Talk:Nazarene (sect)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Beliefs and Practices

Is anyone able to get hold of the original language sources to check the claims made in that section?82.6.115.62 (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm cleaning it up

There's a bunch of junk I think should be deleted, but I'll leave it alone to let others decide upon this. Also I am trying to harmonize this article's setup with the setup of the Ebionites page.Glorthac (talk) 05:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A local church's "creed"

The article says "The following creed is that of a church at Constantinople at the same period". I seem to remember reading this creed or something very close to it, and the idea was that it was for some Jews who converted to Christianity, rather than a rule for all Christians, and that it was just a local church's creed. Rakovsky (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Bible index

This Bible index table really should belong here.

Nazar & Nazur in the New Testament

Reference	Original Greek	Transliteration	Context
Matthew 02:23	ΝΑΖΑΡΕΤ	Nazaret	called Nazar
Matthew 04:13	ΝΑΖΑΡΑ	Nazara	leaving Nazar
Matthew 21:11	ΝΑΖΑΡΕΘ	Nazareth	the community of Nazar
Mark 01:09	ΝΑΖΑΡΕΤ	Nazaret	from Nazar
Luke 01:26	ΝΑΖΑΡΕΘ	Nazareth	the community of Nazar
Luke 02:04	ΝΑΖΑΡΕΘ	Nazareth	the community of Nazar
Luke 02:39	ΝΑΖΑΡΕΘ	Nazareth	the community of Nazar
Luke 02:51	ΝΑΖΑΡΕΘ	Nazareth	the community of Nazar
Luke 04:16	ΝΑΖΑΡΑ	Nazara	to Nazar
John 01:45	ΝΑΖΑΡΕΤ	Nazaret	Jesus from Nazar
John 01:46	ΝΑΖΑΡΕΤ	Nazaret	from Nazar
Acts 10:38	ΝΑΖΑΡΕΘ	Nazareth	the community of Nazar
Mark 01:24	ΝΑΖΑΡΗΝΕ	Nazarene	with you Jesus Nazarian
Mark 10:47	ΝΑΖΑΡΗΝΟΣ	Nazarenos	it was Jesus Nazarian
Mark 14:67	ΝΑΖΑΡΗΝΟΥ	Nazarenou	with Jesus Nazarian
Mark 16:06	ΝΑΖΑΡΗΝΟΝ	Nazarenan	seek Jesus that Nazarian
Luke 04:34	ΝΑΖΑΡΗΝΕ	Nazarene	with you Jesus Nazarian
Luke 24:19	ΝΑΖΑΡΗΝΟΥ	Nazarenou	about Jesus Nazarian
Matthew 02:23	ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΣ	Nazuraios	Jesus the Nazurai
Matthew 26:71	ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΥ	Nazuraiou	by Jesus the Nazurai
Luke 18:37	ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΣ	Nazuraios	Jesus the Nazurai
John 18:05	ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΝ	Nazuraion	for Jesus the Nazurai
John 18:07	ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΝ	Nazuraion	for Jesus the Nazurai
John 19:19	ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΣ	Nazuraios	Jesus the Nazurai
Acts 02:22	ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΝ	Nazuraion	for Jesus the Nazurai
Acts 03:06	ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΥ	Nazuraiou	by Jesus the Nazurai
Acts 04:10	ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΥ	Nazuraiou	by Jesus the Nazurai
Acts 06:14	ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΣ	Nazuraios	Jesus the Nazurai
Acts 22:08	ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΣ	Nazuraios	Jesus the Nazurai
Acts 24:05	ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΩΝ	Nazuraiun	the Nazurai-ish sect
Acts 26:09	ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΥ	Nazuraiou	by Jesus the Nazurai

Budo 09:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Nazarene has to be a disambiguation page. It is the title of a dictionary entry not an Encyclopedic article. Still a lot of relevant info in the Nazarene Judaism article probably belongs hereBudo 00:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Disambiguation. And yes, I think most of the material clearly belongs here, and should not be duplicated or contradicted at Nazarene Judaism, if we decided to have that as a separate article again. Please don't mix up the structural issues of what goes where with the changes to the material you've also introduced - it's much more difficult to discuss. Rd232 ^talk 12:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW the current article here is Bumf and should probably be deleted.User:Budo 00:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could expand on that a little! Rd232 ^talk 12:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

This article is about the ancient term Nazarene, and its uses. There was no article about Nazarene Judaism, because editors were unable to provide any verifiable information about any of the half a dozen or so groups claiming the name. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Jayjg. First of all let me say that there are very few wikipedians who have my respect and you are one of them. You deserve all the stars you have. If as you say the article is about the word Nazarene and its uses then it is a dictionary entry not an encyclopaedia since Nazarene is an adjective. The only Nazarene as a person I have heard about is Jesus Christ. So if it is about the noun then it should be redirected to his page.

I do agree that if this page should exist at all then it should be about (as you correctly point out) "the word Nazarene and its uses"

But what does the article currently say? Lets have a look shall we?

Refutation of November version as per rd232's 12:56, 25 October request

Nazarene refers to certain sects of Jewish Christians.

This is true only recently thanks to the numerous cults using that term but is hardly the best way to start the article is it? There were numerous distinct but similarly named religious groups documented by the church fathers and historians, but each of them had distinct features making the collective identification of them all together as one homogenous group an incompatible theory which as far as I am aware no serious scholar has tried to propose. Of course if you know of any scholar who has tried to identify them all as one then please enlighten me.

The term (Nazarene) was applied to early followers of Jesus...

But the term never was applied to the followers of Jesus. The distinct term Nazuraiun was. If there are "scholars" who claim that ΝΑΖΑΡΗΝΕ (e.g. Gospel of Mark 1:24) and ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΩΝ (e.g. New Testament Book of Acts 24:5) have the same meaning and were interchangeable then that scholar should be quoted.

...and (Nazarene was applied to) to Jesus himself ("Jesus the Nazarene")...

In fact Jesus was called ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΣ (of unknown meaning but probably from Nazur meaning separate) as well as ΝΑΖΑΡΗΝΟΣ (a Nazarene i.e. one from Nazareth no mystery here) both with different meanings.

...until the spread of Jesus' teachings among Gentiles and the removal of certain Judaic features led to the new term Christians.

In fact an honest report of what is actually written already is that the book of acts calls the disciples christians in 11:25 many chapters before it calls them Nazuraiun (and never calls them Nazarenes). We can start to see already that whoever has written this article is pushing a particular "Nazarene Jews are the only faithful followers of Christ" agenda.

The term "Nazarene" remained in use by sects of Jewish Christians, possibly identical with the Ebionites, until around the fourth century.

Please note the use of the word "possibly" here. This is pure unsourced original research.

Today, it is used by a number of modern movements within or on the fringes of Christianity and Judaism, often (though not always) to emphasise or claim a Jewish approach to Jesus.

Another re-iteration of the main point of this article as indicated at the beginning. We can see that this article is not yet about the word Nazarene and its uses.

The name "Nazarene" was also taken by a group of early nineteenth century German Romantic painters - see the article Nazarene movement.

This at least is honest.

==Overview==

The term "Nazarenes" was used as an early description of the followers of Jesus, during the phase of Jesus' ministry directed at the Jews.

Again the article is about unhistorical Nazarene Jews, not about the word Nazarene or its uses. An honest report of what is already written in Acts will state that towards the end of the book of Acts, Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, was called ringleader of the Nazuraiun sect (remember no-where are they called Nazarenes). So again we see that the article's present agenda is the promotion of an idea without any indication of its source that Nazarene was only used by Jews in the earliest period of Jesus's ministry. Of course there were another people called Notzrim who existed many decades before the birth of Christ at least from the time of Rabbi Joshua ben Perachiah, Shimeon ben Shetach and Queen Alexandra, and it is a tradition that the christians grew out of this sect which is why christians are still called Notzrim today in Hebrew. But clearly the writers are not trying to write about Notzrim and christians' origins before the birth of christ.

The term appears to have been used primarily by Judaic outsiders, in the sense of a schismatic form of Judaism.

Now this sentence clearly applies to the word Notzrim meaning Watchers/guardians/protectors and not to the word Nazarene meaning from Nazareth.

In the course of the first century AD, with the later expansion of Christian support among Gentiles and the rejection by them of certain Judaic laws, the term "Christian" became increasingly used instead.

Used by who? By Jews? No they called christians Notzrim for many centuries and many still do. So Romans then? The article is indicating that Romans distinguished the new sect from the Jews by their disregard for the Torah and they were designated christians by them as a result. Wait a minute... Are we talking about the meaning of the word Nazarene and its uses? or are we talking about the history of Christian origins here? Maybe the next sentence will enlighten us.

The term Nazarene remained associated with certain sects of Jewish Christians ('Keepers of the Covenant', in Hebrew Nozrei haBrit) until around the fourth century, and has been readopted by certain modern movements. To this day, a common Arabic word for "Christian" is Nasrani (a term also used by the Nasrani, an ancient Jewish Christian community in Kerala, South India).

Aha here it is. Nazarenes are the faithful keepers of the covenant not the Jews and not the christians. Seems like this article is certainly about the modern sects of Nazarene Jews and Nazarene Judaism and nothing to do with the honest reportage of the historical uses of the term Nazarene (ΝΑΖΑΡΗΝΕ as in Gospel of Mark 1:24) nor even the ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΩΝ (Acts 24:5). Lets find out what sort of people believe this sort of stuff shall we? http://www.masonicforum.ro/en/nr19/baigent.html have a look at the last two paragraphs on that page. As you will see the sentence is from the source Baigent and Leigh, The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception P. 174. It is a conspiracy theory book. (In case you didn't notice this is a wonderful fiction. For a start, the correct Quranic arabic word for Notzrim is Nasri not Nasrani which is an entirely different word, though to be fair most muslims would not care about the difference). So we are looking for a sect of "Nazarene Jews" who call themselves Nasrani and regard themselves as Keepers of the Way and naturally believe that other Jews and christians are misled. http://www.catholicospatriarch.org/home/article.php?story=20051004142655446 this site may look "orthodox" but in fact it is just another modern Nazarene Jewish sect. This group is much more entertaining than your usual run-of-the-mill Nazaren Jewish sect. They even have a Kingdom called Nettara http://www.nettara.com/en/index.php and a duchess http://www.nasrani-patriarchate.org/eng/nettara/duchess/photo_gallery.php.

I was going to go on but It really is too pathetic it gets more and more convoluted. I half expect unicorns to make an appearance.

Budo 01:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

As of yesterday they have removed all pages about the Duchess from their site and have linked them all to their Patriarchate of Jerusalem home page instead. But the google cache is still available. http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:JKrdgjrSEmAJ:www.nasrani-patriarchate.org/eng/nettara/duchess/+duchess+nettara&hl=en Quick havbe a look through all the rest of their entertaining site before they wake up and realise how many more pages of theirs expose them as so incredibly fake. Budo 13:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Nasrani is an old term used (by non Christians also) for Syrian Christians in Kerala. I would like to know if there is any relation between Nazarene and Nasrani. You can see that the portugese of 16th century called the Nasranis of Kerala as "Sabbath practising Judaizers", and burned all their accounts, which suggests that the Nasranis were not having the same belief as was practised today and could have contradicted the Portugese Catholic faith. Hence this Nasrani cannot be called a modern sect. They were said to be in Kerala from the early centuries AD. Is there any research done on this? Antarctican 17:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

Well it has been a week since I wrote the above and none of the people watching this page seem willing to make any comment. I will make a change to the article just to wake up people watching this page to encourage them to read through the above and make comments. I will do this because I am suspicious that people may be reverting pages all over wikipedia without participation in talk page discussions. If following this there is still no discussion for another week, then I will turn the page back into a disambiguation as it should be.Budo 09:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Budo, perhaps it's your formatting, but I have a great deal of difficulty understanding what you are trying to say. If this article needs accurifying, de-POVing, re-focussing, qualifying, whatever, why don't you start to work on it? Just don't create a fork of it elsewhere, that's all I ask. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I do have literacy problems which is one reason why I don't like to edit much and prefer to just read. If I get convoluted please help me out.Budo 23:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

New Article suggestions

I think this is a good start. Can you help me improve it? I am trying to simply act as a reporter reporting the main pieces of info without slant.

[User:Budo|Budo]] 09:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Text removed to article as per Rd232's suggestion below.

Budo 11:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Disambig.

Is there consensus to turn this article into a disambig. page? I'm uncertain this is the case and reverted to the last version in the meantime. El_C 06:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Rd232 asked me to refute the current article before reverting it to a disambiguation page. I have done this and no one has brought any defense for the current article over the past few weeks. If you would like to add comments to the proposed changes above then please join in. In the meantime the disambiguation is a good temporary measure rather than allow the current bumf to be allowed to pollute wikipedia's reputation any more.Budo 08:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realise Budo still wanted to turn it into a disambig; I don't think the case is made for that at all. If Budo wants to edit this article to add (preferably sourced) information about "Nazarene" that's fine; equally if some of what's there is wrong, then explain/fix/remove. "Nazarene" and its derivation and use needs enough explanation to have its own entry; maybe this could be a separate page from Nazarene (eg Nazarene (Bible)?) and Nazarene a disambig page. I don't really see the need for that, but if others (plural!) do then I have no problem with it. Rd232 ^talk 10:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Rd232 Sir, can we at least get rid of all the lines refuted above, unless you can bring fourth any sources to back them up?Budo 11:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "lines refuted above", but I can't see any problems with the content you outlined in New Article suggestions; feel free to make such changes to the article. Rd232 ^talk 21:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Er, sorry, wasn't paying enough attention - I see now what you mean. :) Anyway, your changes are a good start; it needs a bit more tidying etc, intro improving, and more sources might be useful. Rd232 ^talk 12:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

There certainly was not any agreement to turn the page into a disambig; quite the opposite, in fact. More sources and less original research would be helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Clean Up

This page is getting out of hand again. Is no-one watching it anymore? What happened to all the aggressively vigilant interest testified in the History? Do I have to do it all by myself again?Budo 12:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

"mixed band of Jewish and reformed heathen supporters of Jesus under Paul of Tarsus as ringleader"

You have got to be kidding me. If you hate Christianity post it on a blog or something. 24.7.87.135 20:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to cite sources

Here's one for starters:

Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker, University of Chicago Press

Ναζωραῖος -- Nazoraean, Nazarene, quite predominately a designation of Jesus, in Mt, J, Ac and Lk 18:37, while Mk has Ναζαρηνός <coming from Nazareth>. Of the two places where the latter form occurs in Lk, the one, Lk 4:34, apparently comes from Mk (1:24), the other, 24:19, perhaps from a special source. Where the author of Lk-Ac writes without influence from another source he uses Ναζωραῖος. Mt says expressly 2:23 that Jesus was so called because he grew up in Nazareth. In addition, the other NT writers who call Jesus Ναζωραῖος know Nazareth as his home. But linguistically the transition from Ναζαρέτ to Ναζωραῖος is difficult (extensive references cited) and it is to be borne in mind that Ναζωραῖος meant something different before it was connected with Nazareth (references cited). The passages where Jesus is so called are Mt 2:23; 26:69v.l., 71; Lk 18:37; J18:5, 7; 19:19; Ac 2:22; 3:6; 4:10; 6:14; 22:8; 26:9. According to Ac 24:5 the Christians were so called (extensive references cited).

Good source info, but I have a problem with two factual linguistic errors in it. 1). Ναζαρηνός is nominative and means "Nazar-ian" (i.e. Nazarene) and does not even remotely mean "coming from Nazareth" (as in fact indicated quoting "extensive references" lower down in the above source). 2). Since Ναζαρηνός means Nazarene and Nazoraean is a transliteration of Ναζωραῖος which is from a completely different root (i.e. Nazur as indicated in the reference above) it is clear that these are two completely separate words. However, the entire article has been based upon the fallacy that the two words are cognates, and secondly that there was a group of Jewish Christians calling themselves Nazarenes (Ναζαρηνόῖ) when that greek word does not even exist in antiquity and is an entirelyu 20th century invention. Greek transliterations and grammatical variations of 4 different originally Aramaic words are being confused: Nazara either meaning Truth or offshoot (and being the name of an as of yet unlocated community); Nazir (from Hebrew "Nazir" meaning consecrated); Nazur (from Hebrew "Nistar" meaning hidden); and Nasar (from Hebrew "Notzri" meaning "guardian/watcher"). 81.154.38.189 22:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Netzarim of Ra'anana Israel

I'd appreciate it if people didn't keep reverting the name of the Paqid of this group to his former name of Clint Van Nest. He has converted under Orthodox Jewish auspices (documentation is available on the group's site) and is a Jew with the name Yirmeyahu Ben-David. As he is an Orthodox Jew, it's reasonable to say that his movement is not related to Christianity. Also, the name of the group is not "Netzarim Sect," so I would appreciate the name of the link to their site not being defaced.

Is any of that information verifiable? Please read the extensive history of this Talk: page on the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's verifiable. There is documentation from the Orthodox Beit Din which converted Yirmeyahu Ben-David, as well as confirmation of his membership in Beit Knesset Moreshet Avot in Ra'anana, Israel, and a letter from the Office of the Chief Rabbi of Israel accepting Ben-David's work.

It needs to be verified from reliable, third-party sources, not merely claims from the group itself. Even then, what you would be posting would be relevant only to Van Nest, not to the "Netzarim".Jayjg ^(talk) 05:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If an Orthodox Beit Din, a Temani Synagogue, and the Israeli government are not reliable third-party sources then there is nothing I can provide.

All you seem to be able to provide are alleged copies of documents regarding Van Nest's conversion. There apparently are no reliable third-party sources regarding the "Netzarim"; therefore, stop inserting unverifiable claims, as this violates Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read the prior discussion regarding this group and submit the following as a list of requirements that should enable members of the group to prove the group's asserted position within "Orthodox Judaism"

1. It is common knowledge that Judaism is not a monolith. Neither is "Orthodox Judaism" (see, for example, the current dispute between the Government Beis Din in Israel and Batei Din outside of Israel regarding the legitimacy of conversions to Judaism: http://lazerbrody.typepad.com/lazer_beams/2006/05/conversions_out.html) So to require that this group to be positively universally accepted within "Orthodox Judaism" is to demand the impossible. What we are left with is a requirement that the group be recognized by at least one community of "Orthodox Jews" as such, and conform to the generally-accepted requirements of "Orthodox Judaism": non-selective observance of commandments as legislated by the last operative Beis Din Hagadol and submission to the Beis Din of an established community. This has been demonstrated as the sine qua non of "Orthodox Judaism" by leading scholar E.P. Sanders of Duke University (ret'd 2005), among others. Another characteristic of Orthodoxy might be conformance to the Rambam's 13 Principles.

2. The members of this group assert that their leader, Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David (né Clint Van Nest), is an Orthodox Jew. An Israeli ID card indicating Yehudi status, combined with evidence of current membership in an Orthodox Jewish community, should be sufficient evidence. The former indicates that he converted according to Orthodox Jewish halakhah at one point, and the latter indicates that he is accepted within an Orthodox Jewish community as a Jew.

3. Some evidence of positive recognition of this group by the Orthodox community of which Ben-David is a member should be sufficient to legitimate it. Also, if proof can be brought that Ben-David received a positive response to his materials from a Chief Rabbi of Israel should also be sufficient. Again, we should keep in mind academic conclusions as to what, from the Orthodox Jewish standpoint, is the minimum for being recognized as an "Orthodox Jew": non-selective Torah observance.

Seeing as how this group asserts it does not deviate from Rambam's 13 Principles or from the sine qua non of Orthodox Judaism, non-selective Torah observance, and submits itself to a legitimate Beis Din, what remains to legitimate it is merely proof that their leader is an Orthodox Jew and a member of an Orthodox community, and that an Orthodox community has positively recognized the group.--יונה בן צוי 00:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What you are doing is making an original research argument. Wikipedia does not allow original research in articles; instead, it relies on verifiable statements from reliable sources. Which published, reliable sources have stated that the this group is a legitimate Orthodox Jewish group? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A verifiable statement in this case would be one that a person is recognized as "יהודי". A reliable source would be the Government of Israel. A verifiable statement would be that such a person is a member in good standing with a Jewish community generally recognized as Orthodox. A reliable source would be the board or other governing body of that community. A verifiable statement would be that the organization is recognized by an Orthodox Jewish community. A reliable source would be, again, the proper authority in that community. I am not arguing that based on the information that is currently available that the statement, "This group is accepted within Orthodox Judaism," is acceptable on Wikipedia. However, were the information outlined were to come available and be published, I think that it constitutes substantive, public and verifiable information sufficient to uphold the group's claim. By the way, I can see we are making editorial progress on the article as I see you have not reverted parts of the article that make explicit that certain statements are "claimed by" groups and not asserted as verified fact. Jayjg, I appreciate your tenacity and vigilance in ensuring Wikipedia remains a useful and factual information tool.יונה בן צוי 16:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If there were information published in a reliable third party source that any particular group was recognized as Orthodox by the government of Israel, then that could certainly go in the article. A statement that a member (or leader) of that group was a Jew, or had made a recognized conversion, or was a member of some other Orthodox organization, would obviously not suffice. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_perfect_article, a perfect article "reflects expert knowledge; it is grounded in fact and on sound scholarly and logical principles."

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary_and_secondary_sources: "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

For example, in the case currently in question, a letter from the Chief Rabbi of Israel, approving of the group in question, would be acceptable an acceptable primary source. It would not constitute original research according to Wikipedia's policy. It would not be necessary to find this primary source published in a secondary source for it to be acceptable.

Secondly, it would be appropriate to note that the leader of this group in question is recognized as יהודי by the state of Israel, and is a member of a Yemeni beit haknesset, provided the proper primary source documents are available. This information is logically related to the existence and organization of the group in question which, if proven to be recognized by a third party in a primary document, may be noted in the article.יונה בן צוי 17:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In what reliable sources would that letter and those documents have been published, so that Wikipedians can verify their veracity? As for "logically related", that's original research again. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows for the use of primary sources: they do not need to be published in secondary sources. Therefore, a letter from a Chief Rabbi of Israel (a source widely recognized as a reliable authority on matters about Orthodox Judaism in Israel) made available, would be acceptable evidence. This information is easily verified by contacting the author of the letter. Secondly, that the leader of group X is Y is not "original research" if based on pre-existing primary documents from widely-recognized organizations or states. Original research would be claiming that the fact leader X is Y also means that group Z (of which X is leader) is Y, a reasonable claim that does not however, stand on independent primary or secondary source evidence.יונה בן צוי 17:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia only allows for the use of primary sources if they have been published somewhere in a reliable source. Thus, you can use census statistics if the government has published them somewhere reasonably accesible to Wikipedians. For example one could use this site, with caution, to discuss the population of Israel, rather than having to go to some secondary source (book, newspaper article) which discusses it. Has this theoretical letter been published in some reliable source that is reasonably accessible by Wikipedians? Does the Chief Rabbinate of Israel have a website which posts these things? As for "contacting the author of the letter", that fails Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify for me why you hold that "contacting the author of the letter" in this case fails Wikipedia policy?יונה בן צוי 18:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. It would be helpful if you clicked on and read the links provided. From WP:V

A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you contact the physicist and he tells you: "Actually, I now believe Theory X to be completely false." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry.

Why not? Because it is not verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Wikipedia readership or other editors. The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you for confirmation. And even if they could, why should they believe you?

For the information to be acceptable to Wikipedia you would have to persuade a reputable news organization to publish your story first, which would then go through a process similar to peer review. It would be checked by a reporter, an editor, perhaps by a fact-checker, and if the story were problematic, it might be checked further by the lawyers and the editor-in-chief. These checks and balances exist to ensure that accurate and fair stories appear in the newspaper.

I hope that was illuminating. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Modern Movements

As suggested by Jayjg, we might think about removing groups from the article that only provide only a website and no further information as to their existence and/or legitimacy. This would conform to Wikipedia policy and common sense as this will avoid the article merely being a collection of links to any site a person wished to establish stating that it was a "Netzarim" movement. This will also afford the groups who do provide supporting public and verifiable information the recognition they deserve once they have provided the information. The article will need policing to ensure the links of groups who do not provide supporting information do not remain.יונה בן צוי 16:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Photo

The website citation for this photograph seems to be a little on the questionable side. It seems to be somewhat "promotional" in nature. Are there references to scholarly articles on the archaelogical find available? Wlmh65 05:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a website citation that is more encyclopedic in nature displaying the same pictures, by all means use it for that picture's caption. The pic is in no way "promotional", as it displays an archaelogical piece that illustrates some aspect of the subject matter. Either way you decide to go about it, there really isn't any easy way of faking a photo. Noogster 01:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There are ways of faking archaelogical finds, however, as happened with the Yochanan ossuary. To me, the designs look recently scratched-in, which is why I'm curious about their provenance. Wlmh65 09:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Modern Movements Revisited

1. How would interested editors feel about restricting the scope of the current article to the historical Nazarene sect and improving it to GAC quality? Modern Nazarene Movements would be created as a new stub for now that can be developed independently.
2. Would editors support adding the historical Nazarene article to WikiProject Judaism and getting more people to help in the effort? Ovadyah 01:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure what to think about this; there's almost nothing reliable about the modern sects, aside from the Church of the Nazarene, regardless of the incessant boosterism by IP editors.
2. I don't think it really belongs in WikiProject Judaism, and I suspect the members might object. It might find a more ready home in WikiProject Christianity, if there is such a thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The key to this working is to get the modern sects material out of this article and into a stub. The stub should be created by someone that is not affiliated with these groups. Otherwise, it will be looked upon as a commercial advertisement. It has to pass all normal Wiki requirements and stand on its own. If there is insufficient reliable information out there, that should be discussed on the modern movement's talk page and dealt with accordingly. The remaining historical material could be elevated to a "Good" quality article with a little effort. Frankly, I'm tired of seeing the perpetual strife on this page, which has gone on for years now. Ovadyah 15:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Mention of Paul's teaching

This statement is currently in this article:

Paul is known as the forerunner of this sect, according to a statement found in Acts 24:5, as he went from synagogue to synagogue throughout Judea and the Hellenistic world, preaching his message. Frequently, in his epistles, he challenges Jews and Gentiles alike to abstain from the Jewish law and customs, and at the same time believe one is justified by faith in Jesus. This view is challenged by the mainstream Jewish community which holds that acceptance of Jesus (or at least, the Pauline view) is antithetical to the principles of Judaism, and because it involves the abolition of the Jewish law and customs.

The part I mainly object to is in italics. Instead of getting into a theological debate on the subject, could someone who supports this statement explain from where in Paul's epistles they get this idea that he taught Jews to forsake the Law? I acknowledge he taught Gentiles not to follow the entirety of the Law, but my objection is that I don't believe it can be substantiated from his epistles that he taught Jews this, as this quote states. 64.228.74.136 (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I object to the entire section on Paul. The statement Paul is known as the forerunner of this sect is simply untrue. It is misleading to link Paul in any way with the Nazoraeans. We know from Epiphanius that the principle objection of Orthodox Christians to them was that they followed the Law completely, other than allowing table fellowship with Gentile Christians. Ovadyah (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed most of the disputed statement from the article. There are too many factual problems with it, not to mention a lack of reliable sources. Ovadyah (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nazarene sect

Shalom I just wanted to bring clarity to this article. In the first line of the article, the person writting the article stated that Nazarene Jews believe in the doctrine of the "Diety of Christ" and in the "Virgin Birth" doctrine. However, this is not true.

I myself am a Nazarene, and I do not believe in the doctrine of the "Virgin Birth" or in the "Diety of Christ". That didn't come around until the 2nd Century, and it was originally taught by a man named Ignatius, who was a student of Paul, and was appointed as a bishop by Paul.

Though these teachings where taught by a student of Paul, that does not make them valid. Because in the early days, the Nazarenes did not accept Paul. Acts 24:5 records that Paul was accused of being a ringleader of the Nazarenes, but later on Paul says he is not one of the Nazarenes, but "according to The Way, so do I worship the g-d of my fathers, believing everything according in the Law and the Prophets". Notice he said "believing" not "doing". Paul's theology was more based upon gnosticism than real Torah truth. It was his teachings and his writtings that distorted the truth about the Messiah. He teaches that anyone who tries to keep the Torah, just as Yeshua taught to keep it, is falling short of Messiah's grace, which does not make sense at all. This teaching is all throughout his letter to Galatians.

The reason why we rejected him is because he is a false apostle who taught against the Torah.

B'ahava et Adonai, Eliyahu HaNazir ben-Tsadoq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.78.50.129 (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Paul said he wasn't a Nazarene. If I'm reading your statements correctly, then you are saying you believe Paul taught Jews to forsake the Law. He was in the temple when arrested, as he explains in chapter 24 of Acts. He was "doing" the Torah laws with regard to vows, and it's recorded in another place in Acts that he had his head shorn because of a vow he had. He also had Timothy circumcised, which if he was against the Law and against circumcision, he would not have done so. He objected to the circumcision of Titus, though, since he was a Greek. Unless you believe he did all of this only to appear to follow the Law, then you have to conclude he honestly was attempting to follow it.

Please remember what started the entire thing. It was because of a certain sect of the Pharisees -- that believed Yeshua was the Messiah -- that taught that non-Jews must observe the Law or else they could NOT be saved. This is what Paul was trying to show was horribly wrong in Acts 15. It was considered such an important dispute, though, that it involved a trip to Jerusalem in order for it to be discussed with the apostles. The letter to the Galatians was meant to Gentiles that started trying to institute the Law. My point, just for clarity, is that I don't believe Paul taught Jews to forsake the Law, and I believe he himself followed it. DavidC99 (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Too many articles on variations of "Nazar," etc.

Why are there 3 separate Nazarenes (etc.) articles? Not everyone believes Epiphanus about differences. He surely had an agenda to differ them, and his spelling differences are trivial: ancient languages had less dictionaries and more variations, also since accents' pronounciation varies. When it is translated from Hebrew to Greek to English there are also differences in how singulars and plurals are noted. Maybe the articles on 'different' 'Na*r*, (N*rim though translations start similar to "Nazar" also translated as "Nazarite," which overlaps) should be combined. At least two to four Apostles were described in ancient texts as Nazareans, and some historians think Nazareth was named due to closeness to the Nazareans of Mt. Carmel, so the parents of Jesus' and he himself would have been Nazarean. That is clear; he was called Nazarean. Separating the articles into 'Jewish' and 2 'Christian' supposes they were different and omits certain info from the latter. Dchmelik (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Who are the Nazareans of Mount Carmel? What are the primary sources for this group?82.6.29.26 (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

They were Jews living at or near Mt. Carmel and Nazara/Nazareth, including the Christians once Jesus began teaching. The Mt. Carmel article says Josephus is a source (though I have not read so in Josephus ;) Philo may be a source. There was an excavation at Mt. Carmel that found the grotto of Elijah (a Netzarim/Nazir) and probably Beni-Amin Nazarean buildings (Beni-Amin and Mt. Carmel are mentioned in the Mandaean Nasurai Book of John The Baptist.) Nazarean (or similar-accented Greek terms listed above on this page) could have etymology from 'Nazara,' 'nazir,' 'netzer,' 'netzarim,' or 'nosri,' maybe combined with Ossaean/Essene. These n-words have different Hebrew meanings (though nazir and netzarim share more definitions than most people think,) so I do not suggest combine those, but peruse Notzrim/Nasoraean and Netzarim/Nazarene. They are about the same Hebrew word and should be merged! One of the words uses niqqud vowel points: a mediaeval invention IIRC. The Notzrim/Nazarene article says they were like Ebionites, but omits info about the Ebionite, Essene, Nazir, Notzrim/Netzarim/Nasorean (synonyms to Nazarene,) Theraputae lifestyle they had.

Notzrim and Nazoraean article make 'Nazoraean' unclear. The Notzrim article says Nazoraeans were anti-Christian Nazoraioi (such as Mandaean Nasurai, though not all Nazareans/Nasurai were Mandaean;) the Nazoraean article says they were Jewish and Christian Nazarenes/Notzrim. (The two articles I suggest merging.) Epiphanus likely tried to obscure these definitions; one must analyze them.Dchmelik (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically we need to cut out all the speculation which does not quote its sources. Luke's Nazorine (Ναζωραίων) sect (mentioned once in Acts and no where else in the sources) is distinct from Mark's use of "Nazarene (Ναζαρηνός)" for Jesus alone which is a unique Mark-ism appearing nowhere else in the sources and clearly his attempt to write Nazorai (Ναζωραίος) used by all other sources use in regard to Jesus so the phrase "Jesus the Nazarene" is actually a unique Mark-ism which has become widespread instead of Jesus Nazorai and the fact that Ναζωραίοι were mentioned for the first time ever a couple of centuries ater as a Torah observant sect does seem to indicate that Jesus belonged to that group. The historical fact however is that the first person ever documented with that title Ναζωραίος is Jesus, then a couple of centuries later a group described as torah observant all calling themselves Ναζωραίοι appear. Speculate what you will from that. As for Νασαραίοι they did indeed pre-date Chistianity by about a century (Jewish sources called them Notzrim) and the Mandaeans are indeed their best modern-day representatives (plenty has been written about that whole and vast field of study). Epiphanius and John of Damascus besides others make significant mention that the side-lined and little investigated Ναζωραίοι (a group to which the Gospels epithet for Jesus clearly indicate an intended tie to Jesus) were Torah observant while the well-known Νασαραίοι were anti-torah. Beyond all this there really is nothing much more that can be said. A little clear visioned reportage is all that is needed.82.6.29.26 (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"Nazarene" also appears in Luke 4:34 with exactly the same spelling as in Mark. The gospel writers didn't have dictionaries and one should not attach undue significance to spelling variations. Luke will switch between Nazarene and Nazorean/Nazorai for no apparent reason, so whatever significance the distinction might have had originally was already forgotten in his time. Kauffner (talk) 05:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh-normative (?)

Section Modern movements says:

An exception to this is the Church of the Nazarene, which emphasizes Christian activism in the Arminian tradition of John Wesley, and which is accepted as normative by other mainstream Christian denominations.

What does that refer to? That activism is normative (which it is not necessarily), or that John Wesley is normative, which would be a good thing indeed except the Calvinists will object, or something else, such as that that church adhers to principle making them being regarded as christians... But being Christian generally makes no prohibition against assimilating many Jewish concepts ... I'm a little confused here, please clarify, anyone! Said: Rursus ☻ 08:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Did the Nazarene's believe Jesus was crucified and died?

It's not mentioned in the article, the closest thing to it is where Jerome says they believed He suffered under Pilate. It'd be a good thing to add.Glorthac (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC) I'd also like somebody to go into detail on what is meant by "the divinity of Jesus".96.240.181.186 (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We can not add to the article wishful thinking which does not appear in the original sources.82.6.115.62 (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Inferior source

Quite a few sections, such as the intro, use the Bauer-Danker Lexicon and the bible as sole sources. A dictionary is a tertiary source, the bible is primary source. I think this article also suffers heavily from the bible-primary syndrome, beside WP:OR and refimprove deficiency. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the start of the article

Recent edits to this article have several problems I'm going to resolve. Here are my problems with them:

1) The Nazarene sect (ἡ τῶν Ναζωραίων αἵρεσις), is a term used to refer to the followers of Jesus. - This assumes Jesus existed. Although I believe He existed, it's not wise to make such a bold-faced assumption in the preface of an article. I've thought it wise to replace this with:

The Nazarene sect (ἡ τῶν Ναζωραίων αἵρεσις) was an early Jewish Christian sect located in and about Jerusalem which proclaimed Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah and the Son of God.

2) It is also the name of followers of John the Baptist who saw him as a prophet. - No citation. I think it best to place this in the "views and practices" section, since this is of secondary important, and just place a "citation needed" tag with it.

3) After the Crucifixion, James the Just succeeded his brother Jesus of Nazareth as the leader of the new Jewish sect which was to become Christianity. - The citation does NOT state this, it states that James the Just was the leader of the Church at Jerusalem only. It does NOT say James the Just was the sucessor of Jesus at all, nor does it say James the Just's leadership through the Church at Jerusalem created Christianity. This is revisionist theology, and not in agreement with modern scholarship.

4) The term Nazarene was first applied to Jesus. - Since the preface has been changed to primarily speak about the Nazarene sect, this isn't relevant anymore, and should be placed in the "Nazareth" section.

5) I believe a very important section was removed from the preface which should be reinserted. Modern scholarship tends to discuss the Nazarene's relationship with the Ebionite sect, so it'd be wise to speak of that here. Here is my reinsertion:

They were similar to the Ebionites, in that they maintained their adherence to the Torah, but unlike the Ebionites, they accepted the virgin birth of Jesus.

Notice that this also states their strict adherence to the Torah, which was PIVITAL in their distinction from the rest of ancient Christendom. To remove this statement would be to remove the heart of the sect itself.

I will make my ammends to the article, and of course, add citations and links. If you have any problems, feel free to make them known. Thank you.Glorthac (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well done! Pax vobiscum. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 23:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Very nicely done. :) I also have a problem later in the article under the Patristic references to "Nazarenes" section, as far as I remember the first quotation there by Jerome is actually about the vegetarian anti-Torah Nasaraeans not the pro-Torah Nazoraeans. I am trying to find a copy of the original Greek to verify the spellings. 81.103.121.144 (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Attention!

Notzrim ≠ Nazarene really? (It seems all Christians are in fact gnostics). Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 23:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of POV words "may have" and "State church of Rome", etc.

As usual, a Jewish Christian has been wreaking havoc on this article. In particular, he placed the fact that the Nazarenes believed in the Virgin birth in a reference link. He also said things like the "State church of Rome" marginalized the Nazarenes.

I checked the three links that this person used to try to justify his hiding the Virgin Birth fact, and all three of them actually affirm that the Nazarenes believed in the Virgin Birth. Therefore, I'm re-placing the Virgin Birth fact in the header of the article, as well as removing the "State church of Rome" thing. Thanks!Glorthac (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Very good, it is nice to see someone is watching out for this article. 81.103.121.144 (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Links section

Here in the links section of the article we have several good ENCYCLOPEDIC links, but virtually no perspective links (good articles have both). I think adding the following links would be a good idea, and would be well within policy in service to the reader. Please comment.

• Netzarim
• Nazarite Site
• INJS

Noogster 00:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Since noone has given any objections or comments yet, I will assume that there is no conflict. I will add the above three links, please respond here for questions/comments/objections. Thank you. Noogster 00:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, these links violate WP:EL, "Links normally to be avoided" #2, #3, #4, #11. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't. I read over this and have found no reason to believe that these links avoid #2, #3, #4, and #11. Jayjg, you are really starting to sound like a broken record: how do these links violate those principals?. If you can't tell me, you have no case. Noogster 14:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources.

• All three sites violate this; they are personal websites filled with original research.

3. Links mainly intended to promote a website.

• All three links are intended to promote these websites.

4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.

• See [1], [2]

11. Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority.

• This is the key; they are all blogs/personal webpages of individuals promoting their own vision of reality. None of them are recognized authorities in anything.

--Jayjg ^(talk) 15:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, thank you for your efforts to keep junk out of our articles, but I respectfully disagree with most of your points. Let me explain according to each number you cited:

2. Actually, two of the websites are not personal websites in any way, but community websites, to which varying numbers of people claim affiliation and regularly visit. The third one can potentially be ARGUED as being personal. The first link (Netzarim, Ra'anana), like Wikipedia, actually adds citations to all its articles, regularly. It has its own glossary that cites its sources and regularly quotes noted books/the Jewish Encyclopedia. The Hebraicized English may only make it look otherwise. Honestly, I don't see how the "Modern Day Church of the Nazarene" violates #2 any more than these links do. Maybe we should also remove that one by your standards.

3. I am not "promoting" these websites in any way that can be ascribed as POV. I am in disagreement with all three (and very strongly with two of the three), but I am pushing for their inclusion for no other reason than because I feel that they are entirely relevant to the article.

4. The key words here are exist primarily. Only two of the three websites sell anything at all, and NONE of the three websites exist primarily to sell items. Aish.com and Chabad.org if I remember correctly sells items to some extent, but you won't see them pulled from a Wikipedia article.

11. Again, only one of the 3 links can even be argued to be personal. One of the three links actually lists out its articles in a semi-blog or possibly blog-like format (as the articles are dated and people can reply), but guess what: Chabad.org does too only it's a full-fledged blog. Two of the three happen to be written by more than one individual.

Honestly, I don't care all that much at the end of the day how the links list looks like, I just prefer that it provide the widest possible range of information on the topics both encyclopedic and not within Wikipedia policy. I like to have a good idea of what I do wrong explained to my by my elders. If any of these links are objectively determined to be in flagrant violation of something than certainly don't include them, but if it's some subjective minutiae we should lean for inclusiveness. Let's neither of us epitomize what Yeshua was talking about when he referred to "straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel". Noogster 23:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you show that the websites are not personal? Something beyond your claim that they are not. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So when did Jayjg become God and decide to remove everything on his own?? --Teacherbrock (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor.. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Use in Arabic

This section erroneously says that the normal word for Christians in all Arab countries is "Nasara." That is not true. It may be Quranic, but the modern Arabic word for a Christian is "al-masiHy," (المسيحية). Danwaggoner (talk) 07:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please source that claim. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should instead concentrate on the confusion between Quranic Arabic and modern usage. I believe there is a common non-Arabic confusion between Classical Arabic and the modern Arabic national dialects. The text actually alleges that all modern Arabic national dialects use "Nasara", and if that is wrong (such as by any citeable Arabic dictionary), the text must be fixed to reflect this. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I replaced "in all Arab countries" with "in Arabic language". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

From experience, I've heard both terms used in various countries. I think in Morocco they used nasrani and in Egypt and further east it was masahi (meaning "messianic"), but I wouldn't like to be too strict on that. PiCo (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

tagged Duplicate/POV/OR : Hebrew Gospel of Matthew material

It's getting so I could almost cite this paragraph by heart. Please see Talk:Gospel of MatthewIn ictu oculi (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is an absolute mess. It confounds and confuses all sorts of different sects of similar names. If it is a\bout the Nazarenes then there is really not that much which can be said about them except that the first documented appearance of them is in the book of Acts and that some Church fathers wrote about them that they were basically Torah observant Jews (very similar except for name to the modern Netzarim movement of Ranana). In ictu oculi, would you like to assist in the re-writing of this article as we did with the Notzrim article too? :) 81.103.121.144 (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry, but Tertullus 1st C "Nazarene" and 4th C "Nazarenes" are the same in Greek, so I can't see how including them in the same article can be avoided? For example I don't see any reason to mention Clint Van Nest. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No they are most certainly NOT the same, try learning how to read Greek. But I agree that Clint Van Nest can be left out of it entirely as he also confuses the issue. You are confusing it because you do not know the Greek sources. "Nazarene" is an English word for a start not a Greek word, so how about you do your homework and tell me (before I tell you) how many different Greek variants of Nazuraioi and Nasaraioi type words they are and why the various Greek authors were meticulous about distinguishing them.81.103.121.144 (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well yes Tertullus and Epiphanius, spell differently, and of course Epiphanius distinguishes, but vowels and the TS DZ sound vary in orthography in many languages, Greek among them. The article as it stands distinguishes between some different spellings. And provides sources. If you have something to say, please provide sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

User:81.103.121.144, your edits are increasingly looking like vandalism. However you've been extended to benefit of the doubt on Talk:Notzrim to explain why Toledoth Yeshu etc. should be considered a credible source. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Nazarene sect revival groups text moved here

This content preserved:

Starting in the nineteenth century, a number of modern movements have revived the term "Nazarene" among English speaking communities.

This content removed here as OR/Non-Notable:

usually for the following reasons:

• To reject modern Christianity, as having been led astray from "normative" Judaism by Paul of Tarsus, see also Biblical law in Christianity. Or accepting his writing as pro-Torah observant, and rejecting the interpretation from modern Christianity.
• To lay claim to a Torah-based and Jewish structure of belief.
• Because of a belief that the term was used to describe both Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus in earliest times, even though they believe they are in unity with the modern Christian faith.

Is there any evidence other than blogs for any Nazarene sect revival group existing? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the stub. It may be true, but it needs to be sourced - that's standard policy.PiCo (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Epipharnias said the Nazarenes had fled Jerusalem before the destruction in 70 AD.99.195.111.73 (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Leadin unsupported by references

The leadin to the article makes unsubstantiated claims that are unsupported by the references given. Down in the section on the 4th century Nazarenes reads correct as cited and does not match the leadin claims. Also the template at the top of the page is an unnecessary duplication of "other uses".207.119.114.247 (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what happened. Anyway, have given the lead a simple clear sentence now. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Nazarene Code

The Nazarene Code is found in the scripture "The Book of Numbers", Chapter Six. Azeleas2grow (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)December 19, 2014

Proto-Nazarenes?

Would the group described beginning at Acts 4:32 be considered Proto-Nazarenes? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but this is not a discussion forum. Your question is interesting, but the talk pages should be about the article text, it's content, and the text should be sourced with "secondary sources", i.e. experts who say this or that to support the article text. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Nazoreans

I'm interested in Nazoreans, why then am I redirected to the (irrelevant) Nazarene page? I propose splitting "The Nazarenes (4th century)" into another article. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• User:Rursus please don't do that. What exactly is the difference between Nazoreans and Nazarenes? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Panarion 18. Epiphanius Against the Nasaraeans

Panarion 29. Epiphanius Against the Nazoraeans

Nasoraean -> Nazarene (sect)

Nasoraeans -> Mandaeism

The stupid redirections makes it impossible to distinguish between historical sects and modern religions. There was a 1st century sect "Nazoraeans" and a 4th century sect "Nazoraeans". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Nazarene beliefs

Under this section, it sounds as this is factual, but actually, this was St. Jerome's opinion, who was Catholic. I would not call that factual, as I am sure there were other opinions of that time, especially those of the Nazarene, that would contradict Jerome. It would be better to say Nazarene beliefs according to St. Jerome. Also, this section is somewhat contradicted, when one reads about the Nazarenes under the page on the Essenes, and their description of the Nazarene sect.--Craxd (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, there is something fishy here. I believe it is about most editors not wanting Christianity to have emerged from some teaching which was early on rejected as a heresy. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 22:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)