a number of Ad hominem statements below. In general, if one avoids bringing up any argumentation relevant to the person, but instead focusses solely on the issues, ad hominem argumentation can be avoided. Regarding your claims about Yemenites being "closer" to Pharisees, and "most unchanged", this is a POV which is not supported by any credible historians. The Orthodox Rabbis I have discussed this with have never heard of this group, and insist that considering Jesus as the Messiah is not compatible with Orthodox Judaism. Jayjg 20:23, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sources

Jayig and Zestauferov, sorry to butt in here, but I think its only fair to ask both of you to provide sources for your claims and counterclaim. Sources could include web pages, letters/emails, newspaper references, etc. I've been lurking while the two of you have been debating. Please note, I think it's good to be debating, as there's no better way to thrash out an NPOV position than by vigorous debate. 'Please' don't get too personal in the debate, however. I understand the passions that religious issues can arouse, as I, too, am a religious man, but I do hope that both of you - and any other interested parties - can deal with this issue on its merits without getting personal. There's always the Mediation Committee if either of you want it, but I personally think they should be brought in only as a last resort. I would much rather we resolved this issue among ourselves - which should be possible, provided we debate the issue, not the protagonists. BTW, I, too, think there are several articles here that NEED to be amalgamated. We can't have a multiplicity of articles on topics that differ only marginally, all contradicting one another. We have to go through the articles and sift the truth from POV, establish accuracy, and amalgamate the articles accordingly. It would be good if we could get the perspective (POV though it is) of Messianic insider. David Cannon (administrator) 14:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The principle source for stating that the Netzarim are not the same as the Notzrim (who are regarded as apostates by Judaism) is that the Netzarim Paqid is a Jew in good standing with the board of the Orthodox Yemenite Beth Kneset in Raanana, Israel. Documentation is also available from the Netzarim Judaica Shoppe in the Mall on the netzarim website here http://www.netzarim.co.il/Mall/NetzShop/NetzShop.htm#Netzarim_Papers. Think about this, it is impssible to be in good standing if one is the heretic leader of an apostate movement. His picture is on his website wouldn't, if his synagogue regarded what he was up to as suspect, they ensure it was impossible for him to offer such documentation? Paqid Yirmeyahu's (and his wife Karen's) conversions are also independently confirmable having been thoroughly documented by Orthodox rabbis and Orthodox batei-din (in Florida and Raananah Israel but once more fees may apply). The book, "Who Are the Netzarim?" ISBN 965-7328-03-9 also includes a photocopy of a letter from the Office of the Chief Rabbi of Israel extending the then-Chief Rabbi's blessings to Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David with wishes for his success. You can also post any questions to them here http://www.netzarim.co.il/MisrQlit/CntcQlit.htm. Though sadly internecine slandering and impugning has become rife throughout the Orthodox Jewish community, including certain irresponsible Orthodox rabbis slandering and impugning other Orthodox rabbis with impunity (e.g. accusations against Chareidi & Chabadnik) it is frequently the case that as long as the details are presented accurately to the Rabbis they will not make such mistakes which are usually a result of being presented with false facts to start with. When this is not the case they will certainly be up for a possible reprimand by their superiors if the evidence presented against them is sound. PLEASE NOTE that Reform Counter-Missionary stances cannot be taken as valid in an Orthodox debate which would be comparable to scientologists attempting to make their voice heard in an orthodox Christian in-house debate. We need ORTHODOX SOURCES from Jayig against the netzarim for him to proove his case. My claim is that they belong to orthodox Judiasm as indicated above several times so we need orthodox sources speaking out against either them or their specific beliefs (and it must be proven that they believe such here is a good place to start the comparison http://www.netzarim.co.il/Jewish%20Message.htm .) Thus the literal presentation of the question as well as the answer which came with it would be good. Bare in mind that Netzarim make up just a fragment of those who have had the Nazarene term applied to them in history which is what this article should be about.Zestauferov 16:44, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi David. Their main webpage states that Jesus (who they call "Ribi Yehoshua") is the Messiah. Any group which claims to practice Judaism, and considers Jesus to be the Messiah, is (by definition) a form of Messianic Judaism. What we do know are they they claim to be a form of Judaism, and they claim that Jesus (as they understand him) is the Messiah. The burden of proof that they are accepted as a legitimate Orthodox group therefore rests with those who make the claim. Zest.'s many arguments boil down to this: 1) The founder had a legitimate Orthodox conversion. 2) No Orthodox groups have said that they are not Orthodox. Point 1) has no bearing on whether or not the movement is Orthodox. Point 2) is irrelevant, since Orthodox groups do not go about condemning any of these small Messianic groups. Zest. has replied to this by saying "Oh, if these groups claimed to be Orthodox, then the Orthodox establishment would surely come down on them", but, as I said above, this is merely a varition on the No true Scotsman logical fallacy. Jayjg 20:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As you can see I have offered quite a few sources and should have more comming in a few weeks time. Your claim that no Jew can believe any man is the messiah is erroneous. It is based upon only one source, the reform source (which has to be disqualified from an orthodox debate in which only Halakha can determine what is and what isn't Judaism) which you quoted above "For us in the Jewish community anyone who claims that Jesus is their savior is no longer a Jew and is an apostate... Such individuals should not be accorded membership in the congregation or treated in any way which makes them appear as if they were affiliated with the Jewish community..." [Contemporary American Reform Responsa, #68]. Taking the literal interpretation of this, even by reform standards the netzarim are not in apostasy because of their respect for the man. Is your accusation that I am using the No True Scotsman fallacy the thanks I get for accepting your initial argument and re-phrasing the sentence from sect of Judaism to a sect of Modern Orthodox Judaism (not silently I might add) so as not to cause any offence to people who might be very sensitive about the issue? Wouldn't that make every time anyone makes any compromise guilty of the No True Scotsman fallacy? Or are you making a variation on the fallacy to state that the predicate (belief in an essence as Messiah) is contradictory to the accepted definition of the subject (Judaism)?Zestauferov 02:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have never made the claim that "no Jew can believe any man is the messiah". You have yet to provide any actual documentation, only claims that it exists, and statements that I should send this group e-mails. Please review No true Scotsman. Jayjg 03:14, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was summarizing and paraphrasing (or are you the only one who is allowed to do that?) At least I was not putting it in speech marks as if to put words into your mouth. Ok if it was wrong then you admit that there is nothing wrong with a group of Jews believing a particular man is a messiah. Good, then we are agreed on the heart of the matter and the case is closed.Zestauferov 16:16, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jews can believe whatever they want; I certainly have no say in the matter. However, this is irrelevant; the point remains that combining the rituals of Judaism with a belief that Jesus is the Messiah is by definition Messianic Judaism. Jayjg 02:09, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

P.S. from where are you making the following quote about me? "Oh, if these groups claimed to be Orthodox, then the Orthodox establishment would surely come down on them" I could not find it on the page neither do I remember making it.Zestauferov 02:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was summarizing and paraphrasing your lengthy ad hominem arguments. Jayjg 03:14, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What is ad hominem?

Since you have insisted on several occasions that I show you your ad hominem statements, here are a sample you have made to me from this Talk: page:

Finally if you are convinced that you are not guilty of a straw man attack then you are certainly guilty of Leshon Ha-Ra. If you are a reform Jew then this will not matter to you, but that is becuase your movement is more like that of Yeshu Ha-Notzri's (i.e. anti-torah) than any other major Jewish heresey in history. Lets hope that this is not the case.

this is not ad hominem. There is no other "MAJOR" Jewish movement in history spreading ideas like those attributed to Yeshu Ha-Notzri than the reform movements. I suppose you consider this ad hominem because I use the word Heresey but this is used to illustrate that reform belifs cannot be considered in an orthodox argument. Ad Hominem means that I am attacking the individual person as you can see I am not doing this. I give you an escape route with the word "IF" and also allow for the fact that Reform Jews do not consider themselves bound by any Halakha including the avoidance of Leshon Ha Ra. The only way this could be taken as an attack on you would be if you yourself are opposed to Reform Judaism in which case all you have to do is separate yourself from that movement in one clear statement and respond to the charge that I have brought against you i.e. that you were and still are building a straw man case. Zestauferov 01:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

either you are not very well educated or you are deliberately attempting to misinform again (Lashon Ha-Ra).

OK allow me to appologise for not being clear on this one. You are obviously an intelligent person, what I meant was in the context of Netzarim. You are certainly not very well educated in issues pertaining to the Netzarim and that is what I meant. Again I was giving you an escape route in case you are not Reform in which case Leshon Ha Ra might be something you don't want to be associated with. So Just admit it there is nothing embarrassing about being ignorant on a subject which clearly you aree not very interested in getting the facts straight with.Zestauferov 01:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

gain your claims are dreadfully misinformed, or you are guilty of deliberately trying to spread a false testimony about the movement.

Ditto above. I.E. you are dreadfully misinformed about the movement, I can't see why you don't just admit this. You are the one who makes the negative halves of the statements apply to yourself by refusing to come clean and admit that you just really don't know that much about them and you are building a case against them based upon the idea that it is forbidden for a Jew to believe anyone is the messiah which is again simply false. It is the blind Anti-Messiah attitude which is getting you into a deeper hole and not anything else.

By the way are you a legal Jew?

What is ad Hominem about this? I admit that the legality of my Jewishness is in question and have come clean about it does that make my right to debate in the matter any less important? Not at all why? because I have a lot of knowledge about the area. Now why are you so afraid of answering the question?Zestauferov 01:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am afraid to say that sadly it is your understanding of Lashon Ha-Ra that is obviously flawed.

It is. And again this is not a personal attack. Anyone here who reads your comments about the netzarim which if not based upon ignorance of the movement and building a strawman case againsty them are clearly not very nice things to be saying about practicing god-fearing orthodox Jews.Zestauferov 01:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is very clear to me that you are either a reform Jew in which case you don't really have any right to condemn anything inside orthodox Judaism since it rejects you as an apostate. Or you are simply one of the millions of assimilated jews in ignorance in which case don't get angry, get legal.

It is true that reform Jews have no right to project their beliefs onto orthodox Judaism (see my catholic example below). You are clearly one of the assimilated which is not a bad thing. I myself was one of them and the only way out of many contradictions is to study Halakha. What on earth could be ad hominem about this unless above I was also attacking myself?Zestauferov 01:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But you have also now shown that as a reform Jew Jewish law is irrelevant to you and to be perfectly honest so is your attempt to decide for the international Jewish community what is and isn't Judaism. They are a branch of modern orthodox Judaism. But as you know the Reform movement is regarded by the international orthodox community as apostate. As you can imagine, apostates denouncing others as apostate is quite ammusing. From the orthodox perspective you trying to say they are not is paramount to a catholic deciding who is and who isn't inside Judaism.

Your only reference above was a reform-Jew statement that anyone who believes in Jesus as their saviour cannot be Jews hence my conclusion. Since we are discussing orthodox beliefs we have to use orthodox law and in such it is a fact that no single individual can speak for the whole Jewish community, only the Sanhedren can make such rulings when it is re-established. Reform beliefs cannot come into the picture because in the orthodox view they are just as apostate as the messianic Jews are. I am arguing from the orthodox perspective. I am not even a Jew unless it be by Reform standards so once again, if I am attacking you personally then I am also attacking myself. That is not ad-hominem. What I am doing is illustrating why a reform belif has to be disqualified from a debate on an internal orthodox matter.Zestauferov 01:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As a reform Jew you will not care about the laws of that movement which include not to remind of a convert's gentile past. But please respect the fact that no matter how much Reform Jews hate Orthodox Jews, there is no secret about that in the press, you should not be trampling over the Halakha which they hold dear.

It is a simple fact that reform Jews do not consider themselves bound by any such Jewish laws (they have their own rules instead). Why should this fact being brought out into the open upset you? Unless once again you are not a reform and you are objecting to being classified as such in which case just onces state categorically for the record that you are not a reform Jew and then I will refrain from making excuses for you. The only problem then would be that If you are not a reform Jew then what excuses do you have? I will admit that the use of the word hate and trampling are not very good I should rephrase. The point I wanted to make is that it is no secret that reform Jews really don't like or respect the halakha which the orthodox hold dear. Despite this I hope that we can at least act in accordance with halakha here because if not doing so decreases the chances of an orthodox Jew joining the debate. IF that is your plan then you are not playing fair.Zestauferov 01:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as a Reform you really are disqualified from debating about orthodox matters. Can't you see how Bizzare that is? If you were conservative it might be a different matter depending upon which Beth Din the orthodox members of the debate were from.

Again I have mentioned again and again, reform beliefs cannot come into an internal debate upon what is and isn't orthodox Judaism. The reform Jews have done very well in taking control of the Jew page filling it with reform bias, but lets not get too ambitious.Zestauferov 01:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please don't take this as an attack, it seems you might have some kind of ADD. It might help you to get that checked out.

What can I say this is not an attack and cannot be ad hominem because I remove the statement from the debate by preceeding it with a disqualifying statement. Why did I say this? because you seem adamant that you have read up on the topic but keep missing the key points. The alternative is that you simply are not reading anything but skimming or glossing over the details which is an attitude you cannot afford to adopt in a serious debate. You must be more precise otherwise progress is impossible.Zestauferov 01:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It seems you don't actually know what Lashon Hara means. Disparaging Speech. You are very sensitive if you think that this is a personal attack. I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt and talking to you as if you were an orthodox Jews to remind you of what we hold sacred. However it is now clear that you do obviously have some kind of contempt for the Jewish laws which is why you seem to be under the impression that I am making a personal attack by suggesting that you might be guilty of it IF indeed (as you will see in my posts) you really are attempting to defend your position as accurately researched. But you are a Reform and anyone who has read a little about them will know that the movement has no regard for Jewish Law and has prefered to create its own pillars of belief.

If you want me to know that you really are not a reform Jew and that you really do hold Halakha dear then the abovestatement could be taken as ad hominem. If not then it is simply re-iterating the point that reform bias has no place in a debate on what is and what isn't orthodox. I am not undoubtably an orthodox Jew, but I am attempting to take their stand point, hence I am not disqualified from the debate. If you want to be included then you too should let go of your beliefs whatever they are, and only use the arguments which matter, i.e. Halakha.Zestauferov 01:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you could give me proof of the the beth din you belong to and that you are in good standing with it then I will of course change my mind. To the orthodox (which you obviously do not belong to for no knowing this) becomming a Jew is literally like being born again.

I mean what I said, i.e. that if you can proove to me that you are an ortodox then I will certainly accept that these statements may be taken as ad hominem, and revoke them. The only problem then is that there is a lot of halakha you have broken on this page the reason for which needs to be explained.Zestauferov 01:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I hope this helps you understand what kinds of comments are "ad hominem" Jayjg 19:49, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More responses to "What is ad hominem"?

I hope you will see that my intention was not to attack you personally but to illustrate that reform vieews cannot have any weight on an orthodox matter, and that we should be respecting the halakha which surrounds all issues of what is and what isn't orthodox Judaism. However to show my good will, only because you believe they are personal attacks against you I will accept your removal of all those statements from the page and the debate. All of them only boil down to two points which I can state here. Please read the netzarim pages more carefully because you are confusing some issues here. To determine what is and isn't orthodox we have to use the orthodox measures and reform beliefs do not play any part. All the best.Zestauferov 01:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please review this article: Ad hominem. Try to make an argument without once refering to my beliefs, knowledge, or personal status. Arguments should deal specifically with the issues involved, not the individuals making them. Material should not be deleted from Talk: pages. Jayjg 02:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zestauferov, please don't take this personally, but it seems to me that you are talking in circles here. I'm having great difficulty in finding the substance in your argument - am I missing something. Reviewing the paragraphs above, a lot of what you've said to Jayig seems a tad too personal. Now, I'm not Jewish, so I have no axe to grind for either the Orthodox or the Reform position. But I do believe, strongly, that it is totally inappropriate to make personal attacks to win an argument - and some of the things you've said to Jayig come very close, in my opinion. Your argument should be based on the facts of the topic at hand, not on the real or supposed beliefs, character, qualifications, or identity of the person you are arguing with. I don't want to take sides in this matter. I really don't. But your comments above contain remarks that I consider to be over the top. Sorry to speak so directly, but it's how some of them come across to me. Jayig has presented his arguments factually and logically. You, by contrast, have appealed to Jayig's religious qualifications (or supposed lack of them), and to what you say is the lack of proof against what you are claiming. Try presenting a case like that in a court of law! PLEASE, DEBATE THE MESSAGE, NOT THE MESSENGER. Also, I would be very happy if you would refrain from deleting comments from talk pages. It's not fair to those who visit the talk page less frequently if they cannot see ALL that has been said. So, at the risk of repetition, please focus on the topic, forget about who is presenting the opinions, and argue the case on its own merits, proving SOURCES wherever possible. The *LACK* of evidence against your claims is not a source. Now, let's all take a deep breath and calm down. David Cannon (administrator) 14:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David why do you accuse me of deleting comments? Are you sure you are unbiased in this? please read my posts since your first post here again in more detail, I think you will find that I have been logical and have provided substantial sources. Jayig only provided one source and that was a reform source which cannot be counted in a debate on orthodox Judaism. I am not attacking him if you read I asked him to present those points which he thought I was attacking him so that I may address them which I did. Anything you say is ad hominem I have already appologised for and disqualified as valid argument. I have also re-iterated the points which matter. Please read more carefully. In a court of law my evidence would stand a s a mountain against the solitary and irrelevant quote which Jayic has offered. Ad hominem is like this A says B. C says A is bad, therefor B is invalid. I have not done this. The situation is A says B I say B is irrelevant and A says C has said A is bad because C is illustrating the irrelevance of B. This is not ad-hominem. Lets stop whingeing and deal with the heart of the matter i.e. B and why B is irrelevant. David perhaps as the referee you might declare "THE MESSAGE" which needs to be debated in case it is something different fro what I have already discussed.Zestauferov 16:12, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zestauferov, I apologize for misrepresenting you about the deletion of comments. I was mistaken about that. I remain dissatisfied with your other points, however. For example, you wrote: A says B. C says A is bad, therefor B is invalid. I have not done this. I find you subsequent explanation a little hard to understand. To me, it seems that you're saying something like, Jayig (A) says this about Nazarene Judaism (B). Jayig (A) is a Reform Jew. Reform Judaism is unorthodox, therefore anything that a Reform Jew might have to say is invalid. Granted, that may not be what you're saying - but it's how it comes across to an ignorant outsider like me. If that's not what you meant, please explain more fully. As for "THE MESSAGE" : as I understand it, the message is about (a) who Nazarene Jews are, (b)what Nazarene Jews believe, (c) what recognized branches of Judaism (especially Orthodox Jews) think of Nazarene Judaism, and (d) what Christians think of Nazarene Judaism. IMO, one need not be an Orthodox Jews to answer question (c), nor a Christian to answer question (d). We are not dealing with the rightness or wrongness of Nazarene theology, per se, but about how they themselves, and others, perceive their theology. There is a difference, in my opinion. Once again, I'm sorry I leapt to conclusions about your deleting comments. I was confused, and I take that back. I would be happy if you would respond to my other points, though - and also to Jayig's, in more detail.

As my personal beliefs are irrelevant to the debate here, simply stating that I am a "Reform Jew" is ad hominem; see Poisoning the well. So is stating that I am an "assimilated Jew"; Zestauferov has accused me of being both. For that matter, I've been accused on Wikipeda this week of being an "ultra-Orthodox Jew" as well. Well, the world's a funny place, no doubt, but ad hominem statements have no place here. Jayjg 03:26, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

By the way, David, Zestauferov did recommend deleting comments from the Talk: pages, so I believe your request that he not do so was entirely appropriate. Jayjg 16:46, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No one had to state anything, you implied it yourself through your wholly irrelevant argument. and why should your denomination poison the well? It doesn't matter if you are a Railien as long as your argument is relevant which unfortunately for you yours wasn't. You must really hate reform Jews to consider being one of them to be poisoning the well. I did not ask you to express your despicion for the reform movement I simply asked if you would clearly state that you were not a reform Jew if you were not. But like I said my comments are not addressed to your religion you could be anything you like and it won't bother me in the slightest as long as your argument is relevant but unfortunately for you the reform argument is not relevant. I wonder if I should say thiat just one more time here because I have said it several tyimes above and it seems that you have not got the point yet. If i repeat it again here it might save me from repeating it again later. But then again maybe not. Oh well what the hay, I'll type it just a couple of more times for fun anyway and because I am probably suffering from sleep deprivition. I don't care who you are, where you're from, what you did as long as your argument is relevant. I have not criticised anyone for being a reform Jew, I have simply stated the beliefs of reform Jews to illustrate why it would be difficult to see the orthodox standpoint from a reform perspective (not if one were a reform Jew who has studied a little about orthodox Judaism like myself). And it has been over looked again and again that I have classified myself as certainly Jewish only by the reform standards. so If I am poisoning the well by assuming Jayig is a reform Jew then I must have done so for my side of the argument too by admitting this about myself too. This must proove the regard I have for a person's individual classification -i.e. it doesn't make a pin's worth of difference, as long as the argument is relevant (unfortunately for Jayig in this case the reform argument was not relevant). Now back to the real ad hominem attack, i.e. that the netzarim Paqid cannot be an authentic Jew because he was a baptist minister. This is not just ad hominem but actually slander and I understand that the Paqid is not very happy about this. I hope Jayig has an untraceable IP number.Zestauferov 16:01, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zestauferov, I must strongly protest your editing my Talk: page comments; this is a shocking breach of Wikipedia etiquette. To add insult to injury, your edits were both un-grammatical and misspelled. Regarding the rest of your comments, I have nowhere claimed that "the netzarim Paqid cannot be an authentic Jew because he was a baptist minister", and I also strongly protest your continued use of thinly veiled threats. As for your statements regarding Reform Jews and "Poisoning the well", since your argument was based on dismissing Reform views as being invalid, your accusations that I am a Reform Jew and hold those views were indeed "Poisoning the well" in this context. Jayjg 16:11, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jayig used the frase "shocking breach of Wikipedia etiquette" and from his eksampliary postings above, I realise now that he is indiid the living word on wikiket. Could you tell me where eggsactly I could find the reference you wish for me to imurs my very being with in the steps to achieving your level please? Thankyou in advance. (by the way you have a grammar mistake it is comment not comments, but at least now there might be some basis to the statement. Don't push too hard when you don't want something to come true.)Zestauferov 16:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There's no fool like a dishonest fool. Pliise luuk at the history payj for the artykl "16:02, 20 Jul 2004 Jayjg m (Netzarim / Nazoraios (Branches) - The paragraphs are almost unintelligible, but in any case Jesus movements founded by Baptist ministers are not part of Judaism)" Also C abuv under Messianic or Orthodox where 14:59, 21 Jul 2004 you posted "So to with the Netzarim movement (if one can call a few dozen people a "movement"), which was founded by a non-Jewish Baptist minister" or again Jayjg 17:11, 21 Jul 2004 "As for the founder of this movement, he was a gentile-born Baptist minister, as with other Messianic movements" or let me guess perhaps you have another reason for using the phrase gentile-born (as if any Jew alive can't see your un-halakhic intention)? Or how about Jayjg 03:14, 22 Jul 2004 "The founder of this movement was born and raised Gentile, and was a Baptist minister long before he got involved in Judaism of any sort." And again "The founder of this movement was born gentile, and was a Baptist minister. These are facts. Jayjg 16:20, 23 Jul 2004" Lets not how you repeatedly refuse to call him a Jew as is demanded by Halakha. You klnow it is a good thing you are not an orthodox Jew because if you were you could be thrown out of your synagogue for all this. Not content with personal attack against him you then go on to make baseless claims about the size of trhe movement not neglecting to imply he is a lier by your use of the word "claim" lets see it Jayjg 16:41, 8 Aug 2004 "From what I can tell, they consist primarily of a former Baptist Minister and his wife and their daughter (who claim to have converted to Orthodox Judaism)" . Or perhaps you were objecting to my "summarizing and paraphrasing your lengthy ad hominem arguments. Jayjg 03:14, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)". As for your reform Jewish arguments, I am very tired indeed. Let me just say this one more almost all my life I have been a secularised Jew in the Reform movement. Have I anywhere on this page indicated that as such I am unqualified to discuss the topic? And do I use reform arguments on orthodox matters? NO why? because it is inaccurate to do so. And no one has to state that you hold reform views because you implied it yourself. You don't even seem to remember your only reference for any of this is a reform reference. Shall I quote that for you again too? "For us in the Jewish community anyone who claims that Jesus is their savior is no longer a Jew and is an apostate... Such individuals should not be accorded membership in the congregation or treated in any way which makes them appear as if they were affiliated with the Jewish community..." [Contemporary American Reform Responsa, #68] ...Jayjg 17:11, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) " And if you are not a reform Jew (as your use of the term "accuse" seems to now indicate) then how come you don't observe halakha? Please enlighten me.

But before I go to bed for the ight I should appologise for teasing ou with the spelling. I am dyslexic (as is my keyboard) and we don't bother trying when tired and typing fast & sloppily while irritated.Zestauferov 16:50, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Irrelevant issues section

Any more irrelevant points are brought up will be immediately placed under this section for discussion.

Wikipedia Etiquette

Jayig used the frase "shocking breach of Wikipedia etiquette" and from his eksampliary postings above, I realise now that he is indiid the living word on wikiket. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Nazarene_Judaism&diff=4766600&oldid=4765580 for an example of how he never does what he is so shocked about. Could you tell me where eggsactly I could find the reference you wish for me to imurs my very being with in the steps to achieving your level please? Thankyou in advance.Zestauferov 16:15, 12 Aug 2004(UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikiquette Wikipedia:No personal attacks Wikipedia:No legal threats. Also please review Ad hominem and Poisoning the well. Jayjg 16:30, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also, changing the title of a section to make it more informative is nothing like editing a person's Talk: comments. Jayjg 03:08, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In other words "It is alright for me to do it but no one else can". Who is making up all these rules I wonder?Zestauferov 03:35, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, the actual words were "changing the title of a section to make it more informative is nothing like editing a person's Talk: comments", which means something else entirely. The Wikipedia community as a whole makes up all these rules; I have referred you to a number of relevant pages in the past. Please see earlier comments. Jayjg 03:43, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I tell you what, since my page references were not good enough for you why don't you just quote the specific you impy above (about not editing despite what the disclaimer reads) for me and then maybe I will start doing the same for you.Zestauferov 16:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

P.S. For the umpteenth time I have not made any personal attacks it is YOU who are taking my assumption from YOUR implication that you are a reform Jew as a personal attack. I have never known anyone to be so upset about being mistaken for a reform Jew as you are. Nor have I made any legal threats to you. I have been a good friend to you by reminding you that what you say is in an easily traceable public record. You can take that friendly reminder or you can leave it. Why should I sue you? Do you want to give me a reason to?Zestauferov 16:58, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have not implied that I am a Reform Jew, nor am I upset about being mistaken for one; however, I again strongly protest your use of this accusation to "Poison the well", as well as your continued liberal use of ad hominem statements throughout your arguments. Please stick to discussing the issues, and leave me, my status, and my beliefs out of it. Try to make an argument for your position regarding "Nazarene Judaism" that does not use the word "you" at all. As for the sophistry and dissembling in the above statements regarding legal action, I have little more to say. Jayjg 17:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Was the assumption that Jayig was a reform Jew justified?

I have not implied that I am a Reform Jew, Jayjg 17:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I know you are not going to like having your statement broken up , but it is the only way to pin down yuour points.Your one and only reference for your argument to date has been a reform reference quoted above, and you disregard Halakha in a way an orthodox Jew couldn't. Hence the implication. I hope you will not waste any more time bringing up this point again. Zestauferov 01:22, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I don't like having you edit my statements, or break them up. Copy them below if you must, but stop editing them and breaking them up. I'm not the first person on this Talk: page who has complained about that. Regarding your point, please do not waste any more time discussing my personal beliefs or your own religious beliefs regarding my actions. Stick to the issues. Jayjg 02:47, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Was Jayig upset about being mistaken for a reform Jew?

nor am I upset about being mistaken for one; Jayjg 17:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well you brought up the term Poisoning the well and ad hominem and the term accusation with regartds to being called on. I'd say that pretty much illustrates the point that you have some kind of strong objection to being innopcently mistaken for one. I hope you will not waste any more time bringing up this point again.Zestauferov 01:22, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have a strong objection to ad hominem statements. Please do not waste any more time discussing my personal beliefs or your own religious beliefs regarding my actions. Stick to the issues. Jayjg 02:51, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why does Jayig think being a reform Jew is an ad hominem attempt to "poison the well"

however, I again strongly protest your use of this accusation to "Poison the well", as well as your continued liberal use of ad hominem statements throughout your arguments. Jayjg 17:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Either you have no problem being mistaken for a reform Jew or you do. Why do you think being mistaken for one is an ad hominem attempt to poison the well. Actually I am not really interested so you don't have to answer that question. In fact I hope you will not waste any more time bringing up this point again.Zestauferov 01:22, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have a strong objection to ad hominem statements. Please do not waste any more time discussing my personal beliefs or your own religious beliefs regarding my actions. Stick to the issues. Jayjg 02:52, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No more sophistry

As for the sophistry and dissembling in the above statements regarding legal action, I have little more to say. Jayjg 17:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good.Zestauferov 01:22, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Catching up

I'm sorry I wasn't able to keep up with what was going on yesterday - I had to go out of town on a trip that took longer than expected. Zestauferov, when I apologized for accusing you of deleting comments from talk pages, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I hope I was not mistaken in doing do. Your editing of another user's comments does little to allay my misgivings about your apparent attitude, and I hope you will show greater tact from now on. If Jayig misinterpreted what you said, then point that out, but please refrain from editing his - or anybody else's - comments. It's not fair to everybody else if all and sundry can reword any comments they don't like. I'm still waiting for you to address the issue at hand - and I'm still waiting for the e-mail you said you were going to send me. There's no hurry, but it might shed some light on the points of disagreement. Anyway, I have to go to work again this afternoon; I will try to get back tonight or tomorrow sometime. Anyway, what I said to you, I also say to everybody: deleting or editing other users' comments in talk pages is inappropriate. Talk to you later. David Cannon (administrator) 14:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you several emails already. have you checked your hotmail recently?Zestauferov 04:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tabla Erasa and re-iteration of the important issues

Please stick to discussing the issues, and leave me, my status, and my beliefs out of it. Try to make an argument for your position regarding "Nazarene Judaism" that does not use the word "you" at all. Jayjg 17:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is what I have wanted to do from the start. Lets see if you can do the same with regards to the Netzarim.

The term Nazarene Judaism originated with the Netzarim and was quickly adopted by christian groups in an attempt to legitimize themselves. The Netzarim are not Christians but are Orthodox Jews. One cannot become a Netzarim without being an orthodox Jew or Ger Toshav first. No one will find any orthodox Beth Din denouncing the Netzarim as either apostates or non-orthodox-Jews. If any non-orthodox or apostate Beth Din was to establish itself pretending to be an orthodox one, the orthodox Bethei Dion would be very quick to identify it. This is not the case with groups not claiming to be orthodx, since it is not considered to be an internal Jewish matter if it does not touch upon orthodox Judaism. As suggested by a few other people before hand, I believe that this article is not really encyclopaedic material and should be merged with other related articles into one on the origins and uses/applications of the term Nazarene.Zestauferov 01:22, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I will repeat my argument yet again: What we do know are that they claim to be a form of Judaism, and they claim that Jesus (or "Ribi Yehoshua" as they call him) is the Messiah. Any group which claims to practice Judaism, and considers Jesus to be the Messiah, is by definition a form of Messianic Judaism. Here is the definition of Messianic Judaism from the Religious Tolerance website:

Messianic Judaism is a religious movement, composed of faith groups that are mainly attended by ethnic/cultural Jews. They differ from Reform, Conservative, Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Jews over their beliefs about the Messiah. Most Jews believe that the Messiah has yet to come; Messianic Jews believe that Yeshua of Nazareth was the expected Messiah. (Yeshua is called Jesus Christ by Christians.)[1]

Since they meet the definition of a Messianic Jewish group, the burden of proof that they are accepted as a legitimate branch of Orthodox Judaism therefore rests with those who make the claim. So far no proofs of any kinds have been provided, merely irrelevant statements, unsubstantiated claims and circular arguments from silence. Jayjg 03:10, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jayig you don't understand the system. The proof that something is orthodox is and always has been that they developed within the orthodox community and they are not labelled as apostate by the orthodox community.Zestauferov 04:34, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I see that any attempt to avoid the use of the word "you" in a response has quickly died. I recommend not using the word "you" in any responses, as well as avoiding any reference to my beliefs, knowledge, or religious status. Regarding the argument itself, it is a logical fallacy known as an argument from silence; please provide evidence of its validity. Jayjg 15:30, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The problem with the messianic Jew definition is twofold. First that they do not differ with some of the orthodox & ultra-orthodox with regards to their views on the messiah, the only difference is in the person. Secondly that Messianic Jews are considered to be apostate from the folds of Judaism, whereas Netzarim most definately are not considered as such. Hence classifying them under messianic Jews poses some unavoidable problems. I am not sure however if they may be classified as a form of meshichisten. Zestauferov 05:12, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1. Many (perhaps most) Messianic Jews are not considered "apostate" as they were never Jewish to begin with. Jayjg 15:30, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

2. The claim that "Netzarim most definately are not considered as [apostate]" is what you are trying to prove in the first place. As such, this is begging the question. Jayjg 15:30, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The proof that something is orthodox is and always has been that they developed within the orthodox community and they are not labelled as apostate by the orthodox community. This traditional system is not argument from silence since I have repeatedly offered a way to verify. Simply contact the netzarim for the required info and they will give it to you then with it the proof can be found through C-LOR. If the netzarim ignore a request for some reaon then it may be because of a sullied reputation, but anyone can search the netzarim site for the required info (if they understand the orthodox system they will know what to look for), or contact me through the wiki email. They do not set up their own rabbis nor theit own synagogues neither do they keep their beliefs secret. They operate openly completely within the orthodox system within which they exist attending the local orthodox synagogues and consulting with the local orthodox rabbis. The only way for them to be identified as outside this system is either to find them singled out by the orthodox union bethei Din as an apostate/heretical movement which is polluting orthodox Judaism from the inside out or to brush them off as ALL being a form of noahide Torah observant non-legal-Jews (which although some of them are many are not) in which case their beliefs in prophets & messiahs not recognised by Judaism would not be an important issue as long as they were not compelling Jews to adopt their convictions and start contradicting Torah. Zestauferov 04:05, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See my statements above, and please re-read David Cannon's as well regarding evidence and proof. Jayjg 04:06, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

They are a movement within orthodox Judaism operating under and abiding by its authorities in every shape & form and cannot be defined in any other way.Zestauferov 04:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nazarene Karaite group is Nonexistent

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