Talk:Christian Torah-submission

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 July 2007. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

Notes

We can leave it because the theologians use it, but "abrogated" is nothing but a semantic loophole to get around Matthew 5. It means nothing more than "abolish.": http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/abrogate

Abrogate means to abolish a law and "abolish" is used in Eph 2:15. 75.0.11.48 23:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the article. I considered it to be of excellent quality except for the parts that I corrected with minor or subtle changes. I was considering adding a footnote about Shabbat timing, but felt that would be more appropriate for the Shabbat or Sabbath articles. Samuel Erau 16:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom -- When someone has time, can they explain to me why the article believes that the NT's comment about circumcision of the heart thereby nullifies the law put forth by Adonai through Moshe back in Leviticus?? We are taught in our assembly that if you DONT get circumcised even if you accept Yashua and the Laws you are not allowed to participate in Passover. Because the Passover laws say an uncircumcised person cannot participate. Help me out; thanks Rivka 19:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My best guess for how you read the article as asserting that the NT nullifies Leviticus is that the article's statement that 1 Cor. 7:18 "should be held to strictly" seems to overemphasise Paul's allowance to merely "let" the uncircumcised man remain so, even though such an allowance may, by itself, merely be an accession to fellowship which does not nullify him later learning that he should obey Lev. 23:5 without neglecting Ex. 12:48. So, to answer your question Rivka, the article's blunt statement that 1 Cor. 7:18 was strictly "prohibiting a change in the status of circumcision", that statement having begun with the word "Therefore", and that statement having immediately followed a statement about circumcision of the heart is what made the article believe (assert) that. Samuel Erau 07:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rivka, without discussing the specific interpretations of circumcision, I believe that that the question of properly eating of the Pesach lamb is a moot point today, because no one, including Orthodox Jews, are keeping Passover according to Exodus 12. There is no lamb to eat which was sacrificed at the temple, and Exodus 12:48 cannot apply unless that qualification is met. The seders that many people hold are memorial and honoring to God, but do not and cannot fulfill Torah.Namikiw 19:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Namikiw[reply]

In that you are incorrect, nami, at least according to the Jewish faith. The absence of the lamb does not mean the seder is not fulfilling the Torah at all. It means the commandment about the lamb is unfulfilled. This is another example as to how Christian interpretation of the Bible is not equivalent to the Torah. -- Avi 12:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya User:Rivka: Note, Judaism would consider your usage of the word "Adonai" a violation of the Ten Commandments (i.e. taking God's name in vain etc), and it's highly offensive to many observant Jews the way that you do that. If you really have to (to "prove" profiency with the Hebrew langauge if you must), use the word Hashem instead. Okay? IZAK 13:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of neutrality

This article, as written, is a blanket statement of what the movement in question believes to be true. Encyclopedic format requires that it state the beliefs of the movement as beliefs. In other words, not "The Bible teaches..." but "This movement, unlike somebody else, believes that the Bible teaches..." (ideally followed by a verifiable citation to publications of this movement). Links to follow should be to third-party accounts of the movement, its activities, its controversies, etc., not just to sites of its advocates. Shalom! --Orange Mike 18:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying. However, nearly every statement in this article does follow Encyclopedic format. If there are statements which do not conform to this format ("This view holds..." rather than "The Bible teaches") you, or anyone, is free to make those minor changes to make it fit the format, without anyone's objection. (If I have a chance, I may review it myself.) This is also the case with any of the links to controversies, etc. This encyclopedia is editable.

At this point where these phrases are changed, it will be completely objective and neutral, stating fact (They believe...) rather than opinion (This verse means...). Namikiw 19:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Namikiw[reply]

The tag still needs to stay on the article. Look at any random passage and you will find "the Bible says..." as opposed to "they believe that the Bible says..."; you will find cryptic abbreviations of Bible references without wikilinks which would make no sense to a non-Christian reader; etc. While it's not as much as a mess as the talk page (which I see is now being used to argue theology instead of discuss improving the article), the article still needs a lot of work. --Orange Mike 20:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Having no wikilinks has nothing to do with "neutrality". If this becomes your only objection, the tag should be changed.

2. The one phrase saying "Biblically prohibited" has been changed to "prohibited in the Torah" - Granted

3. Please cite other specific examples to be discussed and/or changed because it is not clear what else you are referring to. The article does not contain any instances of the phrase "the Bible says," let alone finding that phrase in "any random passage". If there are no other specifics, the tag should be removed. Namikiw 20:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be written in an objective tone. It describes a view without stating the beliefs of the view are absolute. Not sure what the fuss is about. 129.15.127.254 14:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Consensus

To me it, it appears that this article is written from a neutral point of view. Since the POV question was been raised, I see that several changes have been made to further improve that status.

I think this article is neutral because:

this article claims to be one view and not the absolute view
the individual phrases of this article are also consistent with portraying this as one view among many
this article cites plentiful sources of many kinds
this article cites and links alternate/objecting viewpoints throughout

I also note that the one editor who has expressed a concern about neutrality has not helped to improve the article and has not provided any further specific objections.

Therefore, I propose that the neutrality tag be removed.

If anyone has any objections to removing the tag, please state them specifically.
If anyone agrees that the article is written in a neutral tone, please state your agreement

Remember that while the view may certainly be met with disagreement, this is not a valid reason to contest the neutrality of this article which attempts to explain the view in an objective and accurate manner. Namikiw 22:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The name is a violationof WP:NPOV#Undue weight at the very least, and a misrepresentation of what Torah means. -- Avi 12:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Template

A new template was placed on this article today. However, the citations cited in the article are aptly related to their respective statements and it appears to me that the listings under references conform to the standards of WP:Citing sources. I prefer to give editors the benefit of the doubt, but it appears to me that the tag was arbitrarily put here, possibly as an attempt to give momentum to a deletion process which appears to be stalling.

There is no way to know why this was placed on the article because no note was posted on the talk page, and no specific "fact" requests were placed on the page. Without valid reasons given, I propose the template be removed soon. Namikiw 22:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Record of "merge to Messianic Judaism" discussion initiated by Avi

Much of Christian Torah-submission seems to be a near copy of this article. A merge/redirect seems to be in order. -- Avi 18:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid your suggestion to merge this with Messianic Judaism shows a significant misunderstanding of this subject matter. While Christian Torah-submission is an issue within Messianic Judaism, it is not only a Messianic, or Jewish, issue. It is an article on a Christian view, held also by many ethnic Gentiles (as cited), that value and follow Torah (see the wikilinks to the Adventist, Ethiopian Orthodox, and Church of God movements). The fact that there are comparatively few sources citing non-Messianic Jewish related practice, means only that citations should be added, not that the article should be merged with Messianic Judaism. (I'm quoting almost verbatim from a previous discussion because the issue remains the same.)
- I will also quote another editor, User:Jewbask from the same recent discussion, since it applies:

The article is well sourced (perhaps it needs to be expanded a little) and it describes the core of certain christian belief systems with a substantial number of followers, although different in some important aspects. For instance, the followers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church do not circumcise, which is one of the most important mitsvot, while in Ethiopian Orthodox Church it is as mandatory as it is in Judaism, and that is quite a difference. I think it should be left the way it is. I don't believe that it advocates anything; in fact, this is one of the few articles I've seen that has links to "pro" and "con" views on a particular interpretation of the Old Testament. Plus, personally I have studied in a Seventh-day Adventist Church Elementary School in my hometown (we had no jewish school by then) and their beliefs and practices are very different from Messianic Judaism and they always try to make that point clear. Something similar occurs with the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, so I don't think this article should be deleted or renamed; this article and (most of) all Wikipedia articles are intended to expand people's knowledge on a particular matter, whether we like it or not its content. Please leave it the way it is. --JewBask

Namikiw 22:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. However, how do you jibe the article with the fact that the word "Torah," for millenia, has been defined as a uniquely Jewish concept. There may be Christians who believe in a literal reading of the Old Testemant, but even they would say that they are not following the "Torah", but the Five Books of Moses. Perhaps the article should remain as is, but be moved to "Christian-Old Testament Submission"? -- 23:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Undeniably, the term “Torah” has been used more widely historically in Judaism than within Christian faith and practice. However, to claim that the term is not, or cannot, be used within Christianity, is simply not accurate. Just one major example of this is the fact that prolific Christian writer and teacher Walter Kaiser, Jr. uses the term “Torah” almost exclusively while referring to Old Testament Law in his contribution to Five Views on Law and Gospel. The concept of the law being the Torah portion of “Torah, Nevi’im, and K’tuvim” is also found in New Testament writing (Luke 24:44–49). Whether that compilation is called “Tanakh,” “Hebrew Bible,” or “Old Testament,” it was written in Hebrew, it’s terms and concepts are Hebrew, and commentators have used those Hebrew terms to describe its theological ideas. With regards to the name and content of this article, “Old Testament” refers to 39 books. “Pentateuch” or “Five books of Moses” refer to five books. The term “Torah” most descriptively, concisely, and literally refers to the “instruction” found in those five books. The term is derived from the Bible and is used by Christians. Therefore, it seems most fitting.

Similarly, it seems to me that there is a motivation here to attempt to keep Jewish and Christian faith and practice in completely separate spheres. This motivation is completely understandable. Unfortunately, in an encyclopedic setting, this preference cannot and should not override the verifiable fact that a notable number of Christians are teaching otherwise; that Christianity comes from a fundamentally Jewish root and its faith and practice looks more Jewish than historically realized. Simply asserting a complete separation does not change the fact that a number of ethnically Gentile Christians teach and believe otherwise and use the terminology used in this article and its sources. Namikiw 18:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Namikiw - in that Messianic believers, including those not ethnically Jewish according to rabbinic standards, use the terminology such as "Torah" used in this article. See http://ffoz.org or http://ctomc.org or any other Torah-observant Messianic ministry online. However there are other ministries that use the phrase "Torah" that are not Messianic but are just as much catered to Gentile participation in observing Torah as Messianic believers. This would then lead me to conclude that a merge is not necessary with Messianic Judaism because Messianic Judaism is exclusive in its scope to Torah observant believers of Yeshua who identify themselves as "Messianic" in term. inigmatus 19:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree. It would be counter-intuitive, and possibly/probably counterproductive, to try to create an article which would seem to imply a linkage between the Seventh-day Adventist church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, and the Messianic Judaism faith. They all have separate views of Torah-submission, and trying to link them in this article would probably create more problems than it might solve. John Carter 19:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi, John. I appreciate your opinion. For clarity, it sounds like you probably disagree with me and Inigmatus. I am suggesting that they all do remain linked as a movement because of their strikingly similar traits; traits which do not just belong to Messianic Judaism. What I was defending above in the discussion of Hebrew was simply the validity of the use of the term "Torah" to describe a Christian movement. Namikiw 20:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, it was more or less my own failure to communicate clearly, which happens a lot in my case. Sorry about that. Obviously, they are all linked by their functional agreement on the use of the Torah, as it were, even if they had divergent ways of reaching that point. I do think that naming conventions would allow and perhaps even indicate that the title reflect the usage of the group involved. So, if they observe the Old Testament and call it Torah, then it makes perfect sense to say that they are "Torah-observant" or some similar construction. And, as it seems to be one of the more recognizable ways of referring to that sort of belief, that would also indicate that such usage would be at least acceptable, and possibly even indicated. However, a merger would probably not be something I would approve, given the widely divergent "paths" to following the Torah these groups took. John Carter 20:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - And do the 7th day adventists and Ethiopian Orthodox call there Old Testemant the "Torah"? Yes there may be one or two Christian authors who do, and there are the Jews for Jesus and Messianics who do, but I believe the VAST majority of Christians who adhere to a more literal understanding of the Old Testament do NOT call it "Torah", and more importantly, what they are adhering to is NOT the "Torah", as it has been defined for the past 2500 years. That Torah is the unique amalgam of Oral and Written law as has been passed down from Moses via the Jewish faith. Last I checked, the Ethiopian Orthodox did not fast on Yom Kippur (a capital offense if one doesn't) and the 7th day adventists do not put up mezuzos. Keeping one or two, or 10 laws does not mean "Torah" observance. Keeping the tens of thousands of laws that result from the 613 cardinal commandments is Torah observance. While I understand the differences and see that the merge may not be appropriate, I believe this name is a severe violation of WP:NPOV. -- Avi 12:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Namikiw's/Christian Torah-submission goals

It has been quite entertaining watching Namikiw (talk · contribs) carve out of thin air the entire subject of "Christian Torah-submission" with all its tentacles on Wikipedia -- one of the greatest and sneakiest oxymorons and neologisms so obviously ambiguous and misleading to anyone who knows something intelligent about the totality of these diverse and complex subjects. It is theologically and logically impossible to be both Christian and "submit" to the Torah! Meshuga would be the best way to describe it! The Torah and the word "Torah" is synonymous with normative Judaism -- not Christianity or any shred of it in any way, shape, size or form -- indeed another name for Judaism is Torah Judaism. After all could one ever conceive that a creature such as "Jewish New Testament-submission" could ever exist and still have the arrogance and audacity to call itself either truly part of "Judaism" or "Christianity"? But this is exactly what User:Namikiw has been toiling and laboring so hard to achieve for so many weeks now. It is time to put a stop to the intellectual and spiritual insults that he is hoisting on all-too-patient editors and readers who by now know too well that Messianic Judiasm exists in its own unique state of intellectual limbo and that it does not need to have de facto clones and "cyborgs" of itself popping up with "auspicious" ("suspicious") sounding names that mean absolutely nothing, but which are only replicas of an old tune and goal, Supersessionism. Therefore, User: Avi's motion should be fully and resolutely supported by all clear-thinking objective editors who wish to adhere to a NPOV and who abhor duplication by devious means. IZAK 08:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have enraged my fellow editors so much. Apparently this subject strikes an emotional nerve in many which has provoked a suprising amount of extremely POV accusation and aggression surrounding this article. I will not enter into a theological discussion here. The verifiable fact is, there are a significant number of Christians who teach and submit to the Biblical instruction found in the Torah. I acknowledge the fact that you don't like it, and you can polemicize against it all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that this exists. I will also comment below with regards to this proposed move. -Namikiw 14:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge into Law in Christianity. -- Namikiw 16:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Torah-submission → Christian Old Testament-submisson — As described above, even those Christian faiths who adhere to a more literal meaning of the Old Testament in no way shape or form adhere to the 3000-year old definition of the Torah, with its 613 cardinal commandments and tens of thousands of resulting laws, commandments, prohibitions, and requirements. The use of the term "Torah", even if found sporadically in Christian writing, is misleading, WP:NPOV, and at the very least, WP:NPOV#Undue weight —Avi 12:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support As stated in various above sections. My primary concern is the improper use of the term Torah. If a more suitable replacement instead of "Old Testament" can be found, I would be amenable to that as well. -- Avi 12:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Torah is not the appropriate term to use in the context of Christian submission to it. It should be Christian Old Testament-submission. --Son 12:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, reluctantly, because this so-called excuse for a "notion" is a neologism and violation of WP:NEO as well as being pseudo-religious gibberish violating WP:NOR and WP:NONSENSE and it should go entirely, yet it's still on Wikipedia. Why? Another round of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Torah-submission should be tried again. IZAK 13:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The current title is confusing. gidonb 13:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my comments below, I support a rename, but I do think that it would make more sense to merge this article into Law in Christianity, which is quite sparse at the moment and has a name that accurately describes the material. "Christian Old Testament-submission" is an awkward title, and verges on being a neologism as well. Daniel^C/_T+ 13:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Daniel is definitely onto something here. His propsal is a very good one. It's a clearer title and topic. IZAK 14:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added merge templates according to Daniel's suggestion. gidonb 14:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge to Law in Christianity and I have begun making the move as it appears there is a consensus. Namikiw 16:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Comment - Is "Christian Torah-submission" a commonly used term within any community (MJ, maybe)? The external links don't make use of it, and while Google estimates 2080 hits for the entire phrase, it actually returns only 31 (christian "torah submission" returns 82), the large majority of which are mirrors of different version of this article or references to this article. If it can be shown that this is an accepted and widely (or even moderately) used term referring to strict obedience to their "Old Testament" laws within otherwise Christian communities I don't have a problem with the current title. If it's been invented solely for the purposes of naming this article, however, at the very minimum there needs a lot of discussion before we combine Christian and Jewish concepts in a way that could be construed as a neologism/original research. Daniel^C/_T+ 13:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking through the AfD that Izak linked above, of the 7 votes to keep, 5 of these supported a rename and/or better referencing of the term and phenomenon. The only added reference that's been kept since that AfD was to Law in Christianity, which actually might be a good target for a potential merge from this article. Daniel^C/_T+ 13:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, has anyone noticed this? It seems to be where this article stems from, but it also lacks any support for the title. If anything happens with Christian Torah-submission we should ensure that the changes are applied there as well. I'm posting an RfC on Talk:Old Testament. Daniel^C/_T+ 13:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this article exists only to try to make Christians sound more jewish i think the author may have been trying to pov push very few christians follow the torah for example jews are not allowed to build on top of a pagan temple but the vatican is built on top of a mithraic (a type of paganism) temple also please rename this article to a title that makes sense--Java7837 13:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thus per above i do not see the reason why this article is neccesary --Java7837 13:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - better title would be Hebrew Bible-observance by Christians --Java7837 13:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are some "examples" that would make it remotely anything like Judaism? IZAK 14:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Torah" does not simply mean simply the books of the "Old Testament" as Avi, Izak, and Java7837 would have us believe - even within Judaism. All one has to do to verify this is simply read the opening paragraph of the Torah article. Therefore, in my opinion, it would be much too general and undescriptive to rename the article "Old Testament submission" or "Hebrew Bible submission."

In response to Daniel's comment, I am aware of no sources outside of the Messianic Jewish movement which use the terminology, "Torah-submission." (It is worth noting: As discussed in the deletion discussion, the term is intended to be descriptive of the view, and not a neologism.) If other editors are aware of such sources, then I do not support a move. Since it seems unlikely that they may arise soon, it is on this basis that I agree with Daniel (above) that the most fitting resolution would be a merge of this article into Law in Christianity. If there are no objections, then that would seem to be an acceptable solution to me. -Namikiw 14:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Torah" does not simply mean simply the books of the "Old Testament" as Avi, Izak, and Java7837 would have us believe - even within Judaism. All one has to do to verify this is simply read the opening paragraph of the Torah article. Therefore, in my opinion, it would be much too general and undescriptive to rename the article "Old Testament submission" or "Hebrew Bible submission."
— Namikiw 14:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC), Talk:Christian Torah-submission

I have to disagree with you here, Namikiw. In 3000 years of Jewish theology and 2000 years of Christian theology, the term Torah has in the overwhelming, vast, super majority of the time referred to the uniquely Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament. You pointed towards the wikipedia Torah article, which defines the Torah as “…the most important document in Judaism,” “The term is sometimes also used in the general sense to also include both Judaism's written law and oral law, encompassing the entire spectrum of authoritative Jewish religious teachings throughout history…” Even the phrase “The Torah comprises the first five books of the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible, and of the Pentateuch known as Old Testament of the Christian Bible.” does not mean that the Christians believe in the Torah, but that they understand the Jewish Torah to be the first 5 books of the old testament. Of course, this is irrelevant, as wikipedia itself cannot be used to bolster other wikipedia articles.

While the term Torah is often meant to refer to more than the 5 books of Moses, it is (almost) NEVER used to refer to anything outside the corpus of Jewish law. As I said, looking at millenia after millenia of religious theological texts and philosphy, no-one would ever have said that anyone but Jews adhere to the "Torah". Are there any Christian faiths (outside of the sects that try to merge Christianity and Judaism, which is not a discussion for this article) which keep circumcision AND the Sabbath AND the festivals AND phylacteries AND tzitzis AND mezuzah AND tithes on grain and firstborn animals AND do not wear linen mixed with wool AND do not eat pork AND do not eat certain veins in the hindquarters of cattle AND require ritual slaughter of cattle, poultry, and game AND do not eat shellfish AND do not mix milk and meat AND do not eat the forbidden birds, AND (I could go on for a few thousand more examples)? No. There is not.

Namikiw, it may well be true that there are certain Christian faiths that more closely adhere to some small sections of the Old Testament, but that does not make them "Torah" adherents any more than it makes them Jewish. The Torah is not the Old Testament; Jews and Christians alike believe this. The Torah does not allow the creation of graven images; so how can one explain a crucifix?! I am certain that the Christian scholars of the Old Testament have answers to that, but that is not the Torah view.

All of the above are just some of the reasons why I believe that the article, its worthiness in and of itself for wiki notwithstanding, must have a different name. This one violates WP:NPOV, both ipso facto as well as the undue weight clause, and is a rather egregious example of original synthesis as it tries to create a connection between two items which have been considered EXTREMELY distinct for at LEAST 2000 years. Wikipedia is NOT the place to create such theological constructions. -- Avi 15:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.