Talk:Judaism

Founder

Hi ΕλίαςΕλίας, thank you for your edit of the founder parameter in the infobox. But I disagree with you that Moses is considered the traditional founder of the religion. As the article states the first covenant between G-d, and Abraham and his descendants was Brit Bein Habetarim. G-d made these promises because of Abraham’s faith in the oneness of G-d. This, as embodied in the Shema, is still the founding tenant of Judaism today. Moses is considered the greatest prophet ever. The covenant at Sinai together with the giving of the Tanach and Talmud is part of the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham, and where modern Jews obtain the full practice of the religion. It is not the founding event. I choose not to revert other people’s work (0RR) unless there’s consensus through discussion. So if you accept my assertion please self revert your edit, or if not please discuss why not here. Ayenaee (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Ayenaee. I believe Moses to be the "founder" of Judaism due to the modern covenant beginning with the revelation at mount Sinai of the written and oral Torah. And while I initially believed Abraham to be the "founder", mainly because of converts becoming "children of abraham", I have come to the conclusion that Moses is better suited for that title, because Abraham was neither a "jew" or "israelite", although he is referred to as "haIvri" in the bible.

As proof of my argument, there are three big covenants in the bible, the noahic covenant, which is for all of mankind, the abrahamic covenant which included circumcision and the gifting of the land of canaan, and the mosaic covenant which contains the 613 mitzvoth. Anyone observing the abrahamic covenant and not the mosaic covenant would not be an orthodox jew.

Ελίας (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortuantely, we can't take your word for it. Claims need to be directly supported by the majority of reliable sources. Scripture is considered a primary source that should be understood through later interpretation and analysis by experts, including secular scholars. Remsense诉 13:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Ελίας (talk) I agree with User:Remsense. I believe the analysis you’ve given is incorrect, but that’s not the issue. The issue is that it’s your analysis and is considered WP:OR (your own original research) which is not an acceptable citation for changing a stated fact in an article. If you believe your analysis is correct then you need to support it with reliable resources. [As an aside, I dispute your analysis because we’re not trying to define what a Jew/Israelite etc is, nor what an Orthodox Jew is today. We’re defining the founder of Judaism. That he didn’t follow all 613 mitvot, because they hadn’t been given yet, is irrelevant (to this issue). Your first thought about converts being called Ben Abraham or bat Sarah is aligned with this - although not the only support for his foundership. You also didn’t dispute my points.] Ayenaee (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Focus on Neturei Karta: why?

User Got Milked added a substantial section on “criticism of Judaism” that seems interested primarily in criticism of political Zionism as an aspect of some Jews’ religious identity through an examination of the Neturei Karta sect’s repudiation of Zionism. Given the marginal status of the Neturei Karta in the broader Jewish community both in terms of impact on practice and opinion, and in terms of their small numbers, and given the total lack of any other locus of critique (outside of political Zionism) in the “criticism of Judaism” section, the addition of this section seems likely to be motivated by an anti-Zionist ideology. This is not in keeping with Wikipedia best practices, which enjoin editors to remain neutral. This section should be moved to Haredim and Zionism. Khane Rokhl Barazani (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2024

This is a clear WP:COATRACK for items better suited for anti-zionism or Haredim and Zionism and not in line with the criteria of the main article, which is "criticism of Judaism and its texts, laws, and practices"

Editor should adjust accordingly or the items will be excised shortly. Mistamystery (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Got Milked it is clear WP:COATRACK, and just saying "it not" does not make it so.

As outlined in the revert note, your addition is not about criticism of Judaism (i.e. as a religion and practice), but is about religious criticism of Zionism. While perhaps a stub at best may be appropriate for this section on this page, there are separate pages that directly cover your additions (which do not fall under "criticism of judaism" generally speaking) and I recommend you direct your edits there.

And no, you are not being censured (censored?) you are using the wrong section to shoehorn arguments that clearly belong on another page. Mistamystery (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not a "focus on Neturei Karta" nor does it "COATRACK"; quite the contrary. This is a very general criticism of the very fundamental of Judaism as a venerable tradition of pious faith/violation of that pious faith. I have initially edited-in very brief introductory of this phenomena in the conspicuously blank CRITICISM section for some reasonable context of the nominal subject matter leading into the Main article:Criticism of Judaism, although User: Trappist the monk re-edited it to haphazardly add more to the section in an erroneous format/structure (sabotage?) which I have corrected with appropriate format and with additional facts. I will revert to the pre-Trappist the monk edit to help allay feelings of "WP:COATRACK" with this BASIC CRITICISM OF/WITHIN JUDAISM so as to NOT GET AWAY FROM THE NOMINAL SUBJECT of this article/this (blank) section that should have some context. I will add the extraneous details to Haredim and Zionism although that and all the myriad of other articles to dilute the subject matter is indeed WP:COATRACK(ING) which I believe is the true intention here. Got Milked (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

1948

The Cre-ator and Sustainer of the Universe has a sense of humor: In the Hebrew calendar, known as Anno Mundi, 1948 is the year in which Abraham was born. On the secular calendar (current year being 2024 CE, vs 5784 AM), 1948 is the birth year of the Middle East country at the center of the News Media. Neither of these 1948s gets a Bronze Medal, nor are they as unspecific as the term Bronze Age, which does not have a basis for remaining in the Judaism article. Nuts240 (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Clever, but what's your point? Btw, the term Bronze Age actually doesn't occur in the article. Abraham, Canaan(ites), etc. do, so I'm a bit confused, but whatever; is it separation between biblical legend and historical approach, or the opposite, keeping the scriptural approach to time, undivided by human intellectual constructs like periodisation? Arminden (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

First representative

"Abraham is hailed as the first Hebrew and the father of the Jewish people."

And of many others, see Arabs. So why not Jacob/Israel? Or Moses, the first to receive the Law. This (Abraham = the first, or progenitor) isn't the only interpretation. Arminden (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)