Jump to content

Talk:Seven Laws of Noah/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Merge etc.

Needs merged w Noachide Laws Sam Spade

Done. I have removed the links to the Netzarim websites for now. Could anyone who knows more about this explain what they're all about?
JFW | T@lk 22:21, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
From User_talk:203.252.193.19:

Dear user:203.252.193.19, I see you're reintroduced the links on the Noahide Laws page. I was hoping you would explain on the talk page what these pages are really about. The first site has, as you state, a Muslim undertone (which might not actually fall within the good definition of B'nei Noach), while the book site is connected to the Netzarim, who follow Jesus as a teacher—something that possibly disqualifies for Ben Noach status according to many Orthodox Jewish authorities. Please comment. JFW | T@lk 12:25, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

For details of how Islam is a bnei noah religion please read Maimonides comments to R Obadiah. Who is this J-man you mention? Are you confusing Ribi Yehoshua Ben Joseph perhaps? Ribi Yehoshua was just a simple human being, nothing extraordinary about him at all. As for Netzarim they are orthodox Jews not Messianic wannabies. There are many orthodox Jewish groups who promote a messiah the Chabadniks for example. The dinstinctive line between legitimate orthodox and fake orthodox is whether they are Torah-observant or not and are part of the legitimate Beth Din System.

Whether Islam is a valid Ben Noah religion is a debate between several Rishonim, and Maimonides' view is complemented by that of Rabbi Nissim of Gerona, who had his reservations on this issue. T@lk 16:28, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes I am familiar with the debate. It seems those who shared Maimonides view won. 203.252.193.19 05:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I take issue with the Netzarim claim that they are "part of the Beth Din" system. They derive legitimacy from the implicit approval of a particular community (not even the Beth Din but the communal board). That's not how most Orthodox Jews would define legitimacy as part of the Beth Din system. T@lk 16:28, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Good point I think it would be a good idea for you to edit the Netzarim article with that point in mind. 203.252.193.19 05:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Why do the Netzarim insist on being called "Bnei Noah" if they are only upwards compatible? JFW | T@lk 16:28, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Do they insist? They seem quite difficult to understand and I don't know much about them. From what we have heard here they are not very helpful nor friendly. They will also probably tell you that you have to use their credit card order form (which isn't even on a secure server!) to dish out around 300 dollars for a handfull of photocopied spiral-bound "books" and that you have to get your answers from them. Even Dr. Zed thinks this sounds a bit like a scam. But don't take our word for it, just try writing to them to ask them and see what they say. If you are a Jew you can use this form http://www.netzarim.co.il/MisrQlit/CntcQlit.htm but if you are not jewish they will insist that you contact them through this form http://www.netzarim.co.il/MisrKhtz/CntcKhtz.htm make what you want out of that! One of our faculty is a Jew but the rest of us who share the same interests (just a small bunch in the department) thought it was plain racist. :o) 203.252.193.19 05:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Hello, who is this? Tell me if you see meZestauferov 10:25, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

203.252.193.19, it might be helpful if you didn't chop up my replies. It gives the impression (for users who don't check the timestamp) that I'm making separate points.
I'm only making one point: some elements of Wikipedia have recently become a NPOV-free zone. One of them is the "External links" section. By adding links that go against the content of the article, or focus exclusively on a fringe element, there is a loss of NPOV that is only corrected if other people take the time to read the whole page that's been referenced. When it comes to external links, in my experience, more is less. Another site that was recently added (Hamayim.org) is a much better example and probably warrants inclusion.
The Islam-related site is being hosted by "christocracy.org"&mdash:not exactly inspiring credibility for a Bnei Noach organisation!
BTW, "connection to the Beth Din system" is not an absolute requirement for Noachide organisations, although it raises their credibility substantially.
PS I do appreciate your input—the Bnei Noach and Noahide Laws are not commonly known to the broader public while they certainly have encyclopedic value! JFW | T@lk 08:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I put the christocracy.org link back in it seems like a good counter argument to the very iconoclastic noahide.com site. What was the islam connection? Zestauferov 10:25, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Recent edits

I just found myself reverting edits by User:64.12.113.38, who has been consistently adding material which might or might not be correct, but is heavily POV-larded. For everyone's information: the site http://www.public-action.com publishes articles titled "The American Coup d'Etat And The War For Jewish Supremacy" and the like. Hardly a useful resource without some form of disclaimer ("Warning:conspiracy theory with antisemitic overtones"). JFW | T@lk 22:28, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

That site had to be linked to because the Noahide site took all their controversial material down, apparently in order to hide it after people got wise to it. Everything else I've added is accurate. Check it out... Nothing "POV" about the facts, Ma'am. User:64.12.113.38

64.12.113.38, please sign your entries (with a ~~~~, four tildes).
You haven't defended your additions, which seem to be largely based on the "controversial" material you refer to. Wikipedia is not a weblog, and linking to mirrored sites is entirely unhelpful. You might prefer to create a section titled "criticism" and incorporate all your material without the risk of being reverted.
Also, you should have awaited my response before reverting to your version again! JFW | T@lk 22:51, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

My additions are based on this pro-Noahide site: http://www.moshiach.com/action/morality/introduction.php Read the stuff in the "In This Section" area. Breaking the Noahide Laws is punishable by decapitation. It would be criminal to worship Jesus, believe in the Trinity, have images of Mary holding Christ, etc. -- everything I mention. The only reason I linked to the other site is because I'd seen the original Noahide site before it was stripped-down unbeknownst to me, went to look for it, and found it mirrored at the URL in question. I simply wanted the information to be available. My POV is that Christians and others who like Christmas trees ought to know just what Chabad is trying to accomplish. But that aside, the information IS relevant to the topic, which is "The Noahide Laws." 64.12.116.83 23:06, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, 64.12.116.83. Actually, your work must have started on the Apologia website, which links to the "moshiach.com" site. You will have noticed that I have conducted a long-overdue copyedit of the article, which incorporates all your additions (apart from the links). I have moved the christian views to the "criticism" section.
I have removed the "capital punishment for learning Torah" comment. Although the Talmud mentions this, the term chayav mita in this context is not an instruction for the courts, just as much as observing Shabbat is not punished.
I'm glad you've been willing to discuss your edits, and hope you accept my most recent reshuffling. JFW | T@lk 23:22, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

It looks nice, yes... good job -- except for the link removal. Maybe I'll mirror the site myself or something to get it away from the site you object to (which I didn't really look at, BTW). I think it's important to link to that information in particular, somehow, because it's so easy to read, "straight-up," and shows the true nature of the Noahide laws -- a nature that is usually masked by intimating they're just "seven wittle laws, no big whoop" when in reality, they entail the criminalization of Christianity. Anyway, can you explain what you mean about "chayav mita" and the prohibition against Torah-reading? I don't speak Hebrew myself, so I'm a tad clueless (OK, I'm a lot clueless!). I am fascinated and stunned by this topic and want to "get it right." (Yup, Apologia is mine; it's pretty Catlick, so be warned! LOL) 64.12.116.83 00:08, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, the words chayav mita in Hebrew mean "guilty of the death penalty". As I indicated, the Talmud uses it occasionally when the death is "enforced by Heaven" rather than by the earthly court. In this category fall the two "prohibitions" for Noahides: studying Torah and keeping the Shabbat. This probably explains why they're not included in the "seven" referred to in the article.
I understand your worries, but the main thrust of the Noahide laws is certainly not the criminalisation of anything. At the moment, there are no signs that anyone is close to introducing Noahide legislature anywhere.
Concerning the site: you might prefer to link exclusively to the Apologia website with some form of a disclaimer. The http://www.public-action.com has rather strong anti-Jewish overtones and would probably harm your claims rather than support them... JFW | T@lk 00:21, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Catholics

I notice one of the external links claims to be catholic view, yet it seems to have an anti-judaism feel. I know that by Papal decree there is a defacto excommunication for any anti-semitic catholic, so I was wondering who had the authority to claim that the site represents the catholic view? In the past I have enjoyed conversations with a catholic priests about Paul's "mission to the gentiles" (authorized by Simeon) being primarily concerned with keeping Jews jewish and depaganizing gentiles to become noahide rather than proselytize them. We did disagree on the nature of the idolatry laws and the right of orthodox rabbis to define the laws in detail however (one made a good point about the extent of Bethei Din jurisdictions other than the messianic Beth Din of which their first Pope would have been a judge), but virtually everything else was harmonious. Anyway I think that the wording of that link must be changed.Zestauferov 16:12, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the link has an anti-Judaism feel. Do you propose removal of the link? Or do you think that excising the words "from a Catholic perspective" or adding a qualifying statement would be better?
Acegikmo1 01:46, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Source

Here is a good source Talmudic Encyclopaedia, 1981, p. 350 & 395-396.Zestauferov 13:26, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Disambiguation

This article needs more sections & sub-sections. There seems to be a confusion between those described as noahide adj. (equivalent to Ger Ha Shaar in the Tanakh) independent from a Beth Din (for whom only 7 laws apply and who may eat carrion) and Noahides n.prop. (Gerim Toshav Areilim) recognised by a Beth Din (for whom the 7 laws are categories) forbidden from eating carrion. It should also be mentioned that the controvercial Chabad movement was the only Beth Din in recent times to recognise Noahides (making them Ger Toshav). The number of Bethei Din now following in their footsteps is not docuented, but the despised Modern-Orthodox Netzarim Beth Din (based in Ra'anana, Israel) is now included among them.193.63.146.184 10:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Catholics

I have nothing against Jews, but the sly efforts of Jfdwolff 17:59, 8 Mar 2005 Jfdwolff to sully the catholic reputation are too much to stomach. They are blatently trying to protray all catholics as miso-Judaics on the basis of a page by one out-of-line catholic. As the comments by Zestauferov and Acegikmo1 01:46, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) above agree, the title of the link is misguideing and even hateful. Catholics aim to be friends of the Jews. Indeed we believe the very origin of out tradition to be Noahide. The man who wrote the page of the link in question is obviously unaware that there is a defacto excommunication for anyone who becomes racist or anti-semitic within the church. If Jfdwolff is not spin-mongering he should appologise for his honest mistake and not repeat it again.217.35.76.197 18:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg wikipaedia is not supposed to be a propaganda tool. The man is defacto excommunicatred. I.e. he can no-longer be called a catholic. Would you call a Jew Jewish if he began to believe in Jesus? He would be an apostate and you know it. Anti-semitism makes any catholic an apostate.217.35.76.197 19:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If you can provide some evidence he is an apostate, that would be great. Otherwise, I'd prefer to just let him describe himself, rather than trust the excommunication of an IP address. Jayjg (talk) 22:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not feel the need to apologise, especially in the light of your inflammatory language. As far as I'm concerned, these external links shouldn't be there at all; I can live with the present description. I'm pleased to hear that "Catholics aim to be friends of the Jews". It hasn't exactly always been that way. JFW | T@lk 22:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are Christianity and Islam Noachide?

By the grace of G-d Shalom everyone! The category "Noahide Religions" is extreemly misleading Rambam doesn't say Muslims are Noahide just not idolworshipers.A Noahide (Ben Noah, Chasid Umot haOilam) according to Rambam and others is someone who officialy accepts the 7 Laws and observes them.According to letters of the Rambam Islam is herecy, a false religion started by a false prophet: Mohammed the False Prophet - Islam the False Religion

I am a Noahide but I would like to use orthodoxy to show how wrong the above statement is. Only the Great Sanhedrein can speak for the majority of the jewish nation and declare whether or not a person is a prophet and whether or not a person is a lying prophet. Since the Great Sanhedrin ceased to exist before making any decree on either Yahyah, `Isa or Mohamed (PBUT) the jury is defacto still out on their status from the Jewish perspective. Anyone who makes a declaration about them is only spouting personal opinion and even though it might be heavily backed up by sources it completely without even the smallest nano-ounce of authority for the orthodox Jewish community. If the person were claiming that s/he speaks for the majority of the orthodox Jewish community that person would clearly be insane or have some kind of messiah complex.

If the declaration was negative like the one above, then it can be summed up as a wreckless attempt to bring unwarrented anger, hate and wrath uagainst the orthodox Jewish community and is on numerous accounts an action not sanctioned by Halakhah therefore such a Jew would either be wholly ignorant of Halakhah and in need of reprimand and education or be an apostate from Halakhah and therefore not really a practicing orthodox Jew. Clearly such a person is off his/her rocker and should be patronised as such. There there now.


Rivka Olenick

Extraordinary. If Jews cannot agree on anything without a Great Sanhedrin, how could they have adopted the Talmud, still less the Shulchan Aruch and the other great law codes? How could they have accepted new laws like observing the Omer as a period of mourning when weddings are not permitted, since the rationale refers to events decades after the destruction of Jerusalem? How could they have adopted the present Jewish calendar?
In fact, it is fundamental to Rabbinic Judaism that it proceeds by consensus, or at least majority - if there is a consensus among the Rabbinic authorities that something is Jewish law or generally accepted custom, it becomes part of the religion. RachelBrown 09:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

"A prophet will the Lord, thy God raise unto thee, a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren." Deuteronomy 18:15 The false prophet, the navi sheker, the "madman" Mohammed, as the Rambam calls him, convinced his followers of Islam that there are several verses in our scriptures that allude to his being a prophet. The Rambam states: "These arguments have been rehearsed so often that they have become nauseating. It is not enough to declare that they are altogether feeble; to cite as proofs these verses is ridiculous and absurd in the extreme. Neither the untutored multitude nor the apostates themselves who delude others with them believe in them or entertain any illusion about them. Their purpose in citing these verses is to win favor in the eyes of the Gentiles by demonstrating that they believe the statement of the Koran that Mohammed was mentioned in the Torah. The Muslims themselves put no faith in their arguments, they neither accept nor cite them, because they are manifestly so falicious." Mohammed claimed that Deuteronomy 18:15 specifically refers to him. He said that it was he who God arose as "a prophet from the midst of thee." Of course, he himself nor anyone else ever found one word in the scriptures that proved that Mohammed arose as a prophet. Yet, he and his blind followers accuse us of manipulating the text of the Torah. They ignorantly claim that we purposely removed every trace of the name of Mohammed from it. However it was they that would not accept the main precepts of the Torah, out of defiance to the Revelation at Sinai. So in great desperation they created a book that horrendously warps and taints our scriptures and undermines Moses as the greatest Prophet. After all this they attempted to legitimize the Koran as a book of truth. Isn't it amazing that exactly what they accuse us of - "altering" the Torah text - is exactly what they altered when they made up this "imitation" and called it the Koran. What they believe is so obviously false, yet the world is convinced that this is a book of truth only because of the vast numbers who read it, and not because it contains any real truth. The Rambam says: "Therefore, all the nations instigated by envy and impiety rose up against us, and all the kings of the earth motivated by injustice and enmity applied themselves to persecute us." There arose a new sect, which combined the two methods of conquest and controversy, into one, because it believed that this procedure would be more effective in wiping out every trace of the Jewish nation and religion. They claimed to prophecy and found a new faith, Islam, contrary to the Divine religion and to contend that it was equally God given. Thereby it hoped to raise doubts and create confusion, since one is opposed to the other and both supposedly emanate from a Divine source, which would lead to the destruction of both religions. For such a remarkable plan contrived by a man who is envious and querulous. He will strive to kill his enemy and to save his own life, but when he finds it impossible to attain his objective, he will devise a scheme whereby they both will be slain." He slays them both because he really knows that he cannot destroy God, but he cannot tolerate God's Divine word and so out of his own insanity he kills those who represent God and kills himself believing he will enter paradise. The Torah states that the prophet that will arrive "from the midst of thee" is a person that will keep the Torah in tact as it was given to us by Moses from God. The Ninth Principle of our Thirteen Principles of Faith states: "I believe with perfect faith that the Torah will not be changed, and that there will never be another Torah given by God." As it says: "Thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." Deuteronomy 13:1. "A prophet will the Lord thy God raise unto thee, from the midst of thee, of thy brethren." Islam took this sentence completely out of context and made inferences. All the statements before and after must be understood so that the meaning and purpose of the statements is known. The sentence quoted above was taken from a paragraph in Deuteronomy that specifically warns the Jewish people about the prohibitions of soothsaying, astrology, divination, sorcery, etc. The Gentiles believe they can manipulate and use these practices in order to predict and/or prevent future events. They even depend on using these methods, rather than seeking truth. Judaism adamantly opposes such practices. The Torah commands us many times that we are not allowed to use these means. All future events that the Jewish people will learn of will be predicted by a Prophet and will all come true and that we would never have to resort to astrology or any other means in order to know truths. We rely on the truths spoken by our Prophets who will not give us any new laws or any new additions to the Torah. "...of thy brethren" means that the Prophet will be one of us, meaning the descendants of Jacob, not Esau or Ishmael. "But My covenant will I establish with Isaac whom Sarah will bear unto thee at this set time in the next year." "But God said: Not so, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name Isaac. With him will I keep My covenant for an everlasting covenant for his seed after him." Genesis 17: 19 and 21. "It is, my co-religionists, one of the fundamental articles of the faith of Israel, that the future redeemer of our people will spring only from the stock of Solomon son of David. He will gather our nation, assemble our exiles, redeem us from our degradation, propagate the true religion, and exterminate his opponents, as it is clearly stated in Scripture, "I see him but not now, I behold him but not high, there shall step forth a star out of Jacob, and a scepter shall arise out of Israel. And shall smite through the corners of Moab, and break down all the sons of Seth. And Edom shall be a possession, Seir also, even his enemies, shall be a possession, while Israel doeth valiantly." Numbers 24:17-18 "If any heretics rise up to corrupt the people, they will undermine the faith of the young folks and they will not find a savior. Beware of them and know that in our opinion, it is permitted to slay them, for they repudiate the statement in the prophecy of Moses who commanded us to act." "According to the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which the shall tell thee thou shalt do." Deutoronomy 17:11. "They assert in wicked defiance that they believe most firmly in the prophecy of Moses, as the Arabs and Byzantines say yet they destroy and nullify his law and kill the adherents thereof. Whoever joins them is just like his seducer." The Rambam from Letter to Yemen.

Besides that Islam endorses Jihad against the infadels which ultimatly is an endorsment of murder robbery forced conversions of Jews and real Noahides for that matter etc. Even if it would actualy be a Noahide religion Bnei Noah are forbiden to start Milchomat Reshut.

Similar arguements exclude Christianity from being a Noahide religion. We have to either delete this section or rewrite it. Ariel Sokolovsky

Ariel, please avoid jargon. I'm not sure if you are correct. It is a machlokes rishonim whether the trinity is avodah zarah or not. JFW | T@lk 07:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Christian critics section -- verify? rework?

Hi. Can't quite follow the whole past discussion. But it strikes me that the "Christian critics" section needs some reworking. Can someone provide a reference to verify these critics?

Also, I find it POV to put a Jewish rebuttal to each possible criticism in the same paragraph. Better to list/clarify the criticisms, with the sources/authors, and then a rebuttal paragraph. Otherwise, it doesn't sound like we are giving the critics their due.

Finally, the paragraph about the 10 commandments is somewhat POV. By far most of the weight is on a Jewish explanation, not on the Christian critique or concern. (Which is what? That the Noahide are redundant w/the 10? Pretty weak critique to justify such a long rebuttal!)

Maybe rename subsection, eg "Christian and Jewish disagreements about the Noahide approach"? Thanks. HG 06:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

PS -- I looked at that webpage by "a Catholic". Polemical and fringe. Granted, an encyclopedia could have a section that lists (and refutes?) various fringe groups from either side. Is there a wiki protocol for dealing w/fringe sources? In any case, still need the context of mainstream Christian attitudes/criticisms -- if any -- of the Noahide laws and of the Noahides as a Jewish stab at a universal/minimum law/ethics. HG 06:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

More mainstream Christian responses would be better. As for the point-rebuttal format, it seems to be commonly used in controversial Wikipedia articles. Jayjg (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Bibliography via ATLA database

If this is inappropriate procedure within Wikipedia, I apologize. Feel free to delete if it's bad ettiquette or takes up too much space. HG 19:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Here are some selected items from ATLA, searching "Noahide". Perhaps this will help us find relevant and reliable sources. (And some full text links.)

1 Noahide laws, Christian covenants, and Jewish expectations.

Author: Schwartz, G David. Source: Journal of Ecumenical Studies 27 no 4 Fall 1990, p 767-772. Doc. Type: Article Libraries Worldwide: 771 , View Full Text on remote site (ATLA)* [1] (ATLAReligion)

2 Rabbi Jacob Emden's views on Christianity. HG: NB -- SAYS Paul ok by Noahide law to do outreach to pagans!?

Author: Falk, Harvey. Source: Journal of Ecumenical Studies 19 no 1 Wint 1982, p 105-111. Doc. Type: Article Libraries Worldwide: 771 , View Full Text on remote site (ATLA)* [2] (ATLAReligion)

3 The Image of the Non-Jew in Judaism: An Historical and Constructive Study of the Noahide Laws

Author: Libowitz, Richard. Source: Journal of Ecumenical Studies 22 no 4 Fall 1985, p 793-794. Doc. Type: Review Libraries Worldwide: 771 , View Full Text on remote site (ATLA)* [3] (ATLAReligion)

4 The Jewish view of natural law

Author: Jackson, Bernard S. Source: Journal of Jewish Studies 52 no 1 Spr 2001, p 136-145. Doc. Type: Article Libraries Worldwide: 352 (ATLAReligion)

5 Lo statuto noachide

Author: Fontana, Raniero. Source: Estudios b�icos 61 no 3 2003, p 419-435. Doc. Type: Article Libraries Worldwide: 109 (ATLAReligion)

6 Die "Religion Noahs", ihre Herkunft und ihre Bedeutung

Author: Dietrich, Ernst Ludwig, Source: Zeitschrift f?igions- und Geistesgeschichte 1 no 4 1948, p 301-315. Doc. Type: Article Libraries Worldwide: 183 (ATLAReligion)

7 Noahide law from the Genizah : the thirty laws of Samuel ben Hophni Gaon.

Author: Lichtenstein, Aaron. Source: Hebrew Studies 28 1987, p 113-116. Doc. Type: Article Libraries Worldwide: 156 University of Chicago (ATLAReligion)

8 John Selden, the law of nature, and the origins of government.

Author: Sommerville, J P. Source: Historical Journal 27 Je 1984, p 437-447. Doc. Type: Article Libraries Worldwide: 767 (ATLAReligion)

9 Making Theological Room for Each Other : A Jewish Perspective.

Author: Troster, Lawrence. Source: Ecumenism no 94 Je 1989, p 24-26. Doc. Type: Article Libraries Worldwide: 49 (ATLAReligion)

10 Covenant implications for ministry : a Jewish perspective.

Author: Shudnow, Sanford H. Source: Military Chaplains' Review Sum 1992, p 57-66. Doc. Type: Article Libraries Worldwide: 284 University of Chicago (ATLAReligion)

11 Taryag and the Noahide Commandments.

Author: Cohen, Naomi G. Source: Journal of Jewish Studies 43 Spr 1992, p 46-57. Doc. Type: Article Libraries Worldwide: 352 (ATLAReligion)

12 Universal moral law in the theology of Hermann Cohen.

Author: Novak, David. Source: Modern Judaism 1 My 1981, p 101-117. Doc. Type: Article Libraries Worldwide: 469 University of Chicago (ATLAReligion)

13 Do Noachites have to believe in revelation : (A passage in dispute between Maimonides, Spinoza, Mendelssohn and H Cohen)

Author: Schwarzschild, Stephen S, Source: Jewish Quarterly Review ns 53 Jl 1962, p 30-65. Doc. Type: Article Libraries Worldwide: 539 (ATLAReligion)

14 Do Noachites have to believe in revelation : (A passage in dispute between Maimonides, Spinoza, Mendelssohn and H Cohen)

Author: Schwarzschild, Stephen S, Source: Jewish Quarterly Review ns 52 Ap 1962, p 297-308. Doc. Type: Article Libraries Worldwide: 539 (ATLAReligion)

15 Jewish Law Association Studies II : the Jerusalem Conference volume

Author: Jackson, Bernard S.Publication: Atlanta, Ga : Scholars Pr, 1986. Document: English : Book (ATLAReligion)

16 The Image of the Non-Jew in Judaism: An Historical and Constructive Study of the Noahide Laws

Author: Novak, David.Publication: Toronto : Edwin Mellen Pr, 1983. Document: English : Book (ATLAReligion)

17 Assisting in a violation of Noachide law.

Author: Broyde, Michael J. In: Jewish Law Association Studies VIII; Atlanta : Scholars Pr, 1996. (p 11-20.) Doc. Type: Essay (ATLAReligion)

18 The "Law" and the Noahides. Author: Rakover, Nahum. In: Politics and theopolitics in the Bible and postbiblical literature; Sheffield, Eng : JSOT Pr, 1994. (p 148-159.) Doc. Type: Essay (ATLAReligion)

19 Der universalistische Aspekt im Judentum : die noachitischen Gebote.

Author: Schwarz, Joel. In: Lernen in Jerusalem - Lernen mit Israel; Berlin : Inst Kirche und Judentum, 1993. (p 110-117.) Doc. Type: Essay (ATLAReligion)

20 Who cares about the seven laws of Noah? a status report.

Author: Lichtenstein, Aharon. In: Jewish Law Association studies IV; Atlanta : Scholars Pr, 1990. (p 181-190.) Doc. Type: Essay (ATLAReligion)

21 The "law" and the Noahides.

Author: Rakover, Nahum. In: Jewish Law Association studies IV; Atlanta : Scholars Pr, 1990. (p 169-180.) Doc. Type: Essay (ATLAReligion)

22 Israel, the Noahide Laws and Maimonides : Jewish-Gentile legal relations in Maimonidean thought.

Author: Frimer, Dov I. In: Jewish Law Association Studies II; Atlanta, Ga : Scholars Pr, 1986. (p 89-102.) Doc. Type: Essay (ATLAReligion)

23 The origin of the Noahide laws.

Author: Novak, David. In: Perspectives on Jews and Judaism; New York : Rabbinal Assembly, 1978. (p 301-310.) Doc. Type: Essay (ATLAReligion)

24 The Image of the Non-Jew in Judaism: An Historical and Constructive Study of the Noahide Laws

Author: Wolf, Arnold J. Source: Conservative Judaism 39 Fall 1986, p 117-121. Doc. Type: Review Libraries Worldwide: 173 (ATLAReligion)

25 The Image of the Non-Jew in Judaism: An Historical and Constructive Study of the Noahide Laws

Author: Dorff, Elliot N. Source: Journal of Religion 67 no 1 Ja 1987, p 120-122. Doc. Type: Review Libraries Worldwide: 1264 (ATLAReligion)

26 The Image of the Non-Jew in Judaism: An Historical and Constructive Study of the Noahide Laws Author: Ford, Lewis S. Source: Encounter 46 Wint 1985, p 87-88. Doc. Type: Review Libraries Worldwide: 457 University of Chicago (ATLAReligion)


A Noachide Code this website attempts to color-code morality using the Noachide rainbow (it's pretty cryptic).

Important facts?

The question is why people interested in this page keep censoring the important facts about the Noahide laws: (i) that they are enforced by Rabbis, (ii) that they apply to all people, not just Jews, and (iii) the rules for Jews and non-Jews vary, though all the laws are enforced only by Jews. If this is not a supremacist system, I don't know what is. Since the article goes to great length to hide this fact, I think it is biased. Revealing this fact is not POV anymore than revealing anyone else's supremacism and desire to rule the world is "POV" - it is simply fact. By hiding this fact and related ones (e.g., that under the Noahide laws you are liable to have your head chopped off for praying to Jesus, and I really don't care if there is "debate" about this among "rabbinical scholars" or not, though I am happy to have you state that, as you do) you have made this entry biased, untrue, manipulative and fully POV (i.e., you present this as something positive, whereas, I consider it totalitarian world domination by Jews). (from user:69.110.184.197)

The Noahide laws aren't enforced by anyone; they're a theoretical construct whose contents aren't even agreed upon. Why do you think your POV on this matter is factual and important? Jayjg (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Of course they are not enforced, as they don't exist, but one of the seven laws provides for rabbinical courts to enforce the other 6 (you call it "Justice", I would call it "totalitarianism" - Justice is YOUR POV, hardly any reasonable person would consider one ethnic group ruling over all others "justice". Where is there a "reputable" source that advocates Jewish rule? It appears you are trying to obfuscate the point, or really don't understand the subject matter involved. I don't have to explain why my POV is important, that is obvious to everyone who is not a Jewish supremacist, the question is, why you think you need to censor the truth?


Second entry: as to Wikipedia policy, this article, as written, clearly violates NPOV. It is presented solely from a Jewish perspective, and, at that, a Jewish supremacist perspective. It is completely manipulative. For example, the intro, which I tried to fix, states the Noahide laws derive from Judaism. I tried to fix this so it says Talmud and not the Torah. This was deleted. Please, if you know so well, show me a passage in the Torah that supports these Jewish supremacist laws. I would very much appreciate a link. If you cannot find one, it proves that your summary is not only NOT NPOV, but affirmatively dishonest and manipulative, as it attempts to deceive Christians and Muslims into believing this is part of their religion, which it clear is not (indeed, I am happy to engage in a debate about what Jesus Christ thought about the Pharisees and their oral laws (i.e., the Talmud), but that is a whole other story). In any event, if we do not resolve this here, I will take it to a higher level, and if Wikipedia shows itself to be run by Jewish supremacists, then I will take this wherever I can and point out to the world what a biased group of bigotted racists control this forum. (from user:69.110.184.197)


What important distinction are you trying to draw between "Judaism" and "Talmud"? Which specific sentences do you think violate the NPOV rules, and why? And finally, please refrain from personal comments and epithets, and stick to the subject at hand. Jayjg (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
The distinction between "Judaism" and "Talmud" is obvious, sort of like the distinction between the Christianity and the New Testament, but, rather than explain it to you here, let me just direct you to the Wikipedia entries for Judaism, Talmud, and Torah. You might also consult various Torah Jew websites (e.g. http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/).
I already explained what I believe violates NPOV - specifically, the failure to mention clearly at the outset that it is a (i) set of Jewish laws which apply to all non-Jews, (ii) which laws are interpreted and enforced excluslively by Jews though dictatorial, non-appealable rabbinical courts, (iii) that different laws and court procedures apply to Jews, and (iv) the punishment to non-Jews for violating the Jewish-imposed law is death. I think this pretty much sums up, what I (and anyone else who really understands this stuff) would consider to be the most important points. Having learned that, I don't really care what the other laws are. On the other hand, these points are not even made in the "Critics" section, much less anywhere where the average person might read it if inquiring about what the Noahide laws are. However, if you took a poll, and asked 100 non-Jews what was the most important thing about the laws (i.e., my points, as to, how they are applied and who the rulers are) or your points (making them sound like "just", "fair" and "decent" laws for everyone), I would take odds that my points would win. But even if they lost, NPOV requires that you state them.
I would like to stick to the subject at hand, but, unfortunately, some rude people keep censoring the page and imposing their will on others. As the censor violating my NPOV rights, I have a firm basis on which to criticize your censorship. 69.110.184.197 00:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't suppose that I can damp this one down, but at least we have got the discussion onto the right place (the talk page rather than the face of the article), so it seems worth having a go, and as someone who has occasionally contributed to this page it may as well be me who tries it.

Let's start with some principles of good discussion. First is that if user:69.110.184.197 wants to be taken seriously in the Wikipedia forum, s/he needs to get a username and a userpage, so the rest of us have a consistent identity we can engage with. I know that in every contentious issue on Wikipedia, my sympathies always go instinctively to the named user against the anonymous, because anonymous users are so often people who want to use Wikipedia as a soapbox rather than building a reliable encyclopedia; anyway, sorry, but using anonymity always looks cowardly to me. It only takes seconds to get an account... The second thing is that in obviously contentious topics, it's always helpful if people declare what their relevant personal beliefs or history are: on the one hand it is very difficult not to be influenced by them, so it is only fair to let other people know what they are, and on the other hand, it is easier to be sure you're not saying something accidentally offensive if you know who you are talking to and what their sensitive points are likely to be.

So let me start by declaring my own position; I'm a Christian, and as a Methodist local preacher I have to study the Hebrew bible regularly. I'm always interested in, though not always persuaded by, the insights into it offered by Jewish scholars. As I'm not a biblical literalist I tend to disagree with the more conservative Jewish readings. So I'm looking at this as an interested (but also, I hope, disinterested) outsider. What I see in the Noahide Laws, from my outside perspective, is not any attempt at domination by either an ethnic or a religious body, but an attempt by the Jewish religion to specify under what condition someone who is outside that religion can be considered "righteous" by those inside it. In so far as it provides rulings, it is not on the behaviour of the outsiders, but on the attitudes of the insiders. That seems to me something any religious (or indeed secular) group that takes a moral stance is entitled to do. A historic problem for Christianity, indeed, is that we have been reluctant to allow that anyone outside the religion could ever be accounted righteous; in this respect Judaism appears to be more generous to those outside it than some other faiths.

Put like that, such an assessment of outsiders does seem to be, as Jayjg calls it, just a theoretical construct. No-one is trying to enforce anything on anyone. However there are circumstances in which such an assessment might tend to be enforced. For example, if there is a closed community of believers such as a monastery, and someone who does not share the beliefs asks to come and live in it, the members might make it a condition that they lived according to the laws they believed to be binding on outsiders. Most poeple would probably think that was reasonable. However it becomes problematic if a dominant group tries to run a civil community - a town, or a nation - on these principles. Then we talk about a theocracy, and the historical record of these is that they at risk of becoming tyrannical - whether we are talking about Calvin's Geneva, the imposition of shari'a law in parts of Nigeria, or some tendencies within the state of Israel.

It seems to me that Jayjg is defending the first position, and the anonymous user is attacking the second. What I am not clear about, because I don't know the relevant facts, is whether there is any movement (for example, within Israel) to use national or community law to impose Noahide observance on non-members of the Jewish religion. Unless there is, to me as an (I hope) unbiased observer, Jayqg has by some distance the better of the argument so far. seglea 21:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no such movement that I am aware of; from what I can tell, the Noahide Laws are, if promoted at all, suggested as a universal code of good conduct more than anything else. Jayjg (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
When it comes to an encylopedia, contributor names don't matter - truth matters. Using some username like Jayjg is just as anonymous. Whether I get an account depends on, whether this is a neutral or biased forum. Everything I have written that has been censored can be easily verified as true, and nobody is even debating the truth of it.

But if you must know my upbringing, I have been influenced by (in alphabetical order) Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish and Muslim beliefs. I believe in tolerance and self-determination, which is the main reason I object to the Noahide Laws. I also do not beleive in the Crusades or any other form of imposing religion or, its modern counterpart, political systems, on others (that includes Iraq).

And Jayjg again proves he does not know what he is talking about - and I have only to point to Rabbi Schneerson as an example of someone who seeks to implement Noahide Laws today. As a basic matter, Judaism believes in the coming of the Messiah, which will result in the Noahide Laws being imposed on all non-Jews.

If Jayjg is correct that this is all theoretical, why have the entry at all? Or, at least, why not allow other points of view? Because as most censors, he is afraid of letting out the truth. That is why we live in a complete climate of censorship right now, and the amount of censorship and political repression worldwide is extreme. I maintain some lists of just recently the billboards, ads, politicians, museums, professors, books, newspapers, television, etc. that Jewish supremacists worldwide have been censoring - anything critical of Jewish power, including Zionism. This site is unfortunately becoming another victim of this censorship.

As I oppose censorship, particularly where it is used to amass political power, I will continue to fight against it.

And, of course, you are just wrong about what the Noahide Laws are, seglea. They are not just a system about who is righteous - they are a system of law, supervised by rabbis, with violators punishable by death without appeal - at least, that is their stated goal. Simply browse the definitive website, Rabbi Scheerson's, at http://www.noahide.com/index2.htm to see what I mean. And it is also self-evidenct from Law 7 - the judicial courts. What need is there of judicial courts, if the laws are not meant to be enforced? And why must the penalty be decapitation for those who do not follow the laws?

If it is so "optional", why set them forth as something desirable? Why not permit criticism? The fact is, I don't know if you are really a preacher or not, nor does it matter to me, because neither your profession and beliefs, nor mine, change the facts about the Noahide Laws, which I only wish reported accurately.

So please tell me, for eacho of the points (i) - (iii) that started off this thread you think is wrong, and why it violates NPOV to report them. I think they should be reported because for someone who is not a Jew to evaluate these laws, and whether to support them or not, it is fundamentally important - in fact, more important than the law itself (note the 66 interpretations - there end up being far more than 7 laws, it's a whole body of laws which only rabbis may develop) - who is the enforcer of them. Why is it neutral, to censor this critical information?

Schneerson is long dead; what evidence is there that he is trying to impose these laws from beyond the grave? Which people have been brought before Noahide courts? Which violaters have been punished with death? And finally, why do you say criticism is not allowed, when there is a whole criticism section right in the article? Jayjg (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Maybe Schneerson is dead, but he advocated the Noahide Laws, proving you wrong or dishonest. Of course he is not trying to impose them now, but he did when he was alive - again, you are hiding behind the truth with pointless objections, like a silly schoolboy.
Noahide courts have not been established, but that's not my point. You again are offering up non-points. What I am describing is what the laws are. You did not see me add anywhere, that these courts have been established, have you? No, so please stop putting up red herrings. I am not such a schoolboy that I will fall for them.
The death penalty is the penalty to be dished out by the rabbinical courts for violations of the noahide laws. If you disagree with this, please specify precisely which point you disagree with so I can prove you wrong convincingly - no tip-toeing around with irrelevant points like "where has this happened before" (and I can think of some possible examples but for purposes of this debate I will concede, to avoid opening a huge sub-thread, that none have happened).
The existing criticism section is a joke, and not only that, it ends up with the Noahide Law supporters - the Jewish supremacists - having the last word on every point. That is not called "criticism", but "propaganda". I'm sure you know the difference.
There are several points where our anonymous correspondent seems in error here.
  • I don't think it's possible for a website inspired by a 20th century figure, even a dead one, to be definitive on a matter that has been under discussion at least since Maimonides. Schneerson's outfit looks like a small crank group to me, though for all I know, it may be a dangerous one (for example, if it is part of the wierd alliance of dispensationalist Christians with extreme Zionists that is exerting a worrying influence on current US politics). If the Noahide laws are being hijacked by groups like that, that is a fact that is worth mentioning in the article if the groups are large enough to be notable. But it certainly should not be the dominant strand in an article which is concerned with a longstanding, and generally interesting, point of debate within Jewish thought.
  • As for "easily demonstrated as true...", I am afraid we need a logic lesson here. The most that Schneerson's site could demonstrate is that there is at least one rabbi who believes that the Noahide Laws should be imposed. To establish as "truth" that the entire Jewish community is trying to impose them, or that there is an organised conspiracy (perhaps of Elders armed with Protocols?) to enforce them, requires a rather more elaborate process. Simply asserting that you are in possession of the truth persuades no-one - it just makes you sound like a bigot.
  • I have always taken the requirement to establish courts as an early statement of a very general principle of political philosophy - that societies governed by law are better than societies governed by force, a principle with which everyone but anarchists agree.
  • Of course user names don't necessarily identify people (though many Wikipedians tell you readily enough what their real world identities are if you go to their Talk pages), and anyone might be lying about their expertise. But that is not what I said. I said that user names give us a consistent identity that we can engage with; and that means their expertise can be tested. It also means that their total contribution to the project can be taken into account. That means, for example, that if someone does reliably good work on documenting the world's mushrooms for us, we are more likely to be forgiving if s/he tends to get overheated when it comes to British English, say; while if someone repeatedly tries to abuse the openness of the system for soapbox speeches we know to just revert them. But of course soapbox artists don't get user-names, which is another reason why anyone who wants to be taken seriously needs to.
That is not to say that all is well with this article. Parts of it sounds much too much like Jewish scholars talking to themselves, without sufficient consideration for the more general reader. As a Christian I find the tone in general courteous, but occasionally it lapses into being patronising (and therefore inherently POV). One of the reason why the kind of polemical editing we are trying to deal with here is a nuisance is that it distracts attention from the task of getting that sort of thing right.
seglea 22:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


segleaI will address your points one at a time.
  • I don't claim Schneerson is definitive for all Jews, I am using him as a counterpoint to the claim of that Jayjg "[t]here is no [movement to impose Noahide Laws on non-Jews] that I am aware of". I presume Jayjg has heard of the Chabad Lubavitch. There are other groups who also favor this but to prove my point I need only one, and it is pointless to get involved in a side-debate about what percentage of Jews support some viewpoint or other (though I would argue the Noahide Laws are fundamental to the Talmud and all those who believe it, which excludes only the Torah Jews). This whole debate has from the outset been about describing the Noahide Laws accurately and all of these sub-issues merely serve to detract from that main point. Again, I draw your attention to my points (i)-(iii) that started out this thread, which somehow always are conveniently ignored. And to repeat it here: my point is that the Noahide Laws by their terms are a set of laws imposed on all non-Jews and exclusively enforced by rabbis with the punishment of death. Why this is not a set of not only relevant but extremely important facts to anyone trying to learn about the Noahide Laws is completely a mystery to me. Hiding these facts is not 'neutral point of view' but censorship of the truth.
  • What I claim is "easily demonstrated as true" is these points about the Noahide Laws - points (i)-(iii) that have been repeatedly censored from the page. Nobody has even denied them as being true, they have simply thrown up irrelevant points and red herrings. I have never claimed that the entire Jewish community is trying to impose the Noahide Laws - that is just another red herring. Please, let's stick to the facts I am trying to get into the page - the clauses (i)-(iii) in the first paragraph of this thread.
  • Of course systems of laws need to be enforced. That, indeed, is my point (i) at the top of this thread. Unfortunately, Jayjg claimed that "[t]he Noahide laws aren't enforced by anyone", which is a mistake at best. Indeed, Law 7 of the Seven Noadhide Laws provides for a system of courts controlled exclusively by rabbis. I might add that, a rabbi in these courts, with no review and the word of a single witness, can impose the death penalty for praying to Jesus Christ. Do you not, as a preacher, find this interesting, and something worth knowing, if you are considering this system? Recall that Congress on several times has revered Schneerson on "Education Day" - thus, the viewpoints that he expressed are pretty important to know.
  • In general people wear masks in the world, and even more so on the Internet. You cannot trust anything you see there, except with reference to personal experience and reality. More importantly, for purposes of Wikipedia as a community, the rules require a neutral point of view and there is no obligation to have a website for feedback. If it turns out this is a fair community, rather than, as it appears to me now, a strongly biased one that thrives on censorship of not only points of view but undisputed truth, then I have no desire to sign up and be a part of it. I am careful about what groups I join - this is my test phase.

69.110.184.197 23:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Mr/Ms X, you said you wanted someone to answer your three points? This should do, I hope:
    • that they are enforced by Rabbis - this is not true as one of the laws is for nations to establish their OWN legal system. If you mean that the Rabbis are the ones who have specified the extent of these laws, this is evident from the subdivision section.
    • that they apply to all people, not just Jews - the first sentence of the entire article clearly states that it is considered that all people must follow these.
    • the rules for Jews and non-Jews vary, though all the laws are enforced only by Jews - the second clause is a repetition of the first point so the same things apply. The section on the premise states that Gentiles don't have to follow halakha so this covers it. I can't think of any other meanings of "vary" as the Noachide laws are a subset of halakha and a subset isn't "different" to the larger set in the way we normally think of difference.

PS. Making the same changes from another anonymous IP address is considered extremely bad Wikipedia form and it certainly doesn't lend credence to your assertions that you're trying to be a legitimate user and not someone with a soapbox. Frikle 08:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


Frikle, it is great that you can use the Talk section in addition to using your censors' pen. I will answer your points one by one:
    • the rules are created and enforced by rabbinical courts, as are all Jewish laws - tell me what Jewish laws are enforced by other courts? Even the supremacists writing on the Noahide Laws page admit that "The contemporary Rabbi Dr. Aaron Lichtenstein counts 66 instructions but Rabbi Harvey Falk has suggested that much work remains to be done in order to properly identify all of the Noahide Commandments, their divisions and subdivisions." So much for 6 laws - 66 and counting!
      • if nations are to establish their own legal system, there is no point in the Noahide Laws at all (which is my point and I would hope all Jews would disavow themselves compeletely from them, and those who do not prove themselves to be supremacists), then there is no point for the basic tenets of the law to come from the Talmud, which is exclusively Jewish law
      • for example, the "Rebe" Schneerson's group, the Chabad Lubavitch, writes, "To the Jewish people G-d gave the entire Torah [teaching] as their Law. They therefore have a special responsibility—with special commandments—to be the priesthood of the world, a "light unto the nations."" Well, Mr. Schneerson, you and your followers are a black hole to me. What to you think the Supremacist thinks, it means, to be the "priesthood" (Rabbi actually means master, but we'll use priesthood here since the Supremacist does) to the world?
      • I am truly interested, where you get your claim that non-Jews are to sit in these courts and make the rules, and please explain how this relates to the Talmud generally - are non-Jews allowed to interpret the entire Talmud or just this one subsection? And are the non-Jew interpretations binding on the Rabbis, or not? Please provide authoritative evidence - I don't see any of this that you claim in Sanhedrin. Otherwise we will just have to go with the text, which makes it a matter of Jewish law, and, as you well know, Jewish law is interpreted by Rabbis.
      • it is not true that Jews must follow the Noahide Laws per se - Jews have a whole set of laws, more complicated, because the Goyim are too stupid to understand them in the Jewish supremacist system of the Talmud, of which supremacist system the Noahide Laws are simply one small part. While I agree that the Jewish laws are a superset of the Noahide Laws (the basic rule of thumb, and correct me if I'm wrong here, is that whatever law would result in the death penalty for a Jew, becomes a law also to the heathen - excepting of course that the judicial procedures for Jews are infinitely more fair).
      • that Jews may make laws for themselves is of no concern to me - as I noted, I believe in self-determination. My concern, and what should be made clear, is that with the Noahide Laws Jews make laws for all others.
    • what I am emphasizing is that these laws are a class system and it is a point any rational person would consider important and fundamental to understanding the Noahide Laws. Since you agree, there is no reason to hide or obscure this fact - because for those coming to learn about Noahide Laws, this is not known.
    • as to your PS, if you did even basic research before you make accusations against others, you would have figured out that all 3 other IP addresses come from England, whereas mine comes from California. As far as I can tell, all of your - Frikle, Jfdwolff, PinchasC and Jayjg are the same person - but do I accuse *YOU* of sockpuppetry, even if you all delight in censorship, speak from the same supremacist mouth and in cahoots continue to violate Wikipedia rules (though, your effort at dialog is a welcome relief from the continuous edit wars you engage in)? 69.110.184.197 10:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


Frikle, one more point on Rabbis interpreting and enforcing the Jewish Noahide Laws, just in case it is not obvious to everyone, that Rabbis enforce Jewish law (so for example if a Kingdom passes laws it is clear who is to enforce them without anything being said, and it takes affirmative action to place that duty on another). Again, from the "Rebe" Schneerson's website: Non-Jews who (1) reject all idolatrous ideas and accept the kingship of the One G-d, (2) accept the priesthood of the Jewish people as the guardians and teachers of Torah, and (3) commit to following the Seven Universal Laws as revealed in the Oral Torah revealed at Mt. Sinai are often called "Hasidic gentiles" or "Noahides." A few points to note here:
reject all idolatrous ideas means, among other things, to reject Jesus Christ - and, I think you will agree, that, at least for some Rabbis (and one is enough to kill you), this idolatry would earn you decapitation
accept the priesthood of the Jewish people as the guardians and teachers clealy means the Jews are to interpret and enforce the laws
Anxiously awaiting for your Talmudic sources that proclaim the "Goyim" worthy of interpreting and applying Jewish law 69.110.184.197 10:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I still don't see how your responses are relevant here. You seem to have some beef with Jews, the Talmud, which is reflected in your spin on the Noahide Laws which are clearly intended to create a POV that is entirely at odds with the laws themselves. Why don't you start one sentence at a time, propose its introduction, and explain why it is factual, relevant, and balanced. Also, if your responses or edit summaries in the future continue to contain abusive or bigotted language, you will simply be banned. Please consider this the final warning to clean up you act. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
How my responses are relevant? I was asked to back up my points, and I did, none of which you can effectively dispute for the simple fact that they are true. Here comes the "beef with Jews" thing - as expected - next you'll throw out "anti-Semite", in your plan of censorship, no? I don't really care to entertain these types of accusations, so I'll just make a quick point: what I don't like is Jewish supremacism, or the individuals or texts that advocate it (though I grant everyone the right to advocate their tribe or nation to rule over others, I reserve the right to comment on it) - and I would note I am equally critical of American supremacism, though I live in California, but in my experience American supremacists come nowhere close to Jewish supremacists in their ardor for censorship and the need to control completely the presentation of information (i.e., "spin", "propaganda", whatever you want to call it).
What is spin' is the current Noahide Laws entry, which I am trying to eliminate in favor of the truth (and I think one can speak of the truth in this case since it is, for over one thousand years now anyway, written law, though I am happy, if we cannot reach agreement, to use a qualifier applicable to all controversial passages in the entry, including the current "these laws are awesome" approach).
The reason I call it Jewish supremacism is because under the system, by its terms, Jews rule the world, and you have done nothing to disprove this fundamental point except throw up irrelevant objections (and some others outright falsehoods). It is not abusive to point out this supremacism any more than it is abusive to point out any other form of supremacism. You can try to ban me, I am happy to take my case to any forum, because I believe in the truth, no matter how many people wish to bury it.
Now, to start one sentence at a time, each of the following points needs to be made.
  • (1) One of the seven Noahide laws, which are Jewish laws applicable to non-Jews provides for judicial enforcement of the laws, and only Rabbis may interpet and enforce these Jewish laws
    • False. Noahide Law specifically mandates non-Jews as the judges. HKT talk 23:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I disagree. Please provide a cite to support this proposition. 69.110.184.197 07:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't know why you'd disagree with a universally accepted position. One source, for example, is Maimonides' Yad (Laws of Kings, 9:14). HKT talk 08:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Please do not patronize with the "universally accepted" mischaracterization. Now, to keep this discussion honest, you said you had a source that "specifically mandates non-Jews as the judges" and Laws of Kings 9:14 does nothing of the sort. Instead, it states, and it is very important because it underscores my point rather than yours: "How must [the gentiles] fulfill the commandment to establish laws and courts? They are obligated to set up judges and magistrates in every major city to render judgement concerning these six mitzvot and to admonish the people [regarding their observance]. A gentile who transgresses these seven commands shall be executed by decapitation. For this reason, all the inhabitants of Shechem were obligated to die. Shechem kidnapped. They observed and were aware of [his deeds], but did not judge him." So, in other words, if a city of non-Jews does not enforce the Noahide laws, the entire city is to be killed. Amazing, that you would cite this source for your proposition!
            • First of all, before the Israelites left Egypt, they were not technically bound by Mosaic Law. They only had a few commands: procreation, circumcision, refraining from eating sinews from a certain part of an animal's thigh, prayer, and tithes. This is why, for example, Jacob could marry two sisters, an act forbidden in Mosaic Law. There was no legal mandate for what Simeon and Levi did to the people of Shechem, and they were later criticized heavily by Jacob for their actions there. Maimonides is explaining the philosophical justification behind Simeon and Levi's actions, though they didn't have any legal mandate for their actions. In fact, nearly all commentators on this passage of Maimonides explain that there is no legal justification for killing someone for failing to carry out any command. Additionally, there are numerous other technicalities which preclude your simplistic interpretation of a legal mandate for Jews to kill non-Jews who fail to follow the seven laws. (By the way, you seem to have misused the word "patronize"). HKT talk 16:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
              • You have still failed to prove that any authority "specifically" mandates non-Jews as judges. And to avoid getting drawn into more irrelevant tangents, I would just note that (1) whether or not there was a "legal mandate" for the Shechem genocide is not a relevant question, instead the important fact is that the plain language of Laws of Kings agrees, as a legal matter, with the result ("For this reason, all the inhabitants of Shechem were obligated to die"), and (2) the criticism of Simeon and Levi by their father may have been due to their means (guile) rather than their ends (genocide), and in any event, if there was no legal justification for their acts, do you not agree that even under Jewish law, for the crime of genocide, they deserved a stricter penalty than the criticism or banishment of their father? 69.110.184.197 22:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
              • Again, you have failed to prove your point that the courts are not administered by non-Jews. See also e.g. http://www.myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/Jews_NonJews/NJ_Legal_TO/NJ_Noahide_Jeff.htm ("A conversation in tractate Sanhedrin assumes that Jewish courts should enforce the Noahide laws. Therefore, later authorities, most notably Maimonides, understood these laws as describing what Jews should require of non-Jews living under Jewish rule. Since Maimonides saw revelation as the clearest form of reason, it would be folly from his perspective, for non-Jews living under Jewish rule to rely upon their own inadequate reasoning powers to determine law when they have access to the superior reasoning of revelation."). Stupid Goyim! 69.110.184.197 22:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
              • Your mention of "other technicalities" with no reference to authority is a waste of time. Every time you point to authority you are shown to be "wrong" - hence I can see why you just make stuff up now without referencing any authority, it being impossible for me to disprove your baseless claims made in that dishonest fashion. But the Noahide Laws is not about your or other Jewish supremacist propaganda, but what the actual Noahide Laws. 69.110.184.197 22:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
          • But since we are on this source, there are a few more points made there that support the interpretations I want on the Wikipedia entry, and this has to do with the different judicial procedures applicable to Jews and non-Jews. Under Jewish law, it takes 23 rabbis to sentence a Jew to death - but under the Noahide laws, a single Rabbi can sentence a non-Jew to death. Laws of Kings 9:14 also makes clear that it takes but a single witness to execute a non-Jew, for example, for praying to Jesus Christ. 69.110.184.197
            • Be aware that you are misusing the term "rabbi." A "rabbi" usually means someone who is certified by his teacher as knowledgeable in a number of areas of Jewish law (see semicha). Qualifications for sitting on the 23 person court that you mention, include real semicha (I believe that the distinction is made in that article). The latter type of semikha ceased to exist around 2000 years ago, so no rabbis of that caliber exist nowadays. However, you mention that "a single Rabbi can sentence a non-Jew to death." What nonsense! There's no basis in classic Noahide Law for that statement. And your "praying to Jesus" remark is quite innovative, as well (see later on). HKT talk 16:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
              • You claim, However, you mention that "a single Rabbi can sentence a non-Jew to death." What nonsense! There's no basis in classic Noahide Law for that statement. You From Laws of Kings 9:14: A gentile is executed [on the basis of the testimony of] one witness and [the verdict of] a single judge. Wherein, exactly, lies the "nonsense" you speak of, other than in every word you write?! If you have authority to the contrary, please quote and cite it, otherwise, stop spreading disinformation. Your other points are not worth quarelling over, except you can read Laws of Kings 9:14 for yourself to note some huge procedural differences (23 vs. 1 judge, 2 vs. 1 witness, warning vs. no warning, etc.) that, in reality, are of utmost importance (e.g., when your neck is on the line based on the word of one person you know to be a liar, and you are referring to these brutal, primitive, evil laws as a system of justice, no?). 69.110.184.197 22:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • (2) There are not just six laws, but by one count, more than 66, and Rabbis continue to expand the laws non-Jews should be subject to (I realize this is currently in the body, deep down, but it is disingenuous at best to say there are only six in the introduction)
    • False. There are only 7 categories of laws, and these laws have many subsets. The nature of subsets is determined the same way as the nature of the 7 categories. This is analogous to the Jewish obligation to keep 613 categories of laws, while there are actually thousands of subsets. HKT talk 23:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Again, this is your POV that one should only count "general categories". I think the presentation is false and misleading. I see you have updated the site to speak of "commandments" instead of "laws", I still think for the page to be truthful and not misleading, either leave out the number or include a subclause such as "consisting of perhaps hundreds of laws" or similar. 69.110.184.197 07:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
        • POV?! Again, this is universally accepted (and I haven't edited this article, so I don't know what you mean by updated). Some sources include Maimonides (Intro to Sefer HaMitzvot), Nahmanides (ibid., commentary), Ba'al Halakhot G'dolot, and Babylonian Talmud (Tractate Makkot). HKT talk 08:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, POV! It is important for a reader trying to learn about these laws to know their scope - that they in essence control all of life, they are a complete legal code. As Laws of Kings 9:14 puts it, in a footnote to the observation that non-Jews are to be decapitated for violations of the Noahide Laws, "In contrast to a Jew, a gentile offender is executed for the violation of even the slightest command. As mentioned in the commentary to Halachah 1 of this chapter, the gentiles were created in order to allow for the maintenance of a stable and orderly world. All the seven commands have that intent. Hence, by violating one of those seven commands, they contradict their very purpose for existence." 69.110.184.197 16:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
            • You don't seem to be quoting Maimonides here, but a faulty commentary on his work. I write this because Maimonides mentions this neither in Halacha 1 nor in 14. The philosophy mentioned in that footnote isn't a quote from Maimonides. In any event, consequences for violation have no bearing on the extent of obligation. HKT talk 16:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
              • The "faulty" commentary I am quoting is from the "Rebbe" Schneerson's camp. While he may be "faulty" to you, the Noahide Laws page is not about you. Schneerson, on the other hand, was the head of the entire Chabad Lubavitch movement, many of whom considered him the Messiah, and was on numerous occassions recognized by Congress in relation to the Noahide Laws, which makes him an appropriate source for Wikipedia, whereas you fall far short of that measure. Therefore his interpretation should be added to the page - though by reference to other authorities (and not your propaganda) you may choose to point out alternative interpretations (e.g., how non-Jews should be forgiven their sins, perhaps you can find a nice quote in the great Sanhderin for that?) 69.110.184.197 22:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
              • Consequences for violations are of profound importance to those who are to be governed by these laws - any rational human realizes consequences are indeed more important than the laws themselves. Hence their strictness should definitely be included in the description. 69.110.184.197 22:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
              • Schneerson's website further states: "Moshe Rabbeinu was commanded from the mouth of the Al-mighty to force all the inhabitants of the earth to accept the commandments that were commanded upon the descendants of Noah." So much for your group's argument that nobody tries to force these laws on anyone. I would note in this regard, that the Jew supremacists running wild on Wikipedia describe this Schneerson "mitzvah", i.e., to force all Christians to convert to the Noahide Laws and kill those who don't, as "outreach", proving how dishonest and deceptive these supremacists truly are (and this can be said even of you and the other Noahide Laws apologists). But they also note, in the Schneerson entry, Congress' approval of Schneerson, which approval, I profoundly hope, is based on the same lies and deception that is found in his entry on Wikipedia:
                • "He ... reached out to the most powerful Jewish lay leaders and non-Jewish government leaders wherever they found themselves. The United States Congress and President issue annual proclamations declaring that the Rebbe's birthday, usually a day in March or April that co-incides with his Hebrew calendar birth-date of 11 Nisan (a Hebrew month), be observed as Education Day in the United States." 69.110.184.197 22:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
              • I would also note that former US Vice-Presidential candidate (i.e., one hearbeat away from being US President!) and Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, Orthdox Jew, is a follower of Schneerson's Lubavitch movement (see e.g. http://www.jewishchronicle.org/issues/20020531/localnews4.htm), many of whom believed the "Rebbe", with all his profound and bottomless hate for Jesus Christ and Christians (he hates Christ so much, he writes Christmas as "X-Mas", and claims Christians should be killed for observing it! - see http://www.noahide.com/minimum.htm), was the Messiah. One of the "Rebbe"'s other followers was that neo-con Paul Wolfowitz, now head of the World Bank, where he will be in a great position to further the "Rebbe"'s "outreach" (also of course Ari Fleisher, the ex-Bush press secretary). 69.110.184.197 22:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
              • Much on the Jewish supremacist movement, powerful as ever today, has been written by Israel Shahak in Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, Pluto Press, London and Boulder Colorado, 1994, pp. 26-28: "As an example, let us take the famous Hatanya, fundamental book of the Habbad movement, one of the most important branches of Hassidism. According to this book, all non-Jews are totally satanic creatures "in whom there is absolutely nothing good." Even a non-Jewish embryo is qualitatively different from a Jewish one. The very existence of a non-Jew is "inessential," whereas all of creation was created solely for the sake of the Jews. This book is circulated in countless editions, and its ideas are further propagated in the numerous "discourses" of the rabbi, M. M. Schneurssohn, who leads this powerful world-wide organisation from his New York headquarters. In Israel these ideas are widely disseminated among the public at large, in the schools and in the army." 69.110.184.197 22:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
              • Assuming for the moment, HKT, that you are genuinely trying to have an honest discussion rather than to lie and deceive, then (a) you must admit that the views of this Congress-honored "Rebbe", after whose birthday Education Day was set in the US (and I note in the proclamations honoring the "Rebbe" the Christian-hating, murderous Noahide Laws were noted as "ethical values and principles [which] have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization" and the Rebbe was described as "universally respected and revered"), are more important than yours and deserve mention in the Wikipedia entry, whereas your totally unsupported, propaganda views do not, and (b) that to continue this debate you must cite actual authority since I am tired of your lies and deceptions which continue ad nauseum. 69.110.184.197 22:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • (3) Non-Jews found by a rabbinical court to have violated any of these laws are subject to decapitation.
  • (4) Non-Jews have no right of appeal from a judgment of a rabinnical court.
  • (5) Under the Talmudic system, different laws govern Jews (it is essentially a caste system).
    • Indeed, Jews have immeasurably more obligations than non-Jews. It can't be a caste system, because non-Jews were never part of the Israelite nation, though some have lived under it's government at various times in history. HKT talk 23:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
      • What interests me is that there are two classes of laws. If you want to characterize the ones imposed on Jews as more onerous, and therefor that non-Jews have it better, in your opinion, please feel free to do so (and you might also provide the reason the Talmud so teaches), but it should be clear different laws apply. Otherwise it is misleading. 69.110.184.197 07:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm wasn't making a qualitative distinction, but, since your interested, there is only one obligation that applies to non-Jews but not Jews (and it's quite obscure at that): Eating a limb from a live animal. Even this is only academic, given that Jews are prohibited from eating any meat until it is slaughtered and its blood is cleaned out (see Bab. Talmud, Tractate Hullin). HKT talk 08:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Again, this is clearly false. Among others (I have not done an exhaustive search) are Laws of Kings 9:3 (non-Jew cursing God's name subject to death, law does not apply to Jews) and 9:4 (non-Jew to be executed for killing a pursuer when disabling would have saved the person being pursued, but this law does not apply to Jews). 69.110.184.197 16:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
            • Wrong again. Jews have all those obligations. You are talking about potential punishment. HKT talk 16:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
              • I would ask you to prove it, but you won't anyway, so, I have found one you will not even try to disprove, from Laws of Kings, 10:9: "A gentile who studies the Torah is obligated to die. They should only be involved in the study of their seven mitzvot." (Stupid Goyim, like my friend-actor seglea, are allowed only to study the Noahide Laws.) Or do you claim also, that a Jew who studies the Torah, is obligated to die? Oh yes, and just after this penalty, is another one, which does not apply to Jews: "Similarly, a gentile who rests, even on a weekday, observing that day as a Sabbath, is obligated to die. Needless to say, [he is obligated for that punishment] if he creates a festival for himself." Intersting, do you claim that a Jew must also die for observing the Sabbath? Of course there are more like this . . . . And to further my point that the Noahide Laws constitute an entire legal code, and not just seven "commandments" as your introduction to the page (intentionally) misleadingly states, Laws of Kings, 10:9, continues: "The general principle governing these matters is: [Gentiles] are not to be allowed to originate a new religion or create mitzvot for themselves based on their own decisions. They may either become righteous converts and accept all the mitzvot or retain their statutes without adding or detracting from them." I.e., no laws may be added to or taken from the Noahide Laws by the non-Jews, or they must die. 69.110.184.197 22:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, and I was remiss to mention, the most important distinction of all: Christians are to be slaughtered for practicing their religion, and Jews are not. I am sure in some Jewish-supremacist sort of way you find this to be a "neutral" law that applies equally to all. 69.110.184.197 16:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • (6) I would like much more prominent mention of the fact that Christianity is a mortal offense under the Noahide Laws (to avoid any ambiguation, this means, Christians are to be killed for "idolatry" of Jesus Christ under this system). Currently, this critical point has been buried under an obscure, purposefully esoteric discussion under the "Christianity" heading.
    • In Jewish law, nobody can ever be punished by the courts solely because of his/her beliefs. HKT talk 23:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
      • This is clearly false. Since you admit, in the entry for Noahide Laws yourself, that idolatry is a mortal sin, the only question is if Christianity is idolatry. Even your own article, in esoteric Talmud-speak, says it probably is, but that itself is a "public consumption" version. The Trinity and deification of Jesus Christ is idolatry under the Talmud. I have already quoted from the "Rebbe" Schneerson. Now I add a quote from the Mechon Mamre (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/about.htm) (Baladi) - who write "Christians . . . are idolaters according to the Torah, punishable by death, and certainly will not enjoy the World to Come." (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/gentiles.htm) Their viewpoints seem to be remarkably similar to yours. 69.110.184.197 07:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
        • I didn't "admit" anything, given that I didn't even edit this article. I wrote: "In Jewish law, nobody can ever be punished by the courts solely because of his/her beliefs." This is undisputedly true and universally accepted. Certain actions of worshipping would be required to violate Noahide Law. The Baladi quote you bring is uninformed; classical Jewish thought leaves decisions about "the World to Come" solely to God. HKT talk 08:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Of course this is your POV and a Rabbi may disagree, and of course as between you and a Rabbi, whose word is the last? But I am happy to say that openly worshipping Jesus Christ will result in decapitation because idolatry requires some action (perhaps even wearing or displaying a cross is enough) rather than merely a belief in the common interpretation of that term (but again, in a rabbinical court, a Rabbi may have a different interpretation, even if you may in the end disagree with that Rabbi the Christian loses his head!) 69.110.184.197 16:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
            • Again, you seem to think that there's some intrinsic religious difference between a "rabbi" and a non-rabbi. What's primarily important to being a Jewish legal authority is scholarship and adherence to Jewish law. You write that "perhaps even wearing or displaying a cross is enough." Even if some aspects of some groups within Christianity are considered "foreign worship" (and some classic legal authorities rule that Christianity isn't at all considered "foreign worship" of the type outlined by the Noahide Laws), violation of this Noahide injunction (in terms of Christianity) would require prostrating oneself in worship to an effigy of Jesus, or certain specific prayer formulations. Nevertheless, the Noahide Laws aren't meant for a society that doesn't primarily accept the laws' underlying premises (see also above for a discussion of your reading of Maimonides), so it's a moot point. Oh, as an aside, every legal authority concurs that Christianity is considered "foreign worship" for Jews, so there's an example of a stricter legal code for Jews. HKT talk 16:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
              • There is definitely a difference between a rabbi and non-rabbi in Jewish law. Do you want me to find the precise cite? Just look at Rabbi, second paragraph, end, "[Rabbis] are qualified to determine the applicability of Jewish law" and, beyond that, and most importantly, Jewish courts are run by Rabbis and scribes. In the Sanhedrin / mini-Sanhedrin days, the judges had to be ordained Rabbis. 69.110.184.197 22:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
              • As to your main point, that Christianity is not idoltary (hence a crime to be punished by death), you have not by reference to any authority made your point. I have quoted already one authority - Mechon Mamre - and alluded to another - the "Rebbe" Schneerson. He writes the following on http://www.noahide.com/xmas2.htm:
                • "Christianity, moreover, is absolute idolatry, not shittuf (partnership of deities), based on at least two of its beliefs (held almost universally by the estimated 1.9 billion Christians worldwide): (1) That the other two members of the "trinity" are of equal power and stature to Hashem (G-d forbid!), and (2) that the physical world is primarily under the dominion of the Satan, who is in an actual state of rebellion against G-d (G-d forbid!). Christianity, therefore, does not fit the definition of shittuf given by the Lubavitcher Rebbe ("Mayim Rabim," Sefer Hama'amarim vol. 1, pp. 51-62; 1957)."
                • "The Rambam, indeed, officially rules in three places that Christianity is idolatry and thus forbidden to gentiles (Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 11:7 and Hilchos Avodas Kochavim 9:4; commentary on Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 1:3), and implies the same in a fourth place (Hilchos Melachim 11:4) (Note: these texts are censored from the standard editions of these works). The Rambam further rules that any religion which would believe in shittuf would also be prohibited to gentiles (Hilchos Melachim 9:2)." [ I note here the "Rebbe"'s candid admission that the standard works are censored; One of the things I give the Rebbe great credit for is at least he was not afraid to speak his truth, unlike most of the whiny, lieing Jewish supremacists I run into. ]
                • ""...according to the known Jewish ruling that Christians are idol worshippers." (Likkutei Sichos 37:198) ... A gentile...is liable for the death penalty...if he has invented a religious holiday [such as Christmas] for himself" (this from http://www.noahide.com/xmas.htm). 69.110.184.197 22:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
              • Contrary to this actual authority, you have only your propaganda. The Wikipedia site is not about your own views, whether or not they are genuinely held (which I truly doubt). In short, while you might consider this "misinformed", your views do not matter, but his do. 69.110.184.197 22:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • (7) For bonus points on being "fair and balanced", indicate that with the coming of the Messiah the Noahide Laws will be imposed on the rest of the world - though you will notice I have not mentioned this one in the past, though I reserve the right, if this goes to a higher level, to include this point in the debate (as well as various other relevant ones, I have really tried to keep it to a minimum with my edits)
    • According to classical Jewish belief, non-Jews will desire to follow the Noahide laws when the Messiah comes. Any resistance to open revelation of Jewish redemption is believed to be dealt with supernaturally, by God. HKT talk 23:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
      • As it turns out, as, for example, is the case of Zionism, people take G-d's work into their own hands, and wantonly ethnically cleanse and kill those who are in the way of their beliefs. In any event this is your POV - other POVs differ. That is why one of the "seven" Noahide Laws provides for enforcement by rabbinical courts that have the death penalty at their disposal, G-d certainly would not have need of Rabbis to enforce His laws if He were to act supernaturally. 69.110.184.197 07:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
        • You can speculate about God's "needs" all you want, but it's quite clear (even from the Bible) and universally accepted by classical Judaism that sometimes punishments are left to God and sometimes they are left to the courts. HKT talk 08:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
          • That is not the point. The point is about the coming of the Messiah this is your POV, I don't agree with it. I don't care to pursue this debate because I am not arguing at this juncture for inclusion of the claim. 69.110.184.197 16:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
            • I see: You "don't care to pursue this debate" because you have nothing to say. That always the magic caveat, isn't it? If you can't justify your position, you can at least call the other's position "POV." Congratulations. HKT talk 16:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
So, I have numbered the points, please list the ones you believe are provably false, we can debate those and thereafter the ones left standing will be added to the entry. You can keep your esoteric debates in the rest of the entry, though I would like to disambiguate some of the more obfuscated ones. 69.110.184.197 14:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

To begin with, I've let you get away with personal attacks and bigotry yet again in your comments, but my patience for this is non-existent. You've been warned. Second, under this set of under the system, by its terms, it is God who rules the world, through his appointed agent the Messiah, not "Jews". If you accept this premise, as you seem to, then your concerns about this being an unjust system, or your attempts to paint this as "Jewish supremacy", seem rather ludicrous. Now, regarding your points:

  1. This is non-notable; it has this in common with all Jewish law, just as only Muslim legal experts can intepret and enforce Sharia, American legal experts can interpet and enforce American law, etc.
  2. There are 7 main categories of laws, each with many subsidiary implications. This is much like the the 613 laws in Judaism, each with thousands of subsidiary implications, or American Constitution, which has some primary principles, and thousands of laws which spin-off from them. It is unclear why this is important.
  3. Possibly in theory, but this is irrelevant, as the entire construct is theoretical, and has never been enforced anywhere.
  4. See point 3 above and point 7 below.
  5. No, there is considerable overlap between the laws, and in any event there is no caste system since anyone can be a Jew.
  6. Christianity may or may not be a "mortal offence" under these laws, it is extremely unclear, and in fact, unlikely.
  7. As mentioned above, in the theoretical event that the Messiah comes, the entire world will be overturned, and will become a completely just place ruled by God through his agent the Messiah; if you accept that the Noahide laws will be enforced when this happens, then you must also accept that they are completely just.

--Jayjg (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should mention a bit more clearly that capital punishment is not presently being advocated for violations of the Noahide Laws, so our concerned anonymous editor need not fear for his head. JFW | T@lk 15:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Either way, it is already mentioned under the Christian criticism section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahide_Laws#Christian_criticism --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


Jayjg : Please stop your accusations of bigotry, that is a personal attack I am growing quite tired of. I have only opposed supremacist views and censorship.
  1. I find it extremely notable, and in fact at one point you (or one of your group) disputed it. It is your POV that it is not important, in fact the entire article is your group's POV, and you refuse any compromise or reason.
  2. The introduction says, misleadingly, that there are seven main laws. This gives the wrong impression to someone trying to learn about the laws. I would agree to follow that with the phrase, "though there are vastly more specific laws". My whole objection to your presentation is that it is biased and makes this sound like a good thing. That is your POV, but I already have stated what I think your POV is.
  3. I don't care about your claims of theoretical - the fact is various groups are trying to impose this, Congress (having been hidden the true meaning of this, probably based on some dishonest, propaganda summary like the entry you have made) supported it, the Freemasons support it, that is a huge danger as far as I am concerned. And even if I'm wrong, in that case, we are simply describing this "theoretical" thing, so we might as well describe it correctly. As to it never having been enforced, that is your unprovable (and IMO wrong) opinion (POV).
  4. Ditto.
  5. You prove my point - there may be overlap, and in fact in my edit I point this out (yet you delete it wholesale anyway!!!), but it is still different. That is an important point. Certainly, for example, it would violate US constitutional law (as well as any constitutional law, except, of course, Talmudic Jewish supremacist law).
  6. I don't agree with your self-serving assessment. Beyond that, even if you are correct, the slightest risk needs to be pointed out. Hiding this fact is censorship.
  7. I don't agree with your POV. You can express it if you want, I believe basically the opposite. To comply with Wikipedia NPOV rules, we can express both viewpoints (some believe the Messiah will be Heaven on Earth, others believe the Messiah will be the Anti-Christ). And that is why I believe the Noahide Laws are completely unjust. And beyond that I do not, nor will I ever, agree to be ruled by the Noahide Laws.
At least you have admitted all of my points are correct, you only dispute their importance to you. That is your POV. I think all of the other points in the article are irrelevant and uninteresting and only the points you have omitted are interesting. I am willing to put to a test that most people will feel that way as well.
I am trying to keep this respectable. But you continue to censor the truth and violate Wikipedia policy by forcing your biased POV. That is completely unacceptable.
Now that we know where we stand, are you prepared to compromise and accept other viewpoints, or will you continue to censor, obfuscate and deny free speech to others? 69.110.184.197 06:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I have not admitted you are right, since you are not, and there can be no compromise with error and POV. Jayjg (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

User:JayjgI am going to quote from Wikipedia policy, and why don't we try to find some way to apply this policy to this page. That way we don't have to go bother the reasonable people to sort this out.
  1. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense we are presenting here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia. They are not re-enacted. (from NPOV)
In this case we have even agreed on a lot of points (that are largely self-evidenct, it helps in this case that we speak of a body of laws and so there is some objective basis to judge, unlike in many other cases)
  1. First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange. (from NPOV)
I think this is an inherently fair way to proceed. But you keep violating this rule over and over with the extremely bogus, disingenuous, even plainly dishonest argument, "revert POV". You are not reverting POV, you are eliminating any POV (even one you admit, in general, is correct) that differs from the spin you want to place on it.
  1. Another point bears elaboration as well. Writing unbiasedly can be conceived very well as representing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of debates.
I am very happy to take this approach. We can set forth, in each section and for each main point, what (your) pro-Talmudic POV is, and what (my) other POV is. Of course, there are areas where we agree, and we do not need to follow this path in those cases.
Bottom line is, if you do not stop behaving unreasonably and censoring I am going to expand this debate. This is my last offer to resolve this at this level. Please accept it. 69.110.184.197 16:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to resolve the debate; you've done nothing but make unsourced assertions, personal attacks, and rant about Jewish supremacy. I haven't admitted you view "in general, is correct", because it is not. I've suggested you propose your changes a sentence at a time so they can be discussed, but you seem unable to do so. Furthermore your viewpoint has been rejected by at least 5 editors here; I welcome further involvement by others. Jayjg (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, I have read through this entire bizarre exchange and my advice is this: do not feed the trolls. Your interlocutor is biased and ignorant. She has no desire to become less ignorant, and her bias always gets in the way of her understanding others. None of the issues she raises are valid, and the main charge — "Jewish supremacism" is just silly. As an earlier contributor suggested, every culture on earth has a general idea of what a "good human being" is, and the 7 Noahide laws are just that. I know of no instance in which any Jews ever enforced these laws on anyone else. Of course, if Israel were a theocracy, they could impose these laws on gentiles while in Israel mdash; just as anyone visiting the United States has to obey US law, or anyone in England has to obey English law. In any event, the state of Israel does not impose these laws on gentiles in Israel. But this is besides the point. Although these laws express what Jews consider the qualities of good people (and the point is, of course, that even with all their elaborations, these laws are infinitely fewer than the laws Jews have held to themselves), I know of no example in which any Jew or group of Jews tried to impose these laws on anyone, let alone punished anyone for violating one of the rules. Jewish "Supremacism?" Unlike Christianity and Islam, Judaism does not require one to be Jewish or even to believe in God to go to heaven. Someone refuses to obey these laws? Nu? What's the big deal? Many people do not accept these laws, and no Jew has ever done anything against any of those people. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


User:Slrubenstein: You may believe yourself very skilled at ad hominem attacks, but you fall far short of even a mediocre performance. Let me count the words: bizarre, troll, biased, ignorant, happily ignorant, no issues valid, main point silly - well, it seems at least you are adequate at one Freudian thing: projection! Aside from that you bring up completely irrelevant points topped with some blatant misstatements of fact. I will not bother responding to you pointless attacks and biased, supremacist assertions again, as they add nothing of value to the debate. 69.110.184.197 03:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
User:Slrubenstein, thank you for that measured and accurate assessment. I judge (from their knowledge of Torah and Talmud) that many of the contributors to this discussion are Jewish. I'm not, and I'm afraid that these days I'm not much of a sympathiser with the state of Israel. So let it be me that says that the anonymous contributions bear all the marks to me of an anti-semitic rant - from the ludicrous accusation of Jewish supremacism (the cliché of anti-semites right back to the Protocols) right down to the cowardice inherent in being unwilling to take up an identity. I propose that we all move on. This article has got a bit messed up in the process of removing twaddle from it, and there is work to do on getting it accurate and encyclopedic. I look forward with pleasure to co-operating with all sincere contributors in doing so. seglea 20:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
User:Seglea:segleaIt is clear that basically everyone here is Jewish, excepting perhaps you. Unfortunately, though, you have also fallen into the "anti-Semitic" paradigm, where any criticism of anything Jewish is labelled as "anti-Semitic" (or, perhaps, "self-hating Jew"ish). That is too bad for you, and along with your "cowardly" pronouncement, shows that you do not, in your heart, cannot find the strength to follow Jesus' admonition not to judge others. You know nothing about me to suggest I am a coward; it is your cruelty which judges me so. I hope your heart, as well as the hearts of those who advocate the fundamentally evil, hateful and virulently anti-Christian Noahide Laws, find some love in their hearts, and that you find some truth as you seem to be seriously misguided. I neither hate Jews nor any other such group of people - but I do oppose hateful systems like the Noahide Laws which advocate the murder of those who exercise a harmless belief system, and I do believe in pointing out the truth. 69.110.184.197 06:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

What Jewish laws are enforced by other courts? Quite a few. For example, in England the Jewish divorce laws can be enforced by a judge refusing to finalise a civil divorce until the Jewish one is complete. I believe that in parts of the USA, the laws of kosher food can be enforced; if an establishment represents itself as kosher, it must be. While the courts must rely on rabbis as expert witnesses, it is ultimately a matter for the judge. Incidentally, I'm a Methodist and proud of it. RachelBrown 09:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language in describing Gerim Toshavim?

I referred to a Ger Toshav as "he or she". Do the Noachide laws apply to women in the same way they do to men? Can a woman be a Ger Toshav? Isn't Ger a masculine word? Babajobu 19:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course the Noahide laws apply to both sexes. I do not know at what age one becomes liable. Methinks it is at 20 (but don't put this in the article). JFW | T@lk 19:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Is it correct or incorrect to refer to a hypothetical Ger Toshav as "he or she"? Is Ger a masculine word? Babajobu 19:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, a female Ger is typically called a giyoret, but to make this distinction time and time again would just clutter the article. JFW | T@lk 20:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Okay, so we'll just go with "he or she" in reference to Ger Toshav. Babajobu 20:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Slr and the intro

Slr, I don't think the intro needs to go into the distinction between a mitzvah and halakhah. If this needs to be covered at all, it should be further down in the article. At any rate, it is doubtful whether one should even refer to the laws for Noahides as halakhoth (see the Bleich ref.)

I also moved around some paragraphs to fit with the historical development. Oddly, most of the 7 mitzvoth actually derive from a seemingly superfluous sentence in Genesis 2, where the rabbis attach a specific meaning to each word. The exact background does not need to be covered in the article. JFW | T@lk 20:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Jtdwolff, I have no problem with your editing to clarify things and simplify the text. Nevertheless, I do think we should say more about the relationship between the commandments and the laws. As recent discussion shows, many non-Jews just do not get it (alas, many Jews too do not get it). I am not making a judgement (i.e. I am not arguing that God revealed the Oral Law to Moses at Sanai), but the only way anyone can understand why there may be a corpus of law that goes beyond 7 straightforward commandments, yet which Jews identify with the commandments, is to explain as concisely as possible the relationship between Mitzvot and Halakhot, which requires an explanation of the relationship between the Written Law and the Oral Law, the Torah and the Talmud. So, I made a mess of the job. But rather than just deleting my attempted elucidation, can you try to explain it in a brief and elegant way? (I will have to check the Bleich reference)
ALSO, as far as the scriptural sources of the commandments, the Rabbis as was their custom look far and wide for guidance. Would it not be more accurate to say "these laws are based on exegesis of Genesis 9:4-6, supplemented by other verses in the Torah such as Genesis 2:16, Deuteronomy 6: 13, and Leviticus 15-23?" Or am I screwing up again? You mention how the Rabbis get each commandment from one word, but they do this by referring to other verses ...Slrubenstein | Talk 20:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The main sources for the seven laws are Gen 2:16 and 9:4-6. I'll have to look into Deut 6:13 (on intermarriage?) and Lev 15:23 (about blood?).

I don't disagree that the mitzvah/halakhah distinction could be clearer, but perhaps at a later point in the article, where it comes to practice. JFW | T@lk 06:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, since you deleted my attempt at explaining the halakha/mitzvah distinction, I'd like you to try writing something wherever you feel appropriate. I am not being churlish -- I acknowledge that what I originall wrote wasn't perfect, and just think you might come up with something different. As for the Biblical citations, I am just going by the discussion in Sanhedrin 56 which cites a number of other biblical verses. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Time for a tidy-up?

Now the trollery seems to have ceased for the moment, could I propose a tidy-up of the "Christian criticisms" section? I suspect this was inserted, or has become inflated, in an attempt to keep one or two very persistent and not very balanced critics at bay. Personally, speaking as a Christian, I have never heard much if any of this critique expressed, and I have serious doubts whether it represents any notable body of opinion. But I don't want to go ahead and delete chunks if there is a real debate out there - can anyone document one, either from a Christian or a Jewish perspective? Is this a discussion that serious students of the subject find themselves getting into? If not, I suggest we retitle this section, and boil it down to a discussion of the relation between the Noahide Laws (which most Christians have never heard of) and the Ten Commandments (which most Christians would consider themselves to be bound by, and to obey).

Oh, and would it be a good idea to archive a whole chunk of the discussion above now?

seglea 20:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

All excellent ideas; I trust you to do a bang-up job. Jayjg (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

DISPUTED

"According to the New Testament book of Acts, the Council of Jerusalem decreed that the Law of Moses was not binding at all on gentile Christians (Acts 15:20, Acts 15:29)."

That is not what the Council of Jerusalem decreed.

See Council of Jerusalem for details.

Also, Acts 15:19-21(KJV):

Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Also see Jewish Christians

{{sofixit}}. JFW | T@lk 16:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

What the 'Council of Jerusalem' decreed is contentious (and, if Paul in Galatians is to be believed was so at the time). Our only real source is Acts 15, which 1) many scholars doubt is historically accurate 2) is open to a variety of interpretations. So for a start we cannot say 'the council of Jerusalem decreed ...' only 'according to Acts ...'.

Cite the other references. It's been done at Council of Jerusalem, if you know of other references, cite them.

As to the contention that, according to Acts, the council decreed that gentiles were free from the Jewish law, you are correct in saying that is not the only possible interpretation, however, it is the mainstream scholarly view.

Cite a reference. Add it to Council of Jerusalem.

Paul's opponents demand that Gentile Christians 'be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of Moses' (Acts 15:5).

Translation issue, see Council of Jerusalem

Paul complains that this is 'a yoke neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear' (15:10)

Peter said that, not Paul.

However, the council decides 'no to trouble those gentiles who are turning to God' (15:19), but to ask them to abstain from ....'( as quoted above). Most scholars conclude that the demands are either 1) to do with things that are eaten (idol food, blood and strangled food) which Gentiles are to abstain from to allow table fellowship with Jewish-Christians remembering that Act 10 views food laws as dispensable even for Jews)

That's another interpretation that Acts 10 views food laws as dispensable even for Jews, if so that would be in conflict with the determination of Acts 15, and in any case is off the topic. Any issue here should be discussed in Acts of the Apostles.

2) some sort of minimalist ethic (akin to the Noahide laws) taking blood=bloodshed. Strangely in Paul's account in Galatians he states that the apostles 'added nothing to me' (to his law-fee gospel) (Galatians 2:6) - indicating either an ignorance of the apostolic letter, or certainly giving it little weight.

So, that's Paul's interpretation of the Council of Jerusalem. If you have new information, cite a reference and add it to Council of Jerusalem If you want to propose that Paul taught lawlessness, bring it up at Paul of Tarsus and Pauline Christianity.

I’ll wait for any response before altering the article to reflect this. But we need to remember that the only relevance of this discussion to this article is the possibility that Acts 15’s stipulations reflect some idea of the Noahide laws. --Doc (?) 20:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and you don't believe that Acts 15's stipulations reflect some idea of the Noahide Laws? Cite a reference for that belief. I've cited one, the Apostolic Constitutions, for the belief that Acts 15 is Noahide, Council of Jerusalem has an additional reference from Newton. If you have a reference for the belief that Acts 15 is not Noahide, cite it.


Noachide Law

Noahide law is that part of Halakhah which deals with the types of Nochrim that Jews are allowed to either do business with or otherwise have nothing to do with unless it be as in the case of the Canaanites to act as the Fist of G-d against or to enslave with the aim of de-paganising them into a kind of Gerim (since all slaves should be given the option at some point in their lives to become Meshuchrarim -fully fledged Israelites).

Noahide Laws are a varied list of laws which different Rabbonim have proposed as being included in consideration of Noahide Law and the definition of a Noachide.

A Noahide is the type of Nochri which Halakhah permits Jews to have dealings with.

Judaism has never been concerned with what defines Nochri salvation, we have enough to deal with among ourselves first. At least this aspect of Halakhah allows us to say that Noachide Nochrim are not so bad as other Areilim.

Any other opinions are not from unadulterated Orthodox Judaism. The article should clearly define all these aspects together for a start, and if there are any other opinions the type of opinion should be clearly categorized in sub-topic appendicies to the main article.

Shalom (unsigned post by 86.135.116.61 (talk · contribs))

Hmmm... this post is a real doozy. One thing that piqued my interest here was the repeated usage of the term "Nochri", as well as reference to rabbis as "Rabbonim" (a specifically "Yeshivish/Charedi" spelling). Interestingly, "Halakha" was spelled here with a "kh", a very un-Charedi spelling. Substantially, when I read about "nothing to do with," "Fist of God," "enslave," and so on, I realized what was going on here. The above post was written by some one who is vaguely familiar with Orthodox Judaism (perhaps he/she even attended an Orthodox elementary school), yet possesses a distorted and hostile view of both the religion and its adherents. The only thing accurate about the above post is that "Noahide law" could theoretically be an appropriate term to describe the laws that pertain ritually to interaction between Jews and non-Jews (or for those that, for some unfathomable reason, think that the term "Gentile" is less ethnocentric (!), "Jews and Gentiles"). Only problem is, those laws are nothing like what the anon above implies. They're more like something you read out of a fiction novel by Noam Chomsky. "...Noachide Nochrim are not so bad as other Areilim." How absurd! Just to top off the Haredi stereo-typing, here's the grand finale: "Any other opinions are not from unadulterated Orthodox Judaism." Ahh... Oh, yes - ending a Wikipedia post with "Shalom" is the final nail in the coffin here. It's not (perhaps paradoxically so) a typical English signature to posts and letters written by Orthodox Jews (excepting, perhaps, pulpit rabbis at synagogues with some marginally affiliated members); among religious English speakers, the "Shalom" greeting is usually primarily limited to greeting someone one hasn't seen in a long time (there's no particular reason for this, but those are the social dynamics). P.S. Would such a "close-minded fanatic" have edited the other articles that you find in this anon's contribs? HKT talk 03:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
The poster looked a lot more like a Christian Noahide to me; aside from the spelling of halakha, look at the focus on "salvation". Jayjg (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Maybe, but the anti-Judaism crazies also get a kick out of comparing "Ultra-Orthodox" Judaism to Christian fundamentalism, referring to it as "Jewish fundamentalism." The "salvation" thing may have been an attempt at just such a comparison. HKT talk 23:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Category: Christian Law

from Apostolic Constitutions:

"Where known they were held generally in high esteem and served as the basis for much ecclesiastical legislation. They are today of the highest value as a historical document, revealing the moral and religious conditions and the liturgical observances of the 3rd and 4th centuries. They are part of the Ante-Nicene Fathers collection."

This quote is primarily from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Quoting the Apostolic Constitutions 6.64:

"Wherefore my sentence is, that we do not trouble those who from among the Gentiles turn unto God: but to charge them that they abstain from the pollutions of the Gentiles, and from what is sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; which laws were given to the ancients who lived before the law, under the law of nature, Enos, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Job, and if there be any other of the same sort."

See [4] for details, the Constitutions are citing the Council of Jerusalem, i.e. Acts 15.

Yes, but that does not prove that Noahide Laws belongs in Category:Christian law. There's not a sentence in the apostolic declaration that says "Christians must follow the Noahide laws." What you have is an assertion from the Catholic Church that the laws declared from the apostles were the same as those given to those who lived before the Law of Moses. But there's two problems with using that to declare definitively that the Noahide Laws are Christian Law:
  1. not every Christian agrees with assertions of the Catholic Church, and
  2. while the Catholic Encyclopedia asserts that the decrees of the apostles after the council at Jerusalem included the laws given to Gentiles before Moses, you have not demonstrated that the Catholic Church believes that those laws are the same ones defined by Judaism as the "Noahide Laws." There are plenty of Christians who would believe that the laws given before Moses are Christian law but that those are NOT what are described as the "Noahide laws."
So, you see, we can't definitively call the Noahide Laws "Christian Law."

Jdavidb 20:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a CATEGORY, not a statement of fact. There is plenty of justification for placing this article in this category. No need for sweeping pov generalizations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.78.19.198 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, and it only belongs in that category if it factually belongs to it. The page you linked to says, "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Clearly not everybody agrees that the Noahide Laws are Christian Law. Jdavidb 21:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Anon, If a librarian thought of categories this way, wouldn't the result be chaos? A category isn't a "see also" mechanism, pointing to things that might be of interest for further study. Isn't it a taxonomic scheme, a way of classifying articles? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, obviously the categorization is controversial on wikipedia, so therefore it should not be done. The question to ask is why is it controversial? Too Jewish?
Maybe this article should be split into two: Noahide Laws (Jewish) and Noahide Laws (Christian) just like there is Sabbath (Christian) and Shabbat and Passover_(Christian_holiday) and Pesach. 63.201.25.60 (talk · contribs).
You must be joking. Fuhgeddaboudid. JFW | T@lk 07:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
If the Jerusalem council's instructions to gentile Christians are considered Noahide, that would be for Jews to decide, since it is a Jewish idea. In a Christian context, it's simply instructions to gentile Christians (perhaps for the sake of avoiding offense to the Jews); that's quite different from saying that there is such a thing as Christian Noahide laws. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The same argument was made against Sabbath_(Christian) and Passover_(Christian). After all, aren't those also Jewish ideas? Isn't the "Old Testament" a Jewish idea? Christ? ... As for a Jewish *scholarly* opinion: "According to Acts ... Paul began working along the traditional Jewish line of proselytizing in the various synagogues where the proselytes of the gate [see Exodus 20:10] and the Jews met; and only because he failed to win the Jews to his views, encountering strong opposition and persecution from them, did he turn to the Gentile world after he had agreed at a convention with the apostles at Jerusalem to admit the Gentiles into the Church only as proselytes of the gate, that is, after their acceptance of the Noachian laws (Acts xv. 1-31)." Jewish Encyclopedia article on Saul of Tarsus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.169.7.131 (talk • contribs) .

The Sabbath and Pascha as kept by Christians arise from Biblical law, yes; and yet they are Christian and not the Jewish custom. But the idea of Noahide obedience concerns "the law of nature". There is a long tradition of "natural law" in Christianity. It does not advance under the name of "Noahide". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Natural Law is independent of Noahide Law. I'm not aware of any claims that the determination of the Council of Jerusalem was based on Natural Law. Are you? Natural Law has more to do with science and philosophy than religion. And speaking of natural law, quoting from this very article, the Christian Isaac Newton said: "This law [of abstaining from blood] was ancienter than the days of Moses, being given to Noah and his sons, long before the days of Abraham: and therefore when the Apostles and Elders in the Council at Jerusalem declared that the Gentiles were not obliged to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, they excepted this law of abstaining from blood, and things strangled, as being an earlier law of God, imposed not on the sons of Abraham only, but on all nations, while they lived together in Shinar under the dominion of Noah: and of the same kind is the law of abstaining from meats offered to Idols or false Gods, and from fornication." None of that is natural law. The generally accepted term is Noahide Law. What term would you propose? Pre-Mosaic Law? Apostolic Law? Apostolic Constitutions? Jerusalem Church Law? James-Peter-John Law? Jewish-Christian Law? Early Church Law? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.201.26.59 (talk • contribs) .
Anonymous, I think you misunderstand something about Wikipedia. You keep trying to prove your assertion that the Noahide Laws are Christian Law. It is not for Wikipedia to try to prove or disprove this. All we do is report the different viewpoints. Jdavidb 16:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Do Christian sources describe this as "Noahide law"? Do they insist the rules outlined here are binding on Christians? Jayjg (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I think the vast majority of Christian sources would agree that laws were given to all men at the time of Adam or Noah and still apply today, but a significant number would not recognize the Noahide Laws as a description of those laws and would consider them to contain material that is not applicable to Christians. Most Christians have never even heard this term. You'll find more Christians who believe they are supposed to keep the Sabbath than believe in anything about the seven laws of the Noahide covenant. Jdavidb 16:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

One more point: I think you will find more Christians believe they should observe the determination of the Council of Jerusalem (by whatever term that is called) than who believe they should observe the biblical saturday sabbath or the christian passover.

I would call them "Noahide Laws". That's what this article is about. The discussion of whether, or how, Christians have adopted the teaching is found in this article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Then shouldn't there be two articles: Noahide Law (Jewish) and Noahide Law (Christian)? If not Noahide law (Christian) then some other term: Apostolic Law, Early Christian Council Law ... Though I don't buy the argument that if most Christians don't know what Noahide Law is then there shouldn't be an article, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate (by summarizing existing reputable sources), not to reaffirm majority belief and heresay. One more point: what is the difference? For Jews, Noahide Law starts with the determinations of the Rabbis; for Christians, Noahide Law starts with the determination of the Council of Jerusalem. They are not necessarily identical in the details, just as sabbath and passover are not necessarily identical in details between Jewish and Christian interpretation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.78.20.136 (talk • contribs) .
No; because that's not what we call them. That might be where they come from, or not - and some might feel that it's obvious that this is their origin (I do); but what's clear is that there isn't a tradition for Christians, as there is for Jews. There is no Jew or Gentile in Christianity, as there is in Judaism. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Public Law 102-14

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c102:H.J.RES.104.ENR:

One Hundred Second Congress of the United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, the third day of January,

one thousand nine hundred and ninety-one

Joint Resolution

To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'.

Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;

Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;

Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;

Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;

Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future;

Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world;

Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991;

Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, `the rebbe', this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of `education and giving', the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws; and

Whereas this will be reflected in an international scroll of honor signed by the President of the United States and other heads of state: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

This does not indicate that the Sheva Mitzvos are now Public Law. Congress can recognize in a ceremonial way without legislating public law. I will revert further attempts to force this view into the article. JFW | T@lk 01:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
The law is worth a mention and brief quote, see current article. Keep in mind NPOV policy. Is your intention to revert any mention of the law in the article?
OK, you are correct that Congress referring to this subject is worthy of inclusion. I will continue to take issue with categorisation in the Public Law category, which is inappropriate given that it was not the 7 Laws that were enacted but Education Day. JFW | T@lk 20:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


The Ran's problem with Islam

"Islam is a Noahide religion, although the Medieval sage Nissim of Gerona disagrees"

Could whoever put this point about the Ran in please elaborate on the source and exactly what his problem with islam was. Thanks 86.138.188.62 10:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, this is a minority view. All authorities since him agree that Islam is actually the most desirable religion for non-Jews. I would not be opposed to its removal. JFW | T@lk 11:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
You're kidding right? Seriously? Can you give any examples? Ger Or Toshav? 17:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I have no access to the Ran's statement at the moment. As for examples, this is well known. JFW | T@lk 18:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't need to know the Ran's statement, but it would be nice if you could give just one "well known" example following the Rambam since I have not come accross them and there are none indicated in the article so such an example would be useful for readers like me.Ger Or Toshav? 23:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Crikey, this should indeed be referenced properly. I'll need to get access to the CD-ROM version of the Rambam, so I can search for it :-). JFW | T@lk 15:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW Jdwolff, why did you revert User:86.138.188.662's edit? "all contemporary authorities" do not agree that there are sevcen commandments, but "all contemporary authorities agree that" at least there are seven categories. The edit was more objectively accurate and I do not think should have been reverted.Ger Or Toshav? 17:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I reverted because all sources refer to "Sheva Mitzvot", which means "seven commandments". The subdivision is not agreed upon by all authorities. To state that there are seven "categories" is an interpretation. JFW | T@lk 17:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

A Shulchan Aruch for Gentiles

This was added to Shulchan Aruch

After the late Rebbe of Chabad Lubavitch Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson started his famous Noahide Campaign in the 1980's, the number of Gentiles, willing to keep the Seven Laws of Noah as described in the Torah is increasing continuously. A codification of the exact obligations of the Gentiles in the spirit of the classical Shulchan Aruch was needed. In 2005 the scholar Rabbi Moshe Weiner of Jerusalem accepted to produce an in-dept codification of the Noahide precepts.[1] The work is called Sefer Sheva Mitzvot HaShem, published 2008/ 2009. As it is approved by both Chief Rabbis of Israel, Rabbi Shlomo Moshe Amar and Rabbi Yonah Metzger, as well as other chassidic- and non-chassidic halachic authorities like Rabbi Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, Rabbi Gedalia Dov Schwartz and Rabbi Jacob Immanuel Schochet, it has an authoritative character.

This might instead be worth adding here. Any comments? JFW | T@lk 11:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ The Divine Code, R. Moshe Weiner, Ed. Dr. Michael Schulman Ph.D., Vol, I., p. 21, 2008, publ. Ask Noah International ISBN 0981481124
Sounds like a good idea to have in the "Further reading" section. If somebody has the book (one part of it is present in my synagogue), it can also be used as a source. Debresser (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Homosexuality

How does: "24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." imply that male homosexuality is not permitted? And if that somehow implies that male homosexuality isn't permitted, doesn't that mean that female homosexuality isn't permitted? It seems people are applying Leviticus to genesis. 207.196.187.140 (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. I think the article's been changed since then, but I don't really read that part of the Old Testament/Torah as a prohibition of homosexuality, male or female, but it's obviously the traditional viewpoint. It merely says man and wife will become one flesh and not be ashamed. Where is the prohibition? I think it's been interpreted against male homosexuality because it specifically says "a man shall leave his father..." though.98.168.192.162 (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The prohibition was introduced in this part, but was fully described to Moses on Sinai. It´s the same principle of idolatry and blasphemy, for instance, that was only fully described to the jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.11.36.39 (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
So does the fully described prohibition only apply to Jews, or is it supposed to apply to those who received the abbreviated version via Noah? --99.96.100.176 (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
While I don't agree that Gen. 2:24 is to be read as a prohibition of homosexual behaviour, the general answer to your question is "Yes", but it's even more complicated:
[...]the Rabbis laid down the following principle: "Every law that was enjoined upon the Noachidæ and was repeated at Sinai is meant to apply both to Israelites and to non-Israelites; laws that were enjoined upon the Noachidæ and were not repeated at Sinai apply to Israelites only" (Sanh. 59a; R. Jose ben Ḥanina; comp. Bacher, "Ag. Pal. Amor." i. 430 and note) Quoted from: "Laws, Noachian" in: Jewish Encyclopedia, Section "Laws before Sinai" --Teiresia (T) 23:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Maimonides in the Laws of Kings is quite unequivocal that homosexuality is included in this prohibition. JFW | T@lk 21:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I am headed for Gehenna, then. 70.177.94.136 (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The term sexual intercourse between males would have been more appropriate, because homosexuality does refer also to the tendency which alone doesn't form an offense and furthermore intercourses without this tendency remain well forbidden, it includes also female homosexuality which is not prohibited for non-jews nonwithstanding moral judgements on the matter.--Ha-y Gavra (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Male sexual relations are clearly forbidden in the Torah and called an abomination. Lesbian relations and sex are not forbidden, on the other hand. Some random rabbi may think otherwise, but this is the accepted consensus amongst most rabbis, one of the reasons being that semen must not be spilled in vain. But Lesbians do not spill any semen, nor eggs when playing with each other. Lesbian relations are nevertheless disapproved of, since they do not create kids. But they are not forbidden. By the way: The whole way regular, heterosexual women act may be considered lesbian to some degree, from a male perspective - endless hugging, caressing, sleeping in one bed, going to the loo together, etc. While this may not have sexual implications for them, men wouldn't do it nevertheless, since they would feel extremely "gay" doing it. But for women it's just natural. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Alexy, you are mistaken. Only anal sex between males is called that. As far as your claim about lesbianism, you're grossly mistaken. There is an act forbidden between women. In Hebrew, it's called נשים המסוללות (nashim ha-mesollelot). According to most sources, it is forbidden from the Torah, as a subset of "the deeds of Egypt". - Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You people need to stop applying Talmudic and even Jewish Torah interpretations to NOACHIDE Law! Take it word-for-word and leave to Bene Noach to interpret! Why does a Jewish rabbi's opinion matter to a Ben Noach?75.21.119.97 (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The only source for the Noachide laws is Talmudic/Rabbinic law. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The Jewish Encyclopedia states that: "Only six cases of what would ordinarily be illicit connection are forbidden to the Noachid: (1) with mother; (2) with father's wife, even after the father's death; (3) with a married woman, whether married to a Jew or to a non-Jew; (4) with sister by the same mother; (5) pederasty; (6) bestiality." [5] - Homosexuality is not among them. (And of course Lisas statement above is correct.) --Teiresia (T) 23:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Jewish Encyclopedia replaced "homosexuality", which is in the Rambam's original, with "pederasty", for unclear reasons. I have added back "homosexuality" and included a reference to the source. I'll also add a more modern reference soon. I already saw it, just didn't have the chance to write down the precise reference. Debresser (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
You cite Isurei Bi'ah 14:10 [6] and Melachim 9:5 [7] to corraborate your standpoint. The former is just a reference to the latter, so it is really just one source. - The Mishneh Torah however is a post-talmudic work and can thus not be considered as universally binding, and indeed the ashkenazim have instead relied on the Shulchan haAruch w/ the commentaries of the Rema, the teachings of the Rosh, and so on, instead, which dissented with the Rambam on many points.
While I can see how Melachim 9:5 would be considered binding by a follower of Chabad and probably by adherents of the sephardic tradition in general, I cannot accept it as binding for all jews, much less for all humanity.
While I am in no way a rabbi or a halachic authority of any kind, I personally find the Rambams interpretation Gen. 2:24 (על־כן יעזב־איש את־אביו ואת־אמו ודבק באשתו והיו לבשר אחד׃) as a prohibitive verse very far fetched, to say the least.
All other passages in the Tanach pertaining to homosexuality that I am aware of (namely Lev.18:22, Lev.20:13 and Deut. 23:17) are specifically directed at the children of Israel, and thus not binding for the noachide.
This is not the first time this particular discussion takes place between the editors of this article, it has been an issue of debate before in January of this year, in 2010, and in all likelihood many more times. Untill now the resolution was to ommit the point "homosexuality" completely, because it is controversial. - Other editors have put it in again, ignoring the previous discussions, because it seems very important to them to have their point of view reflected here. - It appears to me that this kind of behaviour will never stop, possibly resulting in an edit war, unless a resolution is found that includes both points of view.
I think that your point of view should not be omitted from the article since it is well founded within your particular tradition. —­ I think the wording should be changed in a way that reflects that this opinion is not beyond all question. - The best way to achieve this would probably be to change the wording of law 4 to "Do not engage in immoral sexual conduct.", and add a new paragraph somewehre, that defines this further, including the undisputed points and the opinion of the Rambam on noachide male homosexual behaviour, clearly identifying it as such.
What do you think? - Would that be acceptable to you? --Teiresia (T) 21:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I was going to revert on the grounds that that's one view and we need secondary sources to establish that it's a common view. However, the already cited jewishvirtuallibrary.org lists homosexual relationships. However, their source (sorry if this link doesn't work, but it's the entry "Noahide Laws" in the Encyclopedia Judaica) does not list homosexuality.
Looking through the JVL's website more, I suspect that if a Christian parallel to that site was cited in an article on Christian belief, I'd demand a better source, and only allow material from that site to be included where it is supported by other sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The reply to Teiresia and Ian.thomson is one and the same. The Rambam is not a "particular tradition" or "one view". In these laws, his view is basically the only authoritative one. Codifiers like the Tur and Shulchan Aruch have not codified these laws, and can not be expected therefore to express an opinion. By the way, let me just add that when looking over the sources, I noticed that there are other Jewish sages who say the same, but, as I said, none that are as authoritative as he.
I already said that I will add a contemporary source soon, and will make an effort to do this later today.
The question both of you ask, should rather be asked the other way around, namely, on what basis did jewishvirtuallibrary.org change from the clear ruling of the Rambam? Debresser (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Because JVL is a non-primary source, and Wikipedia favors non-primary sources. I'm not entirely satisfied with the other primary sources in the article either. Ideally, primary sources should be used to support non-primary sources, such as verifying quotes. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
That is correct, which is why I will definitely bring that other source. Yesterday I didn't have a chance to go to the library, but today, I already made a note on my mobile to go there. :)
By the way, it is very common in Judaism-related articles to bring sources like the Rambam, and they are often considered secondary sources, since the (not physically existent) Halakha is the primary source, so to speak. Debresser (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Islam

I see there is already some existing argument about "Islam" as an "invented practise". Avoiding further discussion of רם-בם, I've just pointed out that Sharia law and the Noahide laws both endorse similar practises. If anyone feels this is badly phrased or incompletely, feel free to change it, but I'd really prefer if Islam remained referenced here. סרסלי, קײק פּלז (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the sort section on Islam, tagged as unsourced for some time. It will need sources that specifically discuss the conection. Misarxist (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seven_Laws_of_Noah/Archive_1&oldid=1041706816"