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

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]

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]

• 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]

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]

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