User talk:Yoshiah ap/Archive 1

Karaites.

Hi Yoshiah, I appreciate your concern about Karaites. Can you please let us know as ACCURATELY as possible how many actual Karaites there are in Israel and the world? It is important to have a sense of proportions since the Karaites are a very small group and it is no use trying to make them sound like a huge group. Thanks. 12.75.140.205 20:01, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I never said that we are a large group. I said that we once comprised 40% of Jews, but I actually found that out from a variety Rabbinic Sources, just as at one time Rabbinic Jews numbered less than 10,000. Numbers outside of Israel are hard to estimate because every so often new Karaite communities that were disconnected from other Karaites are found. There are 30,000 Karaites in Israel. My purpose on this site is to clear up misconceptions/lies about Karaites, such as the misconceptions that we were founded by Anan ben David or that we only hold the Shema to be Divine. --Yoshiah ap 09:49, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Israelite

You have my sincerist apologies for the mistakes I previously made when I added the Karaite section to the Israelite article. Thank you for correcting them. I hope we can continue to work together to clarify our different traditions regarding the Israelites. Gilgamesh 22:04, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. If it'd help, I can cite some of the rulings made by the Israeli Cheif Rabbinate regarding the status of Karaites as Jews. --Yoshiah ap 23:17, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you think it would be relevant to the "Karaite" section of the Israelite article. Personally, not knowing much about it, I don't care much. But if you feel it's important, go ahead. :) Remember that each subsection needs to convey the same level of relevant information; it was exactly because the "Mormon" section got too big (first I added stuff, then BoNoMoJo made it much bigger) that it was moved to a separate article altogether (Mormonism and Judaism). - Gilgamesh 00:35, 4 May 2004

Yay!

Thrilled to see a Karaite contributor on Wikipedia. :) Jdavidb 13:09, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Yoshiah ap 23:17, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the Karaites and the Israelites

This question is primarily just to satisfy my personal curiosity; I hope you don't mind. :) Do the Karaites believe in Israelite tribal affiliation? Are they descendants of the Jews, or adopted into Judah, or are they Gentiles who adopted the Law of Moses? Or is such definition of affiliation not an issue at all? And what is believed to be the historical relationship of Karaites to the Khazars? - Gilgamesh 03:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes

2) Karaites are Jews, though we have had converts from time to time, most of them :being from Rabbinic Judaism.

3) I don't know much about the Khazars. I do know that a lot of them converted to :Judaism in the past (to both Karaite and Rabbinic Judaism), but that's about it. I'm sorry I couldn't be of further assistance here. --Yoshiah ap 05:55, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Great, that answers all my questions. I believe in both tribal lineage and tribal adoption too. - Gilgamesh 06:14, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Tiberian masoretes

Hi Yoshiah! I'm also thrilled that there is a Karaite contributor to WP. I hope to be able to learn a lot from you.

At the same time, I don't agree with your recent edit to Hebrew Bible. So that we can have an open discussion, I'm copying my comments here:

Hebrew Bible: The main point of this article is to clarify the term, its usage and its importance. Therefore I agree that it should mention and be linked to Masoretic text. But I removed the mention of the Tiberian masoretes (Ben Asher Family) because not all "masoretic" text (for the purposes of Hebrew Bible) is Tiberian: Are Hebrew Bibles based on the Babylonian mesorah not masoretic? Is the medieval Ashkenazic rescension (with its strong influence on the printed Tanakh) not masoretic?

Further, the question of whether the Ben Asher family were Karaites or not is a significant one that a number of scholars have dealt with. There is not a lot of hard evidence either way, but there are some rather inconclusive arguments (which lean towards that they were not Karaites). Be that as it may, the whole issue, if it is to be discussed, should not be here but rather under Masoretic text or under a new article on the Ben Ashers.Zabek 03:29, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Your new version is accurate enough. I've been on the impression that all

Hebrew Bibles today come from the various versions of the MT existing, such as

the Leningrad Codex, the Allepo Codex, etc. Was I mistaken?

I've never heard of even the possiblity that the Ben Asher family were not :Karaites. Could you supply a link or two that supports this position? --Yoshiah ap 06:02, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Monotheism and Reform Judaism

Reform Judaism does not reject the existence of God; in fact, mainstream Reform organizations, such as the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, leans in favor of theism, and monotheism in particular. However, Reform acknowledges the right of people to have an opinion on whether or not God exists, as it puts upon the individual the decision of whether to follow a tradition or not. The tradition is monotheistic, of course. Just pointing that out. Rickyrab 21:19, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

New Hebrew Names article

Hello, Yoshiah ap. If it pleases you, I'd like to invite you to help me refine the new Hebrew names article in whatever way you feel able. In particular, an expansion of the Hebrew names list at the bottom of the article page. It'll be fun! RSVP - Gilgamesh 22:55, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, Yoshiah ap ^_^

I haven't seen you edit in a while. I look forward to seeing more of your input to Abrahamic articles. ^_^ - Gilgamesh 04:31, 14 June 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! What articles would you like me to look into?--Yoshiah ap 22:36, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. :P I'm just welcoming you back. ^_^; Though I had no articles in mind, I have been recently working on Names of Jerusalem with Mustafaa. :) And I also revised the general list conventions at List of Hebrew names, so that long and variant forms of each name are listed in the same entry (sooooooo many variants of "Joshua"). Other than that, I've been running around adding articles to Category:Jerusalem, including buildings and landmarks in the city. And, as always, I keep NPOVing Israelite when someone tries to use the term "gentile" as if it were NPOV, and I added lots of little "-ite" names of the Tribes. If you have any additional insights, maybe you could just give them a quick once-over, if there's anything relevant to say. :) But none of that is why I welcomed you back. :P I welcomed you back because you've been very helpful in the past and it's good to see you back. ^_^ - Gilgamesh 23:19, 15 June 2004 (UTC)[reply]

How is "gentile" not NPOV? It's just a general term for non-jews, IMO. Also, check the addition of "Ariel" to the names of Jerusalem :) (I probably should have been more detailed, but oh well)--Yoshiah ap 23:37, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)--Yoshiah ap 23:22, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I can respect how it could be perceived as NPOV, but it's POV because different religious philosophies have different definitions for it. For example, Jews would probably call LDS gentiles, but LDS don't consider themselves (nor Jews nor Samaritans) to be gentiles. This shows that the very definition of the word gentile is esoteric, tied to a religious philosophy. Attempting to use the word as NPOV would imply to some people that the article endorses the definition of one belief over another, and therefore seem POV, though I understand that this is often not the intent. Therefore, a more NPOV term concerning the Jewish definition of gentile could be "non-Mosaic" or something like that, while a more NPOV term concerning the LDS definition of gentile could be "non-Israelite". With 14 million Jews and 12 million LDS, a good NPOV compromise of terminology is probably in everyone's best interests. :) - Gilgamesh 00:01, 15 June 2004 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes a "Gentile" and to whom

The following essay on this thought is a bit long, but I hope it makes you, me and everyone else a better Wikipedian and thinker of NPOV-concern issues. :) I've given this subject a lot more thought on this issue. Consider this: How would an Orthodox Jew define a "Gentile"? And how would a secular Jew? A Reform Jew? And a Karaite Jew? And a Samaritan? And a Falasha? It would seem to me that each different school of Jewish thought has different approaches to what defines a Gentile, and what defines a non-Gentile. (Like, for instance, would Samaritans consider Jews to be Gentiles because they are not Samaritans? Rhetorical question, though I don't know the answer if it were a non-rhetorical question anyway. :P) Now, while labels are very rude sometimes, in the context of Wikipedia we need a good collection NPOV terms (preferably not too long-winded) to represent a person who constitutes a "member" or a "Gentile" in each philosophy. In regards to Jewish perceptions of what constitutes a Gentile, I read up on the issue, including the Law of Moses, which seems to be the most fundamental law in this case (correct me if I'm wrong). So I thought, maybe "non-Mosaic" is a good term for this. On the other hand, Christians and Muslims (and LDS) believe that the Law of Moses is (or was) the law, but believe it has been amended, whether by Jesus of Nazareth as believed to be the Messiah or by Muhammad as believed to be the Prophet of God. Once originally a sect of Judaism, the followers of Jesus adopted new beliefs and abandoned some older rites in favor of new ones, making them no longer considered to be Jews (again, correct me if I'm wrong). And in most cases, these religions are in agreement and call themselves "Gentiles". But a few (such as the mentioned LDS religion) hold on to many traditions common in both Judaism (Priests of the Rite of Aaron, Holy Temples believed to be after the manner of Solomon's Temple, the 12 Tribes, etc.) and in Christianity (such as Jesus, the Christian Atonement, etc.), and believe in a sacred role of Israel, and call themselves "Israelite", and recognize Jews, Samaritans, etc. also as Israelites, but call everyone else "Gentile". But since "Gentile" has already been suggested as NPOV and ambiguous (not to mention politically-charged in some cases), then what could be a NPOV term everyone adopt that defines a person who does not believe themselves to be part of Israel? "Non-Israelite" may not work, because it would seem to imply POV that LDS are attested as part of Israel in a perceived fact that no one would dispute, which is not (and will probably never) be the case. At times like these, I wish I knew more Greek and Latin prefixes so I can coin new technical terms for complex+wide distinctions such as these. :) The key here being, while everyone can dispute who is a Gentile and who is not, there has to be NPOV terms that imply who BELIEVE they are not Gentiles. We're not all "in the clear" here anyway; a lot of skeptical thinkers question whether there was originally an "Israel" to begin with, or whether they were merely an invention of myth and legend (obviously I don't believe it's a myth though). Thank you for your attention, and I apologize for my complete failure in structuring coherent paragraphs, and I hope you have thoughts on this matter. ^_^;; - Gilgamesh 05:16, 17 June 2004 (UTC) (also double-posted at Talk:Israelite)[reply]

Who is a Jew?

The definition of a Jew, within Rabbinism,Karaism,Samaritanism,and Falasha are all the same, the difference being controversies of paternal vs. maternal lineage. Actually, the Shomerim (Samaritans) don't consider themselves to be Jews, but Israelites, as they believe they are from the tribe of Joseph. As to Mormons, how many do you know who go around claiming to be "Jews"? They all claim to be Ephraimites (also a trend within "Hebrew Christianity"). All of the LDS people I know use the term "Jews" to refer to people who practice Judaism, and the rest of the world generally does also.

Well, it's true that the majority claim to be Ephrathites or Manassites. But every single tribe is believed to varying degree, either by descent or adoption (as with people like the Biblical Ruth). And yes, Mormons usually use "Jew" to apply to "Judaism", but there are Mormons who believe they are part of Judah, without necessarily even recorded Jewish ancestors (such as my brother's wife, who is believed to be Tribe of Judah). However, there are "Jewish Mormons", but there are not many of them. The only remotely famous Jewish Mormons I know of are Daniel Rona and Marvin Goldstein, and they both Ashkenazic. And as for "Hebrew Christianity", I've honestly never heard that term before. :P LDS don't regard Israel as strictly ethnic, but more like a sacred role of faithful gathering and family sealing and stuff... - Gilgamesh 01:51, 18 June 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You could also add in Avraham Gileadi - he was studying to become an Orthodox Rabbi when he became a Mormon. I've met him once or twice before. He's a very, very courteous person. "Hebrew Christianity" or "Hebraic Christianity" was the original term used by those who now go by the name of "Messianics"--Yoshiah ap 03:25, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ahh, Messianic Judaism. I've never had a friendly conversation with a Messianic Jewish person. Been harassed by them plenty of times, but never met in a peaceful-enough context to have a friendly conversation with one. As soon as they find out who I am, they keep saying "You're going to hell" and grill me out of a desire to "save me." :p Despite the unpleasantness of being grilled, I have nothing against them, but we do have a great deal many differences. - User:Gilgamesh 04:46, 18 June 2004 (UTC)[reply]

In the kindest of ways, your priests and temples are entirely different than Jewish priests and temples. Any male can become a priest in Mormonism, whereas it is determined by lineage according to the Torah. As far as I know, none of the ceremonies and requirments outlined in the Torah are carried out in your temples.

You're right, and yes you were very kind. ^_^ Actually, the LDS believe the Aaronic Priesthood to be a special divine restoration to faithful non-Levites to fill the niche until the Levitical Cohanim can make a sacrifice in the Temple again (or something like that, I'd have to read up again). And many traditions are different because LDS believe (whether anyone else agrees or not; this isn't an argument and I'm not trying to convince anyone on theological points ^^) that doctrine is amended throughout time through divine prophesy, as it was with Abraham, and Moses, and Isaiah and the other OT Prophets, and with the belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and with the belief Joseph Smith Jr. as a Prophet, Seer and Revelator. - Gilgamesh 01:51, 18 June 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second - you're saying that your church believes that your Priesthood is a "fill-in" until we can make proper sacrifices again? (Something many of us are preparing for) If you can dig up more about this, I'd be interested in reading about it.--Yoshiah ap 03:25, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, at least that has been my understanding. I don't know if the Aaronic Priesthood is retractable after such a future event...but yeah, we too are waiting for the Levites to make a proper sacrifice once again. As for sources, I can think of the Aaronic Priesthood article, and most of the rest I can think of is perhaps in the Doctrine and Covenants, though I couldn't immediately say where. - User:Gilgamesh 04:46, 18 June 2004 (UTC)[reply]

However, I do see your point about the word "gentile". Perhaps the different definitions could be listed on a page somewhere?--Yoshiah ap 21:55, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, there's already a fairly simple explanation at Gentile, but only the esoteric religious definitions. We still seem to be short of NPOV alternatives that-don't-require-lots-of-words-and-dashes. :P - Gilgamesh 01:51, 18 June 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably take a look at it then.--Yoshiah ap 03:25, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)