Talk:Shituf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Copied from Talk:Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms

Contents

[edit] Trinitarianism, shituf and Arianism

Tim wrote: "Okay, so is Lisa right and there are NO Rabbinic sources that disagree with Christianity? Apparently so."

Am I the only one who is getting tired of this? Tim, if you want to retain an assumption of good faith, you have to stop this. Seriously. All rabbinic sources disagree with Christianity. You are engaging in spin, based upon your personal POV opinion of the issues, and it's just wildly inappropriate. You've been called on it by myself and by Slrubenstein, and possibly by others, but you don't seem to have any willingness whatsoever to acknowledge that you are mistaken.

You are saying this:

Fact: Shituf = Arianism
Fact: Shituf ≠ Trinitarianism

This is your personal opinion. It may be the view of Christianity as well. It is not fact. Fact is:

Jewish view: Shituf = Trinitarianism
Christian view: Shituf ≠ Trinitarianism; Shituf = Arianism[1]

Consider the path of a disagreement. You want to start after a determination is made about whether trinitarianism is or is not shituf, and look at what Judaism has to say. But the disagreement starts further back on that path. With the very determination of whether trinitarianism is or is not shituf. That is the disagreement.

You cannot say that it is not. That's OR. That's POV. That's simply one view. There is another verifiable view of the matter, and you keep trying to sweep it under the carpet and pretend that it either doesn't exist or has no validity.

You've said "Christianity defines Christianity". And the answer to that is "not here, it doesn't". Here, Christianity only defines the Christian view of Christianity.

Please take a step back and try and realize that continuing to say things like "are there are NO Rabbinic sources that disagree with Christianity?" only places you further outside of Wikipedia policy and makes it impossible for this conflict to end. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Not that I know this to be the case; I'm assuming that as a former Christian theologian, you are correct.
Lisa -- on a complete aside here... this is important even for anti-missionary work. Right now the sources we've found are okay to keep most Jews from going to Christianity if they are taught it well enough to not pay attention to the Christian view. But what about those who are already converted to Christianity? In years past Jews weren't allowed to engage in persuasive dialogue to get their own back. We really didn’t need to address the Christian view of itself because we’d be physically attacked if we tried. But if we want to persuade Christian Jews to return from their apostasy, we need to give answers to what they themselves think. It is their minds we are trying to reach. So, looking for 3 is good for interfaith dialogue (if you’re into that), and it’s also good for polemical attack (if you’re into that). It’s like those well guided bombs we use nowadays. In previous wars we just made bigger and bigger bombs and hoped they hit something. Now we have a bomb that will fly across two countries, down an alleyway, through a window, and into the enemy’s lap. Big bombs, or laser precision? Maybe both is best in warfare, but definitely get that precision if it’s available. Is it correct to say that Judaism teaches the Trinity is Shituf? Well (now that there aren’t any exceptions anyone is aware of, absolutely). And in a Jewish paradigm, that’s about as good as you can do (our concepts don’t fit in their language either). But we live in a new day, where the old truths have an audience that wasn’t available to us before – the lost Jews. Let’s reach them exactly where they are so we can bring them back, shall we?Tim (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Process

Lisa, there are several layers to this:

  1. Each religion defines itself
  2. Each religion defines its own view – even of other religions
  3. If you can find a view of another religion that is recognizable by that religion, use that citation
  4. If you cannot find such a citation, recognize that they are not talking about the same concept, make the best citation you can, and move on

Our disconnect has been that I’ve been searching for item number 3 before settling with 4.

“Okay, so is Lisa right and there are NO Rabbinic sources that disagree with Christianity? Apparently so.”

That statement was simply giving up on 3 and settling for 4. I agree with you that 4 is absolutely valid for Wikipedia. It’s just that 3, if it exists, is even better.

That’s all.

The statement wasn’t being argumentative. It was just saying, “Okay, if I a universally intelligible statement can’t be found, file it away in our heads and move on.”

Hope that clears it up.Tim (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] And the specific example

I just realized that it may be helpful to translate that process to this instance:

  1. The Christian view of the Christian doctrine is the Christian doctrine
  2. The Jewish view of the Christian doctrine is the Jewish view of the Christian doctrine
  3. If you can find a Jewish view of the Christian doctrine that ADDRESSES the Christian doctrine, that’s the perfect citation
  4. If you can’t, then settle for a citation that shows the Jewish view of the Christian doctrine, and move on

Is it acceptable to give a citation of a Jewish view that doesn’t match the actual doctrine it’s addressing? Sure – but for the sake of the readers do a second check to see if there could be an even better citation.

I had thought Telushkin to be that citation. He seemed to be the greatest scholar in all of Judaism to actually fill number 3. Is he the greatest scholar in all of Judaism? Of course not! From Moses to Moses, there has never been another like Moses… (but there are a lot of great men with different names nonetheless).

I was okay with “the vast majority in all of history thinks thus and so” even if it seemed there was an exception. I wasn’t comfortable with “EVERY Jew thinks thus and so” when I was looking at one Rabbi who I thought was an exception. “Every” statements are tough to document on Wikipedia. But, if there really isn’t an exception, THEN “every Jew thinks thus and so” is okay as well. At least we took the time to look.

Fair?Tim (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I'm not sure where you (and others?) have come up with #1, that each religion defines itself. This is too narrow for Wikipedia policy. Granted, for article names, religious groups are self-identifying entities. But for religious terms etc., we don't rely only on what religious "insiders" and their primary sources say ("first order" definitions) but also on observations by reliable secondary sources ("second order" definitions). For a recent discussion of 1st and 2nd order definitions, with Judaism as an example, see Michael Satlow's "Defining Judaism: Accounting for 'Religion' in the Study of Religion" in the Journal of the Amer Acad of Religion (Dec 2006). Thanks. HG | Talk 14:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

HG -- my idea is that when "first order" (1) and "second order" (2) definitions match (3), that's the first citation to look for. If not (4), then have 1, 2, and 4 instead. I'm not saying to AVOID 4. I'm just saying to check for 3 first. That's all.Tim (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with #1 as well, but I particularly disagree with Tim's rule that 3 is better than 4. It's not. Tim wrote: "If you can find a Jewish view of the Christian doctrine that ADDRESSES the Christian doctrine, that’s the perfect citation". But that's not true. Not unless it's a representative Jewish view. Telushkin's, even had he meant what Tim thought he meant, was not. Furthermore, the view of a rabbi in a popular book is not considered an authoritative Jewish view. If Telushkin were to write a scholarly book, using Torah sources and Torah methodology, it would be considered a valid source. Not a major one, because Telushkin is not a major halakhic authority, but at least he'd be a source to use for this. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- for one thing, you and I are in the minority of the "Jewish view." Only 10% of us are observant and give a bleep about halakhic authority. You and I do for our personal lives. Certainly we'd like to encourage more of that in the other 90%. Also, I'd like to be able to lean on you for the big bombs. I'd just appreciate it if you could try to aim them where I'm pointing the laser beam if at all possible. I had THOUGHT it was possible in that instance. I was wrong. But that doesn't mean it's wrong to do so when you can. But more to the point -- a big bomb 3 is MUCH better than a little nugget 3. Absolutely! And should it be "representative"? Yes, again. But, still, look for the 3 if you can. You pull out the guns and let me communicate the location of the target. If you have a gun pointed in that direction -- please, shoot that one first.Tim (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim, you are asking us to violate WP:NPOV, our non-negotiable policy. NPOV demands that all notable views be described in the article. When you write,
  1. If you can find a Jewish view of the Christian doctrine that ADDRESSES the Christian doctrine, that’s the perfect citation
  2. If you can’t, then settle for a citation that shows the Jewish view of the Christian doctrine, and move on
You seem to be saying that when Rabbis make claims about trinitarianism or Christianity they are not "really" talking about the "real" trinity or what Christianity "really" is. So what? It doesn't matter. I do not care if you think Rabbis misunderstand trinitarianism or Christianity, and I do not care whether you understand judaism, because these matters are irrelevant to writing a WIkipedia article. The issue is NOT this argument over shituf. The issue is much simpler: NPOV. You are putting a condition on what views can be included in an article. You are simply wrong. ANd I am ending discussion on this. You are welcome to argue all you want to, but you would better spend your time reflecting on our NPOV policy and the fact that it requires all of us to accept in article views we consider wrong, bad, inaccurate, or even misinformed. That's it. This is the key point you refuse to accept. I am not going to try to explain it to you again, and Lisa's explanation was clear enough too and I can't imagine she would want to waste time explaining it to you again. If you distort or remove a view on the grounds that you do not believe it is accurately addressing what it claims to be addressing, I will just revert you, and with no further explanation, this paragraph IS the explanation. I will revert you, or others will revert you. And if you see mediation or orbitration your case will be rejected or you will lose, because you cannot violate NPOV. Period. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

All I see Tim saying is, don't use the OR of "every Jew thinks/doesn't think thus and so" as has been done with figs and everything else under the sun here (which is a major reason for my AfD), find some cites. If you can't find cites right now then move on to the next item. Is that a big problem? -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm also saying that if 98% of your audience won't understand what your citation is saying (or will know immediately is on the wrong subject), see if there is a better one. Don't distort the Jewish view, by all means. But see if there is a source that makes some kind of sense to everyone else. If not, go ahead with the unintelligible one until someone finds something better. It is a valid back country view that "I vote democrat because I'm against abortion." Okay, that IS a valid point of view to a lot of people. But, uh... see if there are any others to throw in there too, if you can. And if it's minority or lacks authority -- or distorted -- then it's not good for a source either. But if you HAVE two valid Jewish sources, one of which 100% of the audience can make sense of, and one of which 2% of the audience can make sense of... then do the math. Does that violate NPOV? Excuse me while I see what planet we're all on...Tim (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You know, I have to add -- this whole line of conversation is a little bizarre. I never said "don't use 4". I just said "check for a 3". Even if you HAVE a 3 and the 4 is more representative of the "Jewish view", well, you're stuck with the 4. But checking for something all the audience will identify is called... uh... writing.Tim (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You're complaining about this:
  1. If you can find a Jewish view of the Christian doctrine that ADDRESSES the Christian doctrine, that’s the perfect citation
  2. If you can’t, then settle for a citation that shows the Jewish view of the Christian doctrine, and move on
At NO point do I intend to suggest that you avoid the Jewish view. I'm just suggesting to double check sources that make sense to the public forum we're in.Tim (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with finding cites saying something like this:

  • Some Jews view Trinity as three separate and equal Gods.
  • Some Jews view Trinity as lesser deities leading to the one true God.
  • Some Jews view Trinity as being the one God with two manifestations, like Shechinah = Holy Spirit and its presence in humans = tzadikim, rebbes.

The last view is scarce but I've seen it out there. That covers every possible view, doesn't it? -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

BB, the problem would be, as Lisa is saying -- what is the normative and authoritative view? I had thought that the majority view is Shituf but (I think) I've heard Lisa say otherwise. So, you don't want to misrepresent the Jewish view, and you don't want to distort the Jewish view by giving undue weight to a lesser view. To put my own OR and POV in the discussion -- the trinity really doesn't logically "fit" in a Jewish paradigm. I remember the first time I "got it" -- it REALLY looked polytheistic! Shituf was... the most polite way to dismiss it, and it was going over backwards to do even that. I had to pull out Calvin's Institutes and reprogram my brain in the trinitarian operating system before I could get back to work as a pastor. After a while I could go back and forth -- seeing the two views. There actually IS a Jewish response to why the trinitarian's own doctrine is theoretically idolatrous in Judaism, and it's found in Maimonides' Guide to the Perplexed. It has to do with ANY definition to God. A definition is a limitation -- a conceptual handle. The actual trinitarian doctrine is refuted on those lines. But I have never seen any authoritative Jewish sources that applied Maimonides explanation of conceptual idolatry to the trinity, and I was REALLY banking on Lisa being able to find one. I couldn't find it, and I certainly couldn't say it -- but if I kept asking Lisa to look, if it DID exist out there, she had a good chance to find it. Is shituf and idolatry more mainstream than the conceptual issue (which may not even exist)? Absolutely! But I had thought Telushkin had hit it on the Maimonidean angle (I've asked Telushkin and am waiting for an answer) -- which, WOULD be notable enough to include even if a minority view, because Maimonides (if he had been applied that way) is a foundational representative of Jewish thought. I'll have to research Nachmanides now -- he had a debate with a converted Jew that I want to read. He'd also be a good source. But if it did exist it would be SO minority that it fails the notability enough to include it. Again, I only suggested to look for 3. I never said don't do 4 if 3 didn't exist.Tim (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... looks like we're both going to be blocked. I'll meet you in an afterlife somewhere, BB.Tim (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he will block as long as we don't attack anymore. At least I hope he sees blame needs to go all the way around, not just heaped on one side.

Anyway...so is it that you are looking for something that says Gentiles shouldn't even think about God in limited terms, or being of a partnership? The long lists of Noahide laws I think covers a lot of that, I gave a link to one but there are other versions. -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, more of something that Gentiles CAN but Jews CAN'T. I have no idea if this is the right track, but I'm looking to see what people have said on it. If it's notable within Judaism, at least Christians would have a definition that helped them figure out what the idolatry isn't idolatry thing is. Again, I could be on the wrong track, but I'd like to know. And if there is something Jewish, mainstream, and notable along those lines -- that's a definite 3 to include in there along with all the 4s.Tim (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we kind of leave off with that being unresolved? In the archives I posted:

Most recent authorities agree that Children of Noah are forbidden to believe in a partnership. But even according to these, the Children of Noah are permitted to swear by the name of an idol in combination with God (to swear by the Lord of Hosts and a Hindu deity, for example).Idolatry

Well, this says MOST. So they have reason to think that SOME don't agree they are forbidden, right? So you are on the right track, if you want to give all sides of the story. I don't think it matters that one is way more notable than another, for simple honesty's sake if not every single Jew on the planet believes it is forbidden then you still kind of have to say some don't, which is a lot of what I've been griping about here, the desire to make it black or white when it's not really that way. The question now is finding a source that says some believe it is specifically not forbidden. -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this is more to the point:

So long as ascribing power to a deity other than the Creator remains conceptual, it is permissible to the Children of Noah according to many authorities[6]. But worship of this independent being is clearly idolatry. Idolatry -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to say conceptualizing Jesus as a deity other than the Creator is permissible (for Gentiles), as long as you don't worship him. So if it is true that Arians don't worship Jesus but only honor him as this lesser created deity -- I don't know if it is true with all of them -- then that idea of Trinity is permitted, if that's what the Arian Trinity is. Only the idea of Trinity with Jesus worshiped as God is idolatry and forbidden. That's what I'm getting here, anyway. -Bikinibomb (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
"I'm just suggesting to double check sources that make sense to the public forum we're in" BEEEEP! WRONG! We do not cherry'pick sources to find ones that figt certain expectiations of hopes we have. We donot look for sources that support points of view we like. We research reliable verifiable sources to dientify notafiable points of view, period. It does not matter wheher you or I ´´think´´ the source makes sense, let alone makes sense to the general public. Yes, we try to ´´write´´ an article that is clearly written. But the standard for sources is that they are reliable and verifiable, NOT that some group finds them sensible. And we include views because they are notable, not because we think some readers will find them sensible. That´s all there is to say. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Sl -- once again, I've never said you couldn't (or shouldn't) have a 1, 2, 4 citation. If 4 is more representative of (in this case) Judaism, by all means use 4. But check to see if there is an equally valid 3. If not, stick with the 4. If you HAVE to choose between reliable and verifiable and intelligible, then go with reliable and verifiable. But if you can make sense to all the readers as well, that's even better. I don't know why you keep bleeping intelligibility. It's not about liking something. It's about talking so that a general audience can understand. If the reliable and verifiable (and normative) views Christians have of Jews is that Judaism worships "Shane", then, well, say it. But if something seems off to someone (particularly a Jew), then, well, double check the sources. If there is no better (and equally or more) reliable and verifiable source, then stick with the one you have. But if there is something equally verifiable that says "HaShem" well, look at that too. All I'm saying is that if something's a little off to someone, double check. And if your source is still the right one, well, then it's the right one. But at least you DID check. You can make noises all you like, but it's a process that you would want Christian editors to make as well. Don't you want to know what they heck they are trying to say?Tim (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's say there is a major Jewish view that blah blah is ok for Christians but not for Jews. Sure you can say that, but someone like me who thinks it makes no sense is going to add a little sourced reminder/criticism that ethnic Jews can also be Christians since once a Jew, always a Jew, and then the reader may also see that this popular Jewish view makes no sense, since how can something be ok for Christians but not for Jews if Jews can also be Christians? So if you found a source using the term "Gentiles" rather than "Christians" and better yet another saying that most Jews believe Christians are also Gentiles and not Jews, you'll clean up that messy view so that it doesn't need to be rebutted. Sometimes you need to go looking for sources and cherrypick a little if you are interested in getting the spirit of the correct view across, if not the exact words. Unless as I said you want a rebuttal that makes it look nonsensical to the reader. -Bikinibomb (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

I'd like to suggest folks here carefully review WP:NOR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Note that religious scripture is specifically listed as a primary source. I would include classic Rabbinic works, such as Mishneh Torah in that category. To quote the policy: "To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source."--agr (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of this is if the Bible says Jonah was in the whale, then it's fine to use that primary source to say "the Bible says, Jonah was in the whale." We don't need find where it's used in another source, we can say that right from the Bible. However if one says, "Jonah in the whale is symbolic of purgatory" then that must be found in another source, not synthesized from the Bible by an editor. Same with Jesus, Arianism, and conceptualization. We can only use a source saying that, not add all that in ourselves. Maybe that's what you were getting at. -Bikinibomb (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re-org

We should keep the Jewish cites in the Jewish section and the Christian ones in the Christian section. Readers might mistake Louis Jacobs for a Christian and get a bit tangled.Tim (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May need another source

The statement that Judaism rejects trinitarianism as Judaism understands it is not going to be helpful to the Christian readers, since Christianity also rejects trinitarianism as Judaism understands it (i.e. Arianism).

Guys, I am NOT trying to defend Christianity here. Keep the Jacobs source, but can you help me find another one in which Judaism rejects trinitarianism as Christians understand it? We really DO reject trinitarianism as Christians understand it, BTW. Anyhow, I'll do some hunting for a more on target source. Please KEEP the Jacobs source, but I'd appreciate some help finding an on target source as well. I'll start with Schechter, Cohen, and the Rambam.

Thanks.Tim (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's see...if the Judaism idea of Trinity follows Arianism...does Judaism reject it because of the inherent nature of the setup, or just because Jesus is involved? Because if there is a Father God, a Holy Spirit, and a created lesser deity who is also human, how is that really tons different than God, a female Shekhinah manifestation of God, and a Tzadik who is God Himself clothed in a human body? -Bikinibomb (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Tzadik problem is another matter -- and in fact what I am looking for would be helpful there as well. I've seen some instances in which the Tzadikim were treated in an Arian way. For instance, the Chofetz Chaim treats Josephs brothers as Tzadikim, and incapable of sinning. Their treatment of Joseph becomes a righteous beit din condemning him to death for lashon hara, and their action was treated as mercy. So, when I gave a talk at a Lubavitch lunch, I used Joseph as a human example for us to learn from, knowing to stay away from treating his brothers as human. Wrong move. JOSEPH is the Tzadik in Lubavitch tradition, and his brothers are treated as human. Let's forget the different groups, the Jesusers, the Josephers, the patriarchers -- and look for a principle involved... I'll describe it better below.Tim (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inter vs Intra

More specifically, I'm looking for a citation in which Judaism prohibits an intra-divine relationship, instead of just an inter-divine relationship. For instance, we need something that denies that God can function as his own mediator, or that he would even need to do so.Tim (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Er, Parts (transferred from Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms discussion)

"God has no body, parts, or passions" (Westminster Confession, 1689 London Confession, etc.) is a foundational statment for Christian doctrine. If we include a Jewish statement that "Worship of any three-part god by a Jew is nothing less than a form of idolatry" -- well, in all fairness we should give a similar statement from Christian sources. Dagg, or Berkhoff, or even Calvin are clear examples, as well as the confessions I just pointed out. Both religions reject a God with parts for a simple reason: both religions insist on monotheism, regardless of what they think about each other. Do we REALLY need a joint statement against a partitioned deity?Tim (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

1689 Confession 2:1 "The Lord our God is but one only living and true God; whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself; a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; who is immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, every way infinite, most holy, most wise, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him, and withal most just and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty." I can find a more concise example, if necessary.Tim (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I see that inclusion is just more POV push and whimsy, a random irk that came to mind. Aren't there more important things to say regarding the Jewish view of Christians, like maybe, Jews don't believe Jesus is Christ as they do, to start off with? From the AfD this article may be going away anyhow, which is good since there will be less problems with sticking to introduction content and cherrypicking quotes like that... -Bikinibomb (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it is whimsical to add to this, and the corresponding Christian glossary, a clear explanation of trinitarianism. If I am right however that this is shared by all Christiand, my suggestion would be to indlude as early a statement as possible - is this not part of the Nicene Creed? Also, if Arianism was decreed heretical as a form of tritheism, can you provide a good secondary source on that conflict (trinitarian vs. tritheism; orthodoxy vs. Arianism)? I am not challenging your claim, I just think more specific sources on this would make the glossaries and any corresponding articles more educational. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Part of my problem is that I gave away two bookcases of Christian theological books because they were giving my mother-in-law the whillies. I kept Berkhof and Calvin. Calvin isn't very helpful, and although Berkhof is a perfect one size fits all theology, I hate to keep quoting from the same source. I might talk my brother into shipping some of my books back. I'll need them anyway for my next book. If needed, I can quote some relevant passages from Berkhof. A. H. Strong, Dagg, Boyle, and some others are available online or on PDF as well. I also have the ante-Nicene fathers collection. Schaff's Creeds of Christendom would be the perfect source for what you are describing.... maybe I can get those online in PDF. I'd hate to buy the three volumes again just for Wikipedia... Hmm... Berkhof's History of Christian Doctrines may serve as well... Next time I take a break from galley proofing I'll hunt down some refs.Tim (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I am in no position to judge your sources, I only know of a book by a historian named Hall on the early Church ... I do think that to comply with NPOV we should use primary sources only when the meaning is plain, and good secondary sources when any interpretation or generalization or synthesis is involved, if you say Berkhof is well-regarded, okay. And if we are discussing Orthodoxy versus heresy, I want to make sure it is clear what Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and mainstream Protestants agree on. As long as you are confident that your sources are appropriate, that is fine with me! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. And anything you can find on Jewish sources prohibiting an intra-divine relationship instead of just an inter-divine relationship would be great. Also, how detailed do we want to be? There are a number of different spinoffs of the Trinitarian idea:
  1. Modalistic Monarchianism -- God changes states or manifestations. Sometimes he is father, sometimes son, sometimes holy spirit.
  2. Dynamic Monarchianism -- God is simply the father, with the son only human and the spirit just a divine influence.
  3. Arianism -- the son and spirit are created partners of the father.
  4. Tritheism -- God is three Gods who cooperate.
All these were summarized on Berkhof's Systematic Theology 82-83. Berkhof gave Augustine's De Trinitate as a complete statement in the early church. That should be available online in the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL.org, I think).
The simplest way to "get" the Christian idea is to think geometrically. A physical analogy to the spiritual concept would be a dimensional one. Any physical object is spatially triune in a similar way that Christians have God to be spiritually (NOT spacially) triune. The dimensions are not "parts." Take away any dimension and you do not have 2/3s left. You have 0/3s left.
Their conception of Jesus as fully human and fully divine is similar. Infinite in the divine dimension, and finite in the human dimension. Humanity is NOT deity, but in their doctrine Jesus is both. Not 50% one and 50% the other, but 100% and 100% the other.
Although Jewish responses like Kaplan and Jacobs are perfectly legitimate, a Jewish source that drives against this dimensional concept would be even better to include as well. In Christianity God is infinitely just and infinitely merciful. The mercy must satisfy the justice. In Judiasm God isn't really "merciful" or "just" per se. These are words we apply in a limited human capacity. Therefore they do not need to satisfy each other. There is no spiritual dimensionality to God, and in fact ANY definition is conceptually idolatrous because a definition becomes a limitation to God. All of that's in the Guide to the Perplexed. We've been too busy arguing to get to what I'm looking for, here, but that's basically it.Tim (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's what I mean by whimsy. In one article an editor insists on saying the Jesus has no role whatsoever in Judaism. The lo and behold, in another article sees fit to make "Christianity" a shared term just to add the view of Judaism that Christianity is generally considered idolatry according to Jewish theologians, first unsourced, then after some reverts with a source that doesn't really say that. So if Christianity is about Jesus, one role of Jesus in Judaism is a view of idolatry.

So as a test I changed "Christ" to a shared term to see if she would revert it and of course she did as a Christian only term, she did the same with Yeshua even though it was a common Hebrew name. If Christianity is a shared term, why not its base of Christ? That's the kind of POV spewing game playing bullshit I was trying to help put an end to with those guidelines. I guess the solution is probably to create a new account, keep my nose clean in it, make admin, then if I encounter this in the future I can use my superpowers to clamp down, just as an admin was used to twist and shape this article. -Bikinibomb (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Codes of Jewish Law

The material on oaths is not ancillary. They are the only source in Jewish for this topic. Moses Iseerles is almost the entire discussion in Jewish law on this topic. In contemporary times, these short statements have been used to produce broad theories of how Judiasm views Christianity. But all the tradition of Jewish law has is Isserles. Any statement like "they accept the same God" `is already a contemporary interpretation usually reflective of the author-even if they start off by saying "in Jewish law."--Jayrav (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anyone who disputes that they accept the same God. The question is whether they accept other gods in addition. That's the question at issue here. "They accept the same God" isn't only contemporary. It's probably very close to unanimous, even across the centuries.
The issue of "oaths" is ancillary, because the source in question states that we can cause non-Jews to take an oath without regard to the issue of shituf. In other words, even if shituf is outright idolatry for non-Jews, as it is for Jews, the issue of oaths would not change. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I take it back. I looked at the Tosfot in question, and I was wrong. For those who'd like to actually see it, you can go to http://www.e-daf.com/ and page to Sanhedrin 63b.
The Tosfot in question is commenting on the words "It is forbidden for a person to associate [another deity with God]." Tosfot brings Rabbi Samuel, who says "how much more so is it forbidden to accept an oath from them". After discussing the issue a bit, Tosfot concludes "Nevertheless, in these days everyone swears by what is sacred to them, and they do not thereby imply godhood to them. And even though they specifically mention a vain name, and their intent is to Jesus [lit. davar acher], nevertheless, this is not considered idolatry, and their intent is also to the Creator. And even though they are associating the Creator with Jesus, we have not found that it is forbidden to cause others to associate, since the prohibition of causing others to sin does not apply to [causing] Gentiles [to sin].
Still, the issue of oaths is absolutely ancillary to the issue of shituf itself, since it is only an example in which the question could arise. Furthermore, Tosfot does not suggest that shituf is permissible for non-Jews. Only that it is permissible for us to accept their shituf-oaths, because we aren't forbidden to cause or participate in their sinning. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
What I understood from Novak was that the the initial ruling regarded our ability to partner with Gentiles, and then spread in later generations to their theoretical theological partnership constructions. Novak started the history on this with Tam, I think. Does that correspond to what you are saying here?Tim (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nicely done

The article looks like a real encyclopedia article now. Thanks, everyone.Tim (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What I'm Looking For

I responded to Lisa on another page with the following. This may not be the article for it, but this is the idea that I'm trying to find documentation for:

Lisa, I wasn't saying that the "persons" of the trinity are considered to be attributes. Attributes are something that God has in Christianity. What I was pointing out was that Maimonides regards God as not even having attributes. God simply is what he is. We call him certain things and speak of certain attributes based on our experience of him -- but he remains beyond our experience and cannot be defined. Although attributes and persons are not the same thing, the beyond-definitionality of the Jewish God is what will negate both the presence of real attributes and distinct persons. God cannot, in fact, even be callled "a person" in Judaism. The closest we can say is "God is Person" but even that is only... experiential. The Jewish refutation of the Trinity is not in the simple idea of unity so much as in the Maimonidean idea that ultimate unity cannot be defined. Once you call God one thing in a real way, you are at the same time indicating either that he is not another thing too (like mercy AND justice), or that he is not "one" in every possible way. "Mercy" and "justice" are not the same thing in our experience. God cannot be called "merciful" or "just" in a real way. God is simply -- whatever he is. He will be whatever he will be. He will not be (fill in the blank), because (fill in the blank) will be a definition -- and definition is a limitation -- and a limitation negates the utter limitlessness of God, and therefore his unity as well. I'm simply looking for some good sources to say exactly this -- because THIS is the Jewish refutation of the Trinity. Do Jews think the trinity is arianism and reject that conception? Sure. But Jews ALSO do reject the logical foundations that are at the heart of the Christian idea, namely, a DEFINITION called "Trinity." God cannot be defined. The trinity is a kind of definition. Therefore God cannot be triune. God cannot, ultimately, by ANYTHING that you can name.

Again -- it may not belong here, but it will belong somewhere.Tim (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting, doesn't that seem contradictory, to reject Trinity because it attempts to define God, but then define God as having a female presence in the Shekhinah? Or as a human presence in Tzadikim? -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It would be if these were taken as absolutes. Jews say a lot of things about God, with the caveat in their head that "God isn't REALLY what I'm describing." The problem, though, is that over time this cavet can be weakened, which could have been what happened in early Christianity. Analogous references were taken as realities. Philo had a kind of trinity, for instance. Did Philo think that God REALLY was what he was describing? I haven't read Philo deeply enough to say. Because the caveats can be weakened with time, such descriptions do have a risk. But, well, Judaism is fuzzier than Christianity. Christianity tries to put everything in logical propositional terms. It is full of theological systemizations, while Judaism is not. Can you GET a systematic theology of Judaism? Sort of, but not exactly. In the same way, descriptions of God are, sort of, but not exactly. God is "sort of" masculine and "sort of" feminine. But you won't find Jews thinking God is LITERALLY such things.Tim (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, Christians are less likely to say such things as "God is feminine here" and "masculine there." The reason is that if they focused on that, they would have to define it -- systematically. Christianity is what happens to Judaism when you try to think in Greek.Tim (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Christians do that a lot in relation to the marriage of God to Jesus, the marriage of Jesus to the Lamb's Bride (righteous), and within the Lamb's Bride the marriage of man to woman (systematically in 1 Cor. 11:3), with God at the top of the hierarchy being masculine in all cases.
If Jews say God has a female presence in Shekhinah, what are they literally thinking about it? Either there is just God in one form and He goes everywhere in that very same form, or there isn't and He goes in different forms. Do Jews think He goes in different forms and presences? If they really think that then they are still defining God as being in different forms. And if not, they are still defining God to be in one form. So I'm not convinced that anyone can claim not to literally define God somehow, though of course you can still reject certain definitions. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The femininity is a metaphor. The divine name has a feminine ending and is associated with the feminine idea of mercy. The divine title has a masculine ending and is associated with the masculine idea of justice. The kabbalistic writings exist entirely in metaphors. The only literal aspect to them would be the Ein Sof. I personally don't like the kabbalistic writing for that very reason -- they are literally metaphors and since that is all they are, they speak metaphors in a literalistic way. I think 40 is too low an age to set for the beginner to read them. 80 would be better.Tim (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Tim is absolutely correct that it is a metaphor. But it's more than that. The Shechina is not God. Nor is it a part of God (any more than you and I are). It is a creation of God, just as everything else is. A vehicle through which we are able to perceive/understand God in a certain way and to a certain degree.
So, too, are the various "attributes" of kindness (chesed), restraint (gevurah), justice, mercy, etc. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Maimonides regards God as not even having attributes but isn't God defined as having attributes of mercy, justice, kindness, etc? So is the real problem with Trinity its basic attempt to define God, if some defining is done in Judaism even if abstract? Or does it have more to do with saying that the father attribute of God sired a son attribute of God giving God a physical attribute? That was always my problem with Trinity, making God Himself a man. Rather than saying God is God and never a man, but He can control and give power to men so much that they became as God over the people, in the case of Moses in Exodus 4:16, and the role Jesus is said to play. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


BB, look at that word "defined" Finite. It sets boundaries on God, dictates something about him, limits him as "this" and therefore not "that." Christians get around that by saying that he is infinitely everything and more. Jews say, "well, he's, hmm... what-he-is." We can say he has attributes, perhaps, but they don't have him. At best they are things he has made or perceptions of him created by his actions, which are themselves created, etc. Again, Christians put terms and names and definition and dimensionality to all of this. But Jews say, "God is..." and anything that we can name is just some limited approximation but not really "him." Here's the interesting thing: Christians look like polytheists to Jews; Jews look like atheists to Christians. We each know that the other is somehow monotheistic in some way, but both sides scratch their heads.
As for "the father attribute" -- the persons are not attributes to Christians. They are, in a way, personal dimensions. Each is all of God but not the other, which is also all of God. Take away 1 and you don't have 2/3s left. You have 0/3s left. Dare we apply math to God??? Jews don't. I imagine that Muslims don't. But both were giving birth in semitic language. Christianity is written in Greek. Philo was written in Greek. Even Messianics have trouble -- often stumbling into Compound Unities which are anathema to both Christians and Jews.Tim (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess why I keep asking about Shekhinah is that I've always seen that it is a dwelling, settling, or presence of a female attribute or dimension of God Himself, and the assumption is that if there are really 2 dimensions or attributes or whatever you would call it, you couldn't take away the female part leaving one male God, you would have no God, since there are two dimensions but only one God.

I've never seen Shekhinah described as a created thing to act as a doorway, window, etc. -- if most Jews view it as that, why don't they say that instead of saying it is a feminine aspect of God dwelling on earth? -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish Deity has no dimension. That's the maddening thing for Christians to get a handle on -- God has no handles. Logically, it's difficult for a Christians to conceptualize just where the Jewish God is. He is everywhere, and nowhere. The Shekhinah -- although I went with the "created" term for continuity, I'll have to research on that. My understanding is that the Shekhinah is God's presence. My presence isn't really me, but the presence of me. Do I create my presence? Only by my Self. As for masculine and feminine -- the Jewish God is both, and neither. I know -- it's maddening. It took me years as a Christian to "get it" and then I got stuck for a few weeks until I could figure out how to reconstruct the logical geometry of the Christian Deity. It's probably easier for a Muslim. Or maybe not. Does the Muslim God have positive attributes? I mean, is he REALLY merciful, or mighty, or just, or...?Tim (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The wiki entires for Jewish view of God, God, unity of God, attributes can all use work. Most of them are messes. Maybe you can put you conversation to work fixing up these articles? --Jayrav (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at them. It may be a few days. I commute over two hours each way to work each day and come home to proof the galleys to my book. But Sunday I may be able to take a crack at the pages. The problem is documentation -- but you know that. That's what takes the time. Get the idea, look for the sources, make sure that's it, put it down in a neutral way...Tim (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying like, this post here is my presence, but it was a created thing and can be deleted and I'll still exist -- and so...the Shekhinah can be deleted and God will still exist?

I can't speak for all Islam since it is as diverse as any religion, but yeah, Genesis says we were created in God's image, and He does things that are loving, compassionate, etc. He can also be hateful to His enemies, but you know, with a perfect hatred that is always justified. It's like, what you see God do is what He is, there's not one God making things happen here to create the illusion of a different God feeling a different way. That kind of seems like polytheism and idolatry, where you have all these attributes that seem like God and you worship as God, but in reality they are created things, windows, channels, etc. and not God. Either you are worshiping a God you know and believe in because of that knowledge, or you are worshiping a creation and something other than God. -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If the Shekhinah is God's presence, how can it be in one place and not another, or at one time and not another? God is everywhere and everywhen. He is "present" even in the most unholy place and unholy act. In the same way, he is experienced even in evil and darkness. He creates all these things. Can the creater be perceived in his creations? In a way. But there is still the need for revelation -- because our perceptions are limited. Even so, no one can comprehend "God" perfectly or completely. One can say, "I know of God because of thus and so" and not be an idolater. Once one says, "God is thus and so" the line to idolatry is crossed.Tim (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What about Psalms 116:5 Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; yea, our God is merciful.? It sounds like you are saying God is not really merciful Himself, mercy is just a thing He created. I get the image of an emotionless computer hooked to our brains giving us the illusion that it has mercy, when it's only a set of instructions. So the merciful thing we worship is just an illusion, which would rather seem to be idolatry. Do you think Psalms is really divinely inspired, if it leads us to worship only the illusion of a merciful God, if in reality we can't really know anything about attributes of God? -Bikinibomb (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

BB, let's move away from the "created things" idea for a sec. What is "merciful" and is that all God is? Is God anything other than merciful? Can he be contained in that word? All I'm saying is that words such as "merciful" or "patient" or "righteous" are never big enough. God makes light AND darkness, good AND evil. The same God does all this. But is he two gods or does he change? You can't contain him in any of those concepts. Is he merciful? In our experience, yes. Is he merciless? In some experience, yes again. Is he sometimes merciful and sometimes merciless? Well, no. He's what-he-is. It is the creation that has different angles of experience. The deviations are in us, rather than in God.Tim (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What is your interpretation of being created in God's likeness? Since it's not about flesh I always believed it was about emotions, thought, etc. That He experiences love, hate, etc. as we do, so that a human is a reflection of God making Him knowable, even with our limitations. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for Judaism on that subject. Personally, this has never been theoretical to me. It's not a statement about God (God is not in our image) but a statement about man (man is in God's image). What we do to men is a statement for what respect we have for God -- which is why the golden rule is found in both Judaism and Christianity as the central statement. In Judaism, this is the highest of all. In Christianity, it is in the top two. Don't do to others what we would not want done to us; this is the whole Torah (Judaism). Do to others what we would have done to us; on this depends the law and the prophets (Christianity). How central is this in Islam?
And yes, we have strayed from Shituf and should probably be working on a different article with this...Tim (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
We were made in God's image. Basically, Judaism doesn't say that usages such as God having an "outstretched arm" are a metaphor for our arms. Rather, our arms are an approximation of that "attribute" of God which is referred to in Hebrew as zero'a or yad. I'm not going to keep putting quotes around the word attribute, so just assume that when I talk about one of God's attributes, I don't mean that it's actually an aspect of God Himself, but only one of the aspect/attribute/middoth through which God is perceived by us.
Bikinibomb asked why most Jews don't say it that way. I'd answer that it's because most Jews don't know. Most Jews aren't theologians, or even particularly learned (from a Jewish POV). Judaism is a religion of tiered knowledge. We don't believe that it is appropriate to teach higher concepts to the average person. At least in principle, we teach people according to what they need to know.
It's like a translation. I'll use the words "pure/impure" or "ritually pure/impure" or similar bad translations for the Hebrew tamei/tahor for the simple reason that the actual words have no accurate one-word translations in English, and I prefer not to give a dissertation every time I have to talk about the concept. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
parts of this talk belong at God in Judaism--Jayrav (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major edit

See, this is what happens when I take things for granted. I've removed the Isserles quote. Here are the reasons. One is that the quote doesn't exist. Not in Yoreh De'ah 15, at any rate. Maybe it exists elsewhere. Another is that it's not a quote from R' Isserles, but a quote of R' Isserles quoting the Tosfot on Sanhedrin 63a. You can go to E-daf to see the actual page and read the Tosfot for yourself, if you like. A third reason is that the translation was incorrect. And not in a small way. The Tosfot there does not say that shituf is permissible for non-Jews. It says that "we have not found that causing non-Jews to commit shituf is forbidden, as lifnei iveir (lit. placing a stumbling block before the blind; i.e. causing another to sin) does not apply to non-Jews". The Tosfot there is clear that shituf is forbidden for non-Jews. While I am under the impression that sources to exist that permit it, this Tosfot is not one of them. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You do not remove something - Moses Isserles becuase the number in source was incorrect. You are to add a tag - check source or add source. I meant to write 156 but worte 15 instead. I will try to find time to double check. Also I added a full translation of tosafot.--Jayrav (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)And if you do not like my translations then fix them or make a comment - do not remove them.--Jayrav (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

She has also removed my sourced contributions and replaced them with her unsourced OR when she just doesn't personally agree or like it. Get used to it. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Ignore Bikinibomb. I apologize, Jayrav. Thank you for adding the full translation. I added the note about davar acher, which is the way Tosfot referred to Jesus generally. So yes, that Tosfot did refer explicitly to Christianity. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
davar acher does not refer to Jesus in tosafot. Use any search engine or reference. That is already a big assumption. Something else may mean saints, angels, the holy spirit, or Tosafot really did care what Christians believed. From the context there is no indication that it refers to Jesus. We are not even certain if tosafot could even distinguish between a statue of Jesus or a saint. If you have a text that translates davar ahar as Jesus, I would place that in the 20th century section--Jayrav (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
"common euphemism for Jesus in rabbinic literature." The common usage is that man "otoh haish" neither in Sefer hasidism or Toldot Yeshu or any other text is Jesus davar ahar. Please check your sources. --Jayrav (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Jayrav is right. The claim that davar acher means Jesus is an interpretation. WP:NOR forbids editors to forward their own interpretations of a primary source. If there is a secondary source that makes this intepretation, we should by all means include it. Policy tells us to remove the claim until a citation is provided. Without the citation the whole quote seems irrelevant. I will give people some time to provide the required secondary sources for interpretations of this quote, though. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monotheism

Lisa, Christianity is a monotheistic religion. That's also the Christian view. That's also the definition given, cited, and accepted by Wikipedia standards.

It's also the reason Christianity rejects divine partnership.

The short version is this: Judaism allows polytheism (shituf) to gentiles. Christianity does not allow polytheism (shituf) to anyone.

Christianity is actually MORE monotheistic in their position than we are. Fair is fair. We tolerate this polytheism and they do not.Tim (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source. That's Wikipedia 101, Tim. Christianity considers itself a monotheistic religion. But to state that it is, as fact, in an article which is about the fact that Judaism does not completely agree, is highly POV. You can say, "which considers itself a monothestic religion", but you cannot say that it is one. Not in this article.
And I'm really getting tired of your POV insistence that trinitarianism is not shituf as a matter of fact. That's not true. It's one opinion. You can't use it as a fact, no matter how many times you want to repeat it.
Personally, I'd like to remove the business in the God in Judaism article about henotheism, but that'd be POV on my part. So I'm not doing so, despite the fact that I find it grossly offensive. You need to learn to do the same. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- Christianity is a monotheistic religion in about 99% of the sources you'll find out there. It's not the place of Wikipedia editors to removed SOURCED statements and replace them with their UNSOURCED POV.Tim (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You could say "which considers itself a monotheistic religion" to make it clearer even though it is under Christian views. But removing references for no reason needs to be stopped, it's just a big "FU" to other editors. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we have to put such a caveat for every religion on every page? In lists of monotheistic religions, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are right up there together on almost every list. Plus, the section is the Christian view. Their VIEW is that they CONSIDER themselves thus and so? That's a bit redundant, don't you think? Instead of having to document their normative status both internally and externally "as a monotheistic religion" I would think rather that we would have to heavily document any position that stated they weren't.Tim (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Her pattern is to obviously get as close as possible to saying "Christians pretend to be monotheistic" without actually saying it. Just another POV push. If it was in Judaism and Christianity in the Christian view sections, I'd refuse to change it. But since it is in a strictly Hebrew term article, it probably can't hurt and will avoid another battle with her. -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I put in caveats stating the views are... views. Anything more will make us look like some kind of antimissionary site.Tim (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Years ago I first heard the phrase "Christians in Jewish drag" -- take a wild guess who said it. Just for kicks I think I'll whip up a Jews for Judaism Seal of Approval image to tag these articles so we know they have been deemed acceptable by the appropriate authorities. -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Certainly not me. I just Googled the phrase, and found two sites where it appears. I went to Usenet and found two more. But I kind of like it. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
What I put there is nothing even close to what Bikinibomb says I want to put there. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What do I need to do here? I've given one Jewish source for Christianity being a monotheistic religion. I can add others from all branches of Judaism (I started with Orthodox). Also, I can quote the Christian positions against any multiplicity of deities. Christians do not regard polytheism to be acceptable for ANYONE. Do I need to quote those positions as well?

This is getting tedious. I think the Christian section is cited twice as much as all the Jewish sections of this article combined.

Although I've had friends in Jews for Judaism, Wikipedia is NOT J4J (on either side of the acronym).Tim (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with having contradictory sources in an article, Tim. That just means that there are contradictory views out there. But in such a case, you can't say that one of them is a fact and the other is just opinion. That's both POV and OR. Adding more and more sources to support one side of the disagreement does not take away from the existence of the sources on the other side. This isn't a majority vote kind of thing.
I'm not putting in text that says "Christianity is polytheism". I'm simply insisting that their claim to monotheism be given as one side to the dispute. Nor am I saying that this has to be done in every Wikipedia article, but to omit that caveat from this article undermines the entire article. Which is obviously your intent. You have no right to dismiss all sourced views to the contrary and insist on your view. You've been doing this all along. I'm not sure why you converted, Tim. Your connection to Christianity is way too strong. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- I'm simply insisting that the Christian view be stated. That's all. Look, you had the luxury growing up of simply being Jewish. You didn't need to reject anything, real or imagined. You simply needed to accept what you were born with. I didn't have that luxury. To convert I had to do more than reject some fantasy religion you keep making up and calling "Christianity." I had to reject the real thing. What I have a strong connection to is reality, Lisa. Christianity is a monotheistic trinitarian religion. I didn't have to reject shituf ideas because I was never a Jehovah's Witness.

As for contradictory views -- I have not attempted to change the Jewish views. You've correctly stated them, although they show us to be, as a whole, largely ignorant of Christianity. But let's be fair and not look intolerant at the same time.

Everything I've put in is sourced and acceptable by Wikipedia standards, and the more you change it, the longer and more sourced it will be. How deep do you want to dig?Tim (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Judah Ha-Levi’s Kuzari 1:4 refers to “monotheists” when the Christian spokesman say’s to the Khazar king: “for we are truly monotheists, although the Trinity appears on our tongues.” Saadayah lists Christians among the monotheists, not among the polytheists, even as he rejects the trinity. The phrase the community of monotheists (jama`at al-muwahadin) in Jewish thought as applying to Jews, Muslims, Christians, is in Saadyah, Bahye, Maimonides, and others. This discussion belongs on the Jewish conception of God page. God in Judaism--Jayrav (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, Lisa -- the continuous smacks about my conversion are inappropriate and offensive. I have a thick skin, but they are getting in the way of any kind of rational discussion. As a Jew, I object to your making our religion appear to be intolerant: intolerant of Messianics, intolerant of Christians, and -- even more bizarre -- intolerant of people who are fully aware and understand Christianity and choose to embrace Judaism anyway. Treatment of a convert in this way is a violation of Torah as well. I have no interest in being a poster child for conversion, I have little patience for polemics on either side, but I DO insist on factual presentations in an encyclopedia on subjects I know something about and have sources to back it up.

For the record, Judaism is authoritative for itself regarding its treatment of Christianity even if that is based on a misunderstanding of Christianity. We do not have to understand something perfectly in order to make a decision for ourselves. As such, the decisions on shituf are both unnecessary and valid. They are unnecessary because Christians do not believe in partnership. They are valid because to us it seems as if they do and we have to make a rationale regarding our relationship that makes sense to us. Our treatment of Christians, then, is more lenient than it needs to be, but that's perfectly okay. Jews cannot be expected to understand Christianity, nor should they be required to do so. The amount of education required to make a ruling regarding Christianity as it really is would be impractical for the Jewish population and would be dangerous as well -- because people have a way of getting stuck inside paradigms they were merely trying to understand. I would say the same regarding Christian decisions of how to relate to us. They should relate to us based on how they understand us. They do not have to relate to us based on how we understand ourselves. To do so would require them to understand us as we understand ourselves -- something only truly possible with a lot of education and a huge paradigm shift that could lead to a lot of conversions (in either direction) if it was tried.

Ultimately a religion (such as our religion) must make decisions for itself based on the best of our understanding. That's valid. However, Judaism remains self defined. Christianity remains self defined. Our relations with each other do not have to match those self definitions -- and it would be impractical and religiously dangerous for individuals to try.

All that being said -- an encyclopedia that has the temerity to object to Christianity being presented "as a monotheistic religion" in a section titled the "Christian view" -- well such an encyclopedia is not NPOV, is it?Tim (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And yet, I never wrote that it isn't monotheistic. I'm simply insisting that it be presented as the opinion it is. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And I added more opinions, and will continue to add more opinions every time you make a change.Tim (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polemics

Tim wrote: Uh -- try keeping polemics out. When describing the CHRISTIAN view, describe the Christian VIEW of "persons."

I'm not engaging in polemics. Post Christian apologetics on a different page if you must. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely engaging in polemics, Lisa. Present the Christian views as Christian views -- not the Jewish views of Christian views.Tim (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Lisa, "imply" speaks of the speaker's intent. "Infer" speaks of the hearer's understanding. Don't negate a Christian implication with a Jewish inference.Tim (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peace

I suppose that conflict is part of the NPOV process here. Let's, please, have some peace. I really need to finish proofing my galley and have no interest in being the defender of Christianity on Wikipedia.

Also, R. Wurzburger is cited on this page. He was a most peacful man, and I still mourn his passing. In fact, he is the one who made the decision for the Beit Din to encourage me to finish my book. In his name, Lisa, let us please move on from this.Tim (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

How about creating a R. Wurzburger wiki page? --Jayrav (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Oh, I see you just did. nice idea. --Jayrav (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Done! It's ALREADY being slammed for notability issues. Apparently people think the Rabbinical Council of America lacks notability!Tim (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)