Talk:Messiah in Judaism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Change in Historical Views: Talmud[edit]

I made a change in Historical Views: Talmud. It was written there: He [Elijah] answered him, 'This is what he said to thee, To-day, if ye will hear his voice.'

"if ye will hear his voice" is not the meaning of the sentence. It is a sentence taken from a verse in Psalms 95;7: "today if you will listen to his voice".

The true meaning of the sentence is "listen to his voice", it is also the only right translation there is.

It means to obey, to listen to what G-d says to you and do what he tells you to. Not to hear his voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.167.80 (talkcontribs) 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Overhaul[edit]

Dear All,

I propose we revamp article according to this format.

1. Brief description of Jewish Messiah.

2.Role of Messiah in Judaism.

2.1 Restoring Judaism's (613) commandments
2.2 Qualifications for Messiah
 2.2.1 Qualifications for Presumptive Messiah
 2.2.2 Qualifications for Definite Messiah.
 2.2.3 Disqualification factors for (Presumptive?) Messiah.
2.3 Messiah's effect on World.
 2.3.1 Effect on Jews
 2.3.2 Effect on non-Jews
 2.3.3 Effect on physical world

3. How does Messiah come/ Two-Eras of Messiah/ Two periods in Messianic Era (Not yet finalized exact wording)

3.1 Non-Meritorious State-by Year 6000
3.2 Meritorious state.

4. Importance of Messiah in Judaism

5. Mashiach Ben David vs. Mashiach Ben Yosef (Joseph?),

6. Etymology.

7. Put in history of Messiah according to Jewish biblical sources. (This is Messiah in Judaism, will have separate section for christianity).

8. Judaic Messianism and christianity

8.1 all the christian stuff
8.2 Judaism's rejection of Jesus as Messiah. 

9. Contemporary Jewish Views era).

9.1 Orthodox
 9.1.1 Hassidic/Chabad
 9.1.2 Non-Hasidic/Litvak.
9.2 Non-Orthodox
 9.2.1 Reform
 9.2.2 Conservative

10. See also

11. Notes

12. References

13. Sources

14. Further Readings

15. External Links

Please comment on any suggestions to this proposed structure.

Blessings,

Yaakov W.


p.s. If no comments by 2/23/21, will start overhaul process.

– there should be a "See also" section before Notes – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Epinoia,

Done Yaakov Wa. (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your suggested section 2 above, especially "2.1 Restoring Judaism's 613 commandments" - what is your Reliable Source for this initial statement, before anything else? Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 19:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Warshy,

The source is Maimonedes Hilchos Melachim chapter 11:1. Where it states (translation from Moznaim/ Eliyahu Tougar) "In the future, the Messianic King will arise and renew the Davidic dynasty, restoring it to its initial sovereignty. He will build the Temple and gather the dispersed of Israel. Then, in his days, [the observance of] all the statutes will return to their previous state. We will offer sacrifices, observe the Sabbatical and Jubilee year according to all their particulars as described by the Torah".

Blessings,

Yaakov W.

p.s. Take a look at this article where it briefly goes over this concept. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1122357/jewish/Resumption-of-Suspended-Mitzvot.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakov Wa. (talkcontribs) 19:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had a suspicion you may be coming from Chabad sources, which for me are biased sources to begin with. As for the suggested "613 commandments" to begin with, Maimonides does not refer to them in this manner. The proper way to use Maimonides (which should be in the article, no doubt about that) is to directly quote Maimonides giving his complete description of the Messianic age in translation, precisely as you have done above. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 19:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Warshy,

Appreciate comment, however, when one looks at the hebrew term used in Maimonedes (All their particulars as described by the Torah ככל מצותה האמורה בתורה). It is a clear reference to the 613 commandments. See also Maimonedes Hilchos Melachim Chapter 11:3 "The main thrust of the matter is: This Torah, its statutes and its laws, are everlasting. We may not add to them or detract from them. Anyone who adds or detracts or who reveals false interpretations of the Torah to imply that the mitzvot are not to be understood simply is surely wicked and a non-believer." (Translation from Tougar, with uncensored portion from Yemenite manuscript added).

Blessings,

Yaakov W.

p.s. Regarding naming of section, could be renamed to "Restoring Commandments" or something along those lines. I want suggestions.

 Yaakov Wa. (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For ease of reading of the section/discussion you should indent your replies using the ":" colon before you start your reply. For signing your posts all you have to do is to type four tildes "~" in a row, and the Wikipedia platform will automatically sign them for you. As for your suggested overhaul, my suggestion is to work in small increments, step by step, so it is easier for other editors to accept or reject your changes. I.e., instead of a big plan of a complete overhaul of the article, I'd prefer you try to work in small changes and increments. Note that nowhere Maimonides himself uses the number "613" for his definition of the commandments of the Torah. That number is found in a later rabbinical source, that does not necessarily need to be referred to here, where Maimonides own words should be used directly instead. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 20:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Warshy,
In regards to your suggestion about colon, appreciate you taking the time to teach this to me.
In regards to suggested overhaul, your suggestion is noted that you prefer smaller changes. Also, will see what other editors say before 2/23.
In regards to the number of 613 commandments, Maimonides himself mentions in his Introduction to the Mishneh Torah (of which Hilchos Melachim is the conclusion), that "The number of Mitzvot which are incumbent on us at all times is 613. Of them, 248 are positive commandments; an allusion to their [number], the number of limbs in the human body. 365 are negative commandments (prohibitions); an allusion to their [number], the number of days in a solar year." (Translation from Tougar).
However, there may be justification to say restoring commandments instead of saying 613. Keep up your feedback Warshy!
Blessings,
Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to state my support for this project and gratitude. The article has indisputably been from a Christian frame of reference, and I welcome a corrective for this. newmila (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added wikicode at the top to delay archiving for 14 days. Slywriter (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missing discussion of Haymanot[edit]

The article addresses the role of the Messiah in various sects/denominations of Judaism. But it does not address Haymanot (tradition of Beta Israel).

Restore old revision?[edit]

Would someone with some background knowledge of this subject please compare this revision of the article with the current revision (what exactly was changed can also be tracked in this diff)? I suspect that the now-banned user Yaakov Wa. made many detrimental changes in the past few months, to the point where it may even be desirable to restore the older revision and implement the few changes that were constructive? Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 17:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I did not know the guy has finally been banned. How and when did this happen? In any case, I have been advocating here the restoration of the old stable version that existed before he started editing basically since that happened, as you can see above. I will check if the version you are proposing be restored is the same I am proposing above, but barred that check, I definitely think we should restore the old stable version ASAP. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 17:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You missed this. I’ve just tried to do a ‘compare’ with when he started with the article. Problem is Editor2020 and Ibadibam made substantial edits during the period (other than reverts). I’m not sure whether they were just trying to remediate what Yaakov Wa. was doing or making other edits. But they probably better weigh in on this before rolling back. DeCausa (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The edits by the banned editor were primarily in sections that have now been removed, so no major rollback is necessary. I will check on a few wording changes elsewhere in the article to ensure NPOV changes don't stand. Ibadibam (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked, and I believe it is right. The version being proposed by Apaugasma above is the same version I have proposed twice, above and at ANI, to go back to. The permalink given by the Admin (Bitton) at ANI, following my proposal was this one, which I believe is the same as the one given by Apaugasma above. This version and the current version are radically different, because the current version was substantially messed up by the banned editor. Just look at the 2 refs in the lede of the current version, which were introduced by him and should not be there by any means. I believe the only substantial contribution made since the mess begun was by Editor2020 on the Etimology section, and I think we can definitely restore the old stable version, and then re-add Editor2020 new contribution to the section, if it is better than what was there to begin with. In any case, this would be my recommendation. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 18:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To get a better idea of how much the old stable version of this article was messed up by the banned editor, just compare the lede between the two versions, including all the refs that were there in the original lede, and that were also used later, in other sections in the article. As I suggested, unless Editor2020 opposes the restoration of the old stable version given by Apaugasma above, we should definitely re-start from there. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 19:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I’m convinced by that but like to hear from Editor2020. DeCausa (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The changes are indeed sweeping: the old lead contained vital historical context that has been replaced by a non-encyclopedic religious-centric perspective; newly added sections like 'Role in Judaism' and 'Two periods in Messianic Era' are entirely original research, almost all sections were changed and moved around, etc., etc. If the lead is anything to go by, the current revision may be substantially worse than the old one. I agree with Warshy that restarting from the old revision is highly recommended, but the constructive edits which were made since then should also be restored if possible. This can only be done by the editors who made these constructive edits, or by someone with a good knowledge of the subject (better than mine at least) and some time to go through both versions. Not going to also ping Editor2020, but yes we would appreciate your input? Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 19:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do whatever you think is best for Wikipedia. Editor2020 (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Editor2020. I have just compared the beginning of the Etimology section in both versions, and they are pretty close. In other words, you succeeded in bringing that crucial section of the article to more or less the level it was before the whole mess. Again, you should be commended for all the serious and difficult work you do on Wikipedia. As for this article, I definitely think we should go back to the original stable version and start from scratch again. I make a personal commitment that I will continue to methodically work on the first two paragraphs of the Etimology section (without all the undue messianic religious activism pressure that we suffered through recently here) until it incorporates all the best suggestions of both versions. It may take me more than a few days, but I'm confident we can get there. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 21:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the old revision. Ibadibam, do you agree with this? Can you look through your recent edits on this article and reinstate whatever might have been removed by restoring the old revision? Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 21:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on restoring rolled back edits it in the next few days, sure. Ibadibam (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are already over 6,100 years after creation[edit]

Dunno where this 2240 CE came from, but the numbers within the Bible add up with the current day already way over 6,000 years. So even if I take out the years that never were, we are way past the 6,000 years since Creation described in the Bible. 89.134.17.205 (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]