Template talk:Jewish Christianity

This template is disputed:

It is pushing a certain POV by constructing a fake category of Jewish Christianity. The early Christians were Jews so they are Jewish Christians, but this is pushing it to affirm the POV of a certain group (or person). It is selectively pushing certain persons (John - no Christian at all, James, Simon) while ommitting other Jewish Christians (the 12 apostles). Writings also given selectively: Matthew but not Mark or John, whose authors are just as Jewish as Matthew. Or Paul's letters. Paul, himself a Jewish Christian is termed an adversary. So changig the term "apostasy" doesn't help a bit. The same editor is inventing Hebrew names for early Christian figures. Here he includes a fictitious picture. It depicts a person that never lived, let alone was part of any Jewish Christianity. It is a reconstruction of an average levantine man, not of Jesus. That this is a template silently appearing at many articles makes things even worse. If this doesn't stop, I will consider myself forced to remove the template from other articles. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Jewish Christian" is almost meaningless, since it lacks precision. This template was created as an attempt to organize articles on early Jewish sects and individuals related to early Christianity within a framework originally suggested by Slrubenstein. As you can see, it's difficult to do without offending someone. I agree that displaying a fictitious picture of "Jesus" is no better that displaying a fictitious vase with Jewish-Christian symbols. Since the template affects a large number of articles, if the conflict cannot resolved soon, I will ask an admin to put a swift end to it. Ovadyah 19:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the template is biased, then you can fix it, ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity, or nominate it for deletion. By adding three article tags to this template, you have inadvertently spammed about a dozen articles with unrelated neutrality/accuracy tags. --Wafulz 16:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wafulz and support his removal of the tags. --Loremaster 21:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. Please try to fix your specific objections, or at least talk about them, rather than slapping tags on the template. You can also try asking for suggestions at WikiProject Judaism. Ovadyah 21:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the Early Sects to the original alphabetical order. Changes coincided with childish rants by IP and attempts to use Wikipedia as a soap box to proselytize several editors. Ovadyah 22:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only tagged the template because a certain IP opposed any change to his previous changes. And I do indeed disagree with the statement that the taggs spammed "a dozen articles with unrelated neutrality/accuracy tags" - the IPs changes to the template affected the articles in which the template was included - that actually was what troubled me most ... by changing the template he could flood his POV pushing over dozens of articles. NPOV must be maintained anywhere BUT it is of the utmost importance in templates that cannot balance POVs by explanations but must be concise.

I have now come back and readdressed my concerns with my latest edit. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't support removing an entire section on Adversity, especially w/o discussion. That seems too much like POV suppression without regard for the historical evidence. I don't really care about the semantics of Ancient vs. Early, except for the inconsistency of Ancient Sects (ie. non-Pauline Christians) vs. Early Christians. Let's keep the terminology consistent. Otherwise ok. Ovadyah 16:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Ancient sects" - there is an inherent problem in the presentation that tends to exclude the so-called "Pauline" Christianity from being Jewish (though it partly was) - but the problem about "Early" makes this even worse: This supposes that these are the earliest when they are not - the earliest group is the congregtion headed by the Twelve Apostles (all Jewish) - way before any Ebionites and most certainly Elchasaites.

Regarding adversity: could you please explain the reasoning for all these items?

I have no problems with Bar Kochba - but I don't quite approve of the others (especially Constantine) and also wonder why actual adversaries like Saducees, Pharisee are missing. Str1977 ^{(smile back)}

No offense intended, but you are making some big assumptions here. I don't think you will find many (or any) verifiable secondary sources that describe Pauline Christianity as a Jewish religious movement, despite having members of Jewish descent. Likewise, you seem to be implying that Pauline Christianity is earlier than all these other groups as though this were self-evident. If you have evidence from verifiable secondary sources to back up your claims, please contribute it. As far as the Adversity section goes, I think there is sufficient historical basis to support the inclusion of these items. If you disagree, please provide a rational argument for deleting them. I support keeping Constantine because secondary sources have studied Constantine's decrees and concluded that he was blatantly anti-Jewish. Ovadyah 01:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ovadyah. --Loremaster 15:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I am saying that Pauline Christianity is earlier then these other groups. For source, look up any serious book on the history of Christianity. The underlying global problem with this template is a decision to endorse the perspective of something called "Jewish Christianity". And that is an assumotion.

How do you define "Jewish Christianity"? In a way, all Christianity is either Jewish or it isn't at all.

"concluded that he was blatantly anti-Jewish." I will leave it up to you to fathom how anyone who allowed Jews to set foot in Jerusalem again after 200 years and who tolerated Judaism to be "blantantly anti-Jewish" - however, that is irrelevant, as the template is about "Jewish Christianity" and not Judaims. I am not saying that Constantine was pro-Jewish or pro-"Jewish Christianity" but what has be actually done to be called an adversary? IMHO this again pushes the old-fashioned and discredited POV of Constantine as the evil corrupter of hitherto all nice Christians (content of course changing according to the view of the observeror). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to waste my time responding to religious rants (similar to the one you put on my talk page), other than to suggest you read "Constantine's Sword" by James Carroll for a very different POV. Ovadyah 15:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so having a different opinion is now a "religious rant". I am more astounded by the referrence to my posting your talk page weeks ago that also was nothing like a "religious rant". My time is limited so I will rather focus on reading serious scholarly material (which excludes Caroll). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added Essenes, but maybe it should be removed. Nazareans were Essenes but the Ossaeans (different pronounciation of Essenes) may not have been Nazareans... though they are synonyms and John the Baptist (an Ossaean) is listed here.

Also, I do not think this is a fake category; not all Christians are Judaist let alone Jewish. The reason Matthew's Gospel is there, for example, is there is a written Hebrew record. There is less evidence other Gospels are authentic, and evidence that later 'Christians' altered texts: it has been written they once had about 70 different Gospels... who knows which non-Hebrew ones were really primary sources.... Dchmelik (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]