Talk:Noahidism

The content of this article needs severe tidying-up. Not until section 3 ('The Great Renewal') it is revealed that B'nei Noah is a movement, but not very accurately defined. Is it a congregation of faith or more of a moral association? Still worse, the whole wording is unfocused and utterly subjective, like college students giving a street sermon for a yet undefined religion (maybe that is just what it is?). Please enlighten me. --Sasper 09:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I hope to work on this article soon. Chavatshimshon 06:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is there any reason why this shouldn't be merged into noahide laws? Jon513 17:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would be against a merge. The Noahide Laws are an ancient concept in Judaism while the B'nei Noah is a recent movement. The articles are related but the contents are quite distinct. Robert Brockway 05:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've just done a clean up. Robert Brockway 06:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The section 'High Council of B'nei Noach contained the following statement: A High Council of B’nei Noah was endorsed on January 10, 2006 by the newly formed Sanhedrin in Israel and was set up to represent B'nei Noah communities around the world.', with a source in the footnote. However, this 'Sanhedrin' is by no means widely accepted or recognized, and the source cited is a right-wing religious radio station (Arutz Sheva) which is not exactly the most unbiased or mainstream organization. The new 'Sanhedrin' was set up in October 2004 in Tiberias, Israel, but as an Orthodox Jew I have to say that I don't think it has had much impact or is even known to many Jews, let alone having any authority. I have modified the text to reflect this. Liskeardziz (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC) User: Liskeardziz, 29 November 2007Reply

This is an extremely poorly written article. Honestly. It lacks even basic criteria for understanding the Talmudic understanding of what these people really are.Anuchild (talk) 05:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed that there is a discrepancy between this article and Seven Laws of Noah on the exact wording of the laws, especially laws 4 and 7. For example, this article defines Law 4 on "Sexual Promiscuity" in more concrete and wider terms than the main article, which only has "Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: You shall not commit adultery". I'm by no means an expert on Jewish law, so I'm in no position to make amendments. Hope someone else can. Klehti (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what you're talking about. In the main article there's a longer list of prohibitions than here. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 12:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've seen far longer lists than that too. All that 'the book' actually prohibits is: Adultery, Incest, Sodomy, Bestiality, and Intentional Castration. So, for example, pre - and post - marital sex are not specifically mentioned; neither is lesbianism or male-to-male non-penetrative 'outercourse'. As with all 'religion' topics, you will get people chipping in with their own little agendas. Even adultery is defined narrowly as sex between a married woman and a man other than her husband, and (for example) sex between a married man and another unmarried female is not mentioned either :-) MaxieT (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Does anybody have any idea of the numbers of people involved? I have noticed that Noahides (and the Christian 'backlash') are very 'noisy' on the internet, but I have never met a 'visible' Noahide yet (I am Jewish, by the way, with the emphasis on the 'ish':-). Perhaps it's because I am in the UK, where religion tends to be more of a quiet, internal thing. Is it just yet another American cult with a few hundred vociferous members, or should we Jews all get ready to hide Christians in our attics?. 160.84.253.241 (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think its more of an ideological movement that is more represented by its explicitly-Noahide (as in having B'nei Noah or Noahide in their names) organizations than by particular individuals. AFAIK, its mostly consisting of Chabad and a few evangelicalist Christian groups, with a far greater visibility from Chabad's rabbis; I'll concur that they're a bit more vocal, which makes it all the more interesting. --Toussaint (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I believe Rav Yoel Schwartz is connected; he is hardly Chabad. And what about Outreach Judaism; he isn't Chabad either.Mzk1 (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Where does the commentary paragraph placed beneath each law come from? It doesn't appear to be referenced, and presents contentious viewpoints and value judgements as facts. Even if referenced, I'm not sure it belongs here, as it appears as a list of personal thoughts and meditations.FrFintonStack (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, transpires they were added, without an edit summary, by an anonymous editor, user:71.126.80.63, during a series of edits on 22 October 2008, and apart from a single edit more than two years previously, constitute the user's entire contribution to Wikipedia. This, along with the lack of sources and entirely unencyclopaedic tone puts these edits in flagrant contravention of WP:SOAP and leads me to removal.FrFintonStack (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Shalom! Carefully, the problems with this article must be outlined. I will attempt again, in spite of an overly zealous disruptor who continues to erase my entries here. [By the way, over-zealous, it is you who will be reported for disruption if you continue to monopolize this discussion page. I know you have been contacted about this already. I suggest you heed the advice.]

• SEVEN LAWS: Nowhere in Genesis is Noah given seven laws. He is directly given four after the Flood, and that is easily vedrifiable at chapter 9. The four are: be fruitful/multiply, repopulate the earth, do not ingest blood, and an almost casual reference to bringing murderers to justice. That's it, that is the extent of laws given to Noah anywhere aside from the commands he received and followed!

• JEWISH AUTHORITY OVER RIGHTEOUS GENTILES: Gentiles have the freedom to research and study the Torah, to be illuminated as the Lord sees fit, but the Jewish community cannot, by law, exert some sort of imaginary authority over Gentiles. And this is something I see happening, and it is wrong.

• ORIGINAL LAWS FOR ALL GENTILES: It is valuable to start with Adam Kadmon in Genesis and work one's way forward to ch. 9 to garner all laws that are there. It is for each reader, not some imaginary Jewish authority over Gentiles, to decide what Gentile laws are there.

• KARAITES: This is a sect of Jews who reject all Jewish teachings except for the written words. They have nothing to do with my discussion/opinions here, and I am not a Karaite.

• NOTE TO TRUSILVER: This entry and discussion is important, and I expect you'll be watching. Treat other violators equally, please?

• RevAntonio (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter whether Genesis describes Noah receiving seven laws. In the first place, he was only given one additional law. The other six were given initially to Adam. In the second place, the Pentateuch (written Torah) is only one part of the Torah. The primary corpus of law and lore in Judaism is the oral Torah, and it's in this that we learn about the Noachide laws.

You say "but the Jewish community cannot, by law, exert some sort of imaginary authority over Gentiles", but I have no idea what law you're referring to. If you mean Jewish law, you're demonstrably wrong. If you mean secular law, no one is suggesting otherwise.

It is no more for each reader to decide what laws are binding on non-Jews than it is for each reader to decide what laws are binding on Jews. I don't know what your issues are, Antonio, but this is a sourced article, and all you're bringing against it is your personal opinions. WP:OR and WP:POV are not allowed on Wikipedia, so kindly either produce a source for your claims, or leave us alone. -Lisa (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Lisa, you are exasperating with this subject. If I must be reduced to absolute siplicity, I'm saying that Gentiles do not have to believe what you or I say. Some who are technically Righteous Gentiles do not even believe in the Torah, such as Buddhists, who respect it but do not study or follow it. Nonetheless, they meet with the criteria. Who are you to impose yourself in this way, and to imply that Jewish tradition has to be followed? And where did you study, that you did not know a Jew cannot force a Gentile in religious matters? How about you leave me alone, and let me post what I think can improve Noahidism? Such as honest evaluation of the Seven Laws, for one thing! I never said that laws don't exist, and I never said anything other than what I have clearly said here... and I know you deleted some of it.
• RevAntonio (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's not an ultimatum, Antonia. Go and read WP:OR. Neither your opinions nor mine matter here. If you have a source for what you're saying, well and good. If you don't, why are you wasting our time?

You can talk all you want about "righteous gentiles", but this article is called Noahidism. It's about the following of the Seven Noahide commandments. Popping in and saying, "There's no such thing!" isn't helpful. Certainly when you have no source to back up the claim.

Seriously. Go and read WP:OR. You seem not to understand what original research means. If you think you can go to the verses in Genesis and insert your conclusions into a Wikipedia article, then you really don't understand the rules here at all. -Lisa (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

• You do own this page Liso! I was shocked to learn it. Have it then, and enjoy what you choose to believe. You are as much a sham as I am myself. We don't matter, yet we think we are the only holders of truth. By the way, I do love how you skip away from challenges! And yes, keep an eye on the articles, because I will edit them and do so professionally. And you will be reported if you then choose to vandalize what I have edited. Enough of these misleading ideas regarding Noahidism.
• RevAntonio (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

• It should be pointed out that Noahidism is not a branch, spin-off or sect of Judaism. As such, is it right to impose the Talmud on Gentiles? No! I've been reading one rabbi who says there are at least 66 mitzvot for Gentiles. What next, a Gentile Torah, composed entirely by rabbis? No! This is the sort of thing I say is corrosive to the fundamentals of Noahidism. If you want to be Jewish, then go convert. If I must, I'll quote from the Torah from Adam to Noach and beyond. Because it is plain that for a ben/bat Noach, that is all that matters. And you cannot continue with Karaite references, because Karaites are technically Jews, as are Samaritan Jews. We will have fruitful debate about honesty, not about Jewish Law. For Jewish Law, go to the section on Jews and Judaism. I come from a proud Converso family, and I hate all this manipulation of authority regarding Gentiles. Will we rob them the way my family was robbed centuries ago? Force them to follow Jewish halachah, to obey the Talmud which isn't for them?

• The saying goes, "The rabbi said, 'Any Gentile who knows the Torah is the equal of the High Priest (Kohain Gadol).' " He, whoever he was, never said a thing about the Talmud or ben Maimon.
• RevAntonio (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Stop bulleting every paragraph you write, would you? It's annoying. In any case, none of what you say comes with a source, so it's nothing but your personal opinion. Wikipedia requires sources. Not your personal interpretation of sources, but actual, published, legitimate sources. If you can find a book that says what you're saying, you can cite it, so long as it's a notable view. -Lisa (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

• I'll bullet as I see fit, and yes, I'm preparing to resource and citation you into next week. It's just I have a life and not as much time as some folk. And Lisa, show your sources or cease your bullying. You're not going to goad me into a counter-attack, and you're not the owner of this discussion page or this topic or this religion (or whatever it is). And I'd advise you not to anger Trusilver, which you are already very close to doing.
• RevAntonio (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

• My suggestions and pointing to the truth about the so-called seven laws are valid and easy for anyone to read. So I'll leave it there... I can't imagine a sane Righteous Gentile would even look at this discussion page. Lisa, how do you justify throwing 'original research' at me? Aren't your empty "sources" also the product of original research? Whereas my sources lie in the Torah. You don't want to give up, and I don't want you to give up... I want truth and accuracy. Ignore me then, but be fair to others who come here and produce your authority/sources! Meanwhile, I'm going over to repair the inaccuracies of the article Noahidism.
• RevAntonio (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have taken out the few lines at the very end of this entry, referencing conspiracy theories. They do not meet any kind of encyclopedic standard unless there is a reference to an actual conspiracy theory/theories publicized about Noahidism. Anyone reverting the lines will be reported as per regulations of this website. My properly cited addition to that section, for balance, was unjustly removed, therefore I propose that having no documentation at all of any conspiracy theories against the Bene Noach moevement, there should be no such ridiculous section. 75.21.116.175 (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

OH someone tried to have some dreck conspiracy in the first paragraph! Decapitating people, really. Please.Anuchild (talk) 05:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Lubavicher Rebbe's 89th birthday was March 26, 1991, it was this day in 1991 that was designated as "Education Day" (See source for H.J.Res.104^[1]) not in 1989. User:jcksnmrvn 10-05-2009 —Preceding undated comment added 00:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC).Reply

Added Category:Jews and Judaism-related controversies because this is a controversial topic among Jews and Judaism. Only the 7th and last Lubavitcher Rebbe pushed this "campaign" and it's still not carried out really even by Chabad who give it lip service. All other groups are against a public push for this, certainly the non-Orthodox sector does not want it. The discussions on this talk page itself proves the scope and directions of the various controversies surrounding this subject. IZAK (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you bring any sources for any Jewish group against this? --Historian2 (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Historian: First take a look at what the article itself cites, read the two paragraphs in Seven Laws of Noah#Noahide laws as a basis for secular governance, especially: "Traditionally, Judaism regards the determination of the details of the Noahide Law as something to be left to Jewish rabbis. This, in addition to the teaching of the Jewish law that punishment for violating one of the seven Noahide Laws includes a theoretical death penalty (Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 57a), is a factor in modern opposition to the notion of a Noahide legal system. Jewish scholars respond by noting that Jews today no longer carry out the death penalty, even within the Jewish community." It is important to note in this article that most human beings have not heard of this system. In countries with strong Christian populations there are many groups that deny that Christianity is helped by Noahidism, in fact they take offense and oppose it (looks like from earlier editions of this article?) [1],[2] and again Christian criticism [3] : "Christian critics of the Noahide laws contend that insisting upon a basic set of moral laws is contrary to religious pluralism. Some believe that their existence implies that Jews may set up a legal system that would effectively outlaw Christianity." This article also shows the deep problems in Torah scholarship froma Noahide site: Christianity and Noahide Law. Needless to say in Islamic lands, such as Saudi Arabia, there would be beheadings for preaching such an independent doctrine that is not Islam. Among Jews who know about this notion and mitzva, it fell into disfavor when Lubavitch first broached the idea, but then seemed to back off from it. It is still a controversial subject. Even among rabbis there is no universal agreement what this commandment entails in all its deatils, while the 7 general principles are known to Torah scholars. One cannot say that this is universally accepted movement or notion at this time according to anyone. IZAK (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

You know, this article could do with a little toning-down of all the Chabad Lubavitchers stuff. They have nothing to do with Noachidism or the modern Ben Noach. They like to say they have a sort of authority over the Noachides, but they do NOT. Also, we need to be more pluralistic about Torah authority, such as the above post questioning Noachide Law interpretation/death sentencing. This article has been VASTLY imporved now, but it still leans too much toward the Talmud--which has nothing to do with Gentiles--and too much of the Lubavitcher Sauce for anyone's taste.

I myself got my head snapped off by a Lubavitcher rabbi because I emailed him and said the rabbis' interference was wrong. I mentioned the death sentences they can "theoretically" impose on Bene Noach. He told me I did not know what I was talking about...but I DID know. This article is sort of offensive from the viewpoint that the Jewish faith, not Noachidism, is the only faith that matters or can make decisions. The Laws themselves enourage Gentiles to set up their own laws and enforcement! Why do we need Jewish sources to be cited at all for this sort of information?75.21.119.97 (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I removed the "Noahidism as a basis for secular governance" section in the other article because it is an unsupported political statement. When I spoke to Rav Weinberg, Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Yisroel about this topic, it certainly did not seem to be his view. So we need sources, and balancing.Mzk1 (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

This article is too heavily biased towards Chabad/Lubavitch and doesn't acknowledge other Jewish perspectives or activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.5.184 (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, then somneone needs to add stuff. I don't think that here any of the stuff is necessarily non-notable, just because Lubavich is mentioned. I believe Rabbi Yoel Shwartz and Rabbi Tovia Singer are involved, among notable personalities. Another issue to be explored is that some Noachide groups appear to be somewhat Christian.Mzk1 (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is more than a controversial topic, AND really it meets the criteria for speedy deletion A10, as it is just a repeat in most parts of the Noahide Law page, which is heavily referenced and pretty well written. This page is poorly referenced dreck. There have been attempts to make it into an anti-Semetic rant, and it borders on the absurd as far as any encyclopedic reference. If you want to discuss the modern movements, then discuss the modern movements, but cease and desist with the really poorly written history lesson based not on Talmudic sources, but personal opinion. IZAK is completely correct. Mzkl is also correct in that this is not the basis of a political movement,nor is it representative of any truthful standard. Anuchild (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Circumcision as a Divine commandment was given by G-d specifically to the descendents of Abraham. It is a sign of G-d's covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17). It is also one of the 613 Jewish mitzvot that G-d commanded through Moses at Mount Sinai (Leviticus 12:3).

One should bear in mind that Noahides are not allowed to create additional religious obligations for themselves in the name of Divine commandments beyond their own 7 mitzvot and their details, nor to do additional acts with the intention that they are fulfilling additional Divine commandments.

But a faithful Noahide who desires to perform one the Jewish mitzvot may do so voluntarily for the sake of the benefits it will bring to him, with a few exceptions noted elsewhere: http://www.asknoah.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=15

With this understanding, a Noahide man may voluntarily have himself circumcised, or Noahide parents may voluntarily have a baby son circumcised. They may request this either of an Orthodox Jewish "mohel" (who is certified to perform traditional Jewish circumcisions), or of a trained medical doctor. Once a Noahide makes the decision to do this, he should follow through without delay.

Noahides may also choose male circumcision for the sake of either the benefits which circumcision can bring for a male's physical health, or refinement of personal character. (The extent of the health benefits of male circumcision have become better understood in the past few years: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8473838/ ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.175.38 (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

The fact that male Gentiles are allowed have themselves circumcised as a spiritual observance, even though it is meant to be a sign in the flesh of a Jew, is not problematic, since many Gentiles practice circumcision for medical purposes, and not in order to add a commandment or a new religion. Furthermore, the Gentile descendants of Keturah [from her sons who were fatherd by Abraham] were commanded to observe circumcision, from which we can conclude that this commandment is not exclusively for the Jews.

Therefore, any Gentile male, who wishes to be circumcised in order to refine himself is permitted to do so. But if he is not [assumed within Torah Law to be] descended from a son of Abraham and Keturah, he should be informed that he has no obligation or commandment to do this, and that he should not do so for the sake of a commandment, but rather only to refine his personality and his body and its desires. [Turkish men are obligated by Torah to be circumcised, since the children of Ishmael were intermingled with the children of Keturah during the time of the Babylonian Empire.])

The above-mentioned rule applies only to Jewish commandments that are not duty-bound by logic (even if they have a logical reason) such as circumcision, or tithes [by which a person limits himself to give specifically 10% of his income to charity]. However, those that are duty-bound by logic, such as honoring one’s parents, and kindness and charity [in general], are obligated to be kept, because such is the correct way for a person to act, as befitting the “image of G-d” in which he was created. However, a Gentile may not keep them because it is a commandment from G-d, but rather because one is obligated to be a good, moral person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.175.38 (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Noah isn't mentioned, but the statement of the Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts in the New Testament is somewhat parallel... AnonMoos (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

But christianity doesn't acknowledge this, of course, due to its anti-Jewish theology of supercession and replacement.

Romans 13 is another unacknowledged parallel.

Surely some non-dogmatic scholars must have seen this connection? It would be WP:Original research for us to assert this in the article, but I can't believe we are the first to observe these obvious connections.

Jaredscribe (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@AnonMoos See comment above in which I forgot to ping you Jaredscribe (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Has anyone here taken issue with the fact that the title is so blatantly misleading? The title should be simply: Noahides. And the rainbow the common symbol of the Noahides. This is not an "ism" nor will it ever be. I, along with every observant non-Jew I know, goes out of the way to direct people to any article other than this one due to its scathing errors. Can we, at the very least, agree the title needs an update. I pray those who are editing actually are Noahides and not hateful defamers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.5.77.198 (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the title should be changed. I tried making the move but was not able to do so. Maybe because Noahides is a wikipedia category? 238-Gdn (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

No, at least one of the editors, GenoV84, is not a Noahide but a self proclaimed Pagan. The handle speaks about the push by the Lubavitch movement for Noahidism which maybe could have a separate Wikipedia page...because they really are pushing the idea of "Noahidism" as a new form of worship - a little bit in addition to the idea of just creating "Noahides" (I understand the distinction made previously in this talk section and it is legit - not that i am against either one. I like Noahides and people that want to participate in the Lubavith's disseminated version of "Noahidism" for unaffiliated people is fine by me). However, GenoV84 calls their whole operation racist and supremacist based on his false interpretations of sources...really more likely pre-conceived opinions using deontological reasoning to come to the conclusion that the The Rebbe's followers are racist. It can be found in the "Modern Noahide Movement" section of this page and should be removed.

And just so we are clear, the Lubavitcher movement is the movement that recently, in 2020, was a strong proponent and reason that the United State's Congress, in a rare showing of bipartisan fashion, passed the "1st step" bill, which was a way of the government apologizing for over sentencing for practically the last 30 years with respect to drug crimes. It allowed scores of black and brown (but also non-minority) people to commute their sentences. This was an extremely difficult feat. The power of the state IS AWESOME. The idea that anyone, under any circumstances, can get THE STATE TO ADMIT IT WAS WRONG ON ANY LEVEL IS AMAZING. Both liberals (Van Jones) and conservatives alike engaged in pushing the bill, and the Lubavitcher movement was so heavily involved that some of its attorneys were given awards for helping to make it happen - so the idea that it is a group of "racist Jews" is laughable.

Further, when GenoV84 was camping on the site and I tried to edit the racist post made by the handle, the handle immediately created a reprimand on my IP because I wasn't signed in due to traveling and work. The result was a block on the Air BNB's location to edit Wikipedia at all as a reaction to protect the racist/anti-Semitic interpretation of sources. It was desperate. When I called the handle out and said he/she was acting like an "imbecile", he/she went immediately to a dispute/resolution committee that essentially told him off but still asked me to use nicer language...which I refuted kindly.

GenoV84 smear campaigned a 3,000 year old tribe on a website meant to be read by people interested in the subject and he did it less than 100 years after almost 1/3 of The Tribe's members were culled in Europe. Importantly, they were culled after the people of the proto-Francish kingdom decided to engage in a dehumanization campaign, humiliate the tribe intentionally by cutting specific portions of their hair in public, and then walked the members into what were called showers but knowing they were gas chambers. That was before the bodies were burned, which would potentially mean the tribal members did not have the same place they could have had in their version of the afterlife. GenoV84 is upset about being called an "imbecile" while engaging in the same dehumanization campaign style behavior that led to the catastrophe just previously mentioned and known as The Holocaust or The Shoa.

please edit out this handle's contribution, GenoV84's, unless they have extreme reason for being legitimate without ulterior motive. Thank you. Bless The Name.

BeyondTheGreenLine, Greetings from Area A. 18:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't get why this is dependent on judaism, as noahidists could say that the only sacred text is the Primeval history, thus rejecting other either judaist or christian teachings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.0.186 (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Exactly! I am a Noahide and I can tell you that most Noahides reject everything post Noah, including the story of Abraham. None of the Jewish teachings are relevant to Noahidism. Rubix619 (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article says "Noahides (/ˈnoʊ.ə.haɪdɪs/), or Noahites (/ˈnoʊ.ə.haɪtɪs/)", but shouldn't it be (/ˈnoʊ.ə.haɪdɪz/) in the first case and (/ˈnoʊ.ə.haɪtɪz/) in the second?
Or do they even end with -ɪz in the first place? If not, then they should be (/ˈnoʊ.ə.haɪdz/) and (/ˈnoʊ.ə.haɪts/).--Adûnâi (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Onetwothreeip: You deleted a reference to a person who is mentioned in a reliable 3rd-party source as having been instrumental in organizing one of the first Noahide conferences in the 1980s. Why is that fact not relevant to an article on Noahidism? And what does being a far-right or far-left wing politician or an ultra-Orthodox or Modern Orthodox (more accurate in this case) rabbi or priest or imam have to do with being an early supporter of Noahidism? Why do you assert that a source that is talking about Sons of Noah and Noahides doesn't pertain to Noahidism? Havradim (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

It is regarding about Noahidism from a very fringe perspective and is not representative. No substantial reliable sources claim anything about Kahane as relevant to conferences about Noahidism. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Arutz 7 has right wing bias and should be used with caution, but the same is true for left wing biased sources—we can use them for dry facts about who-what-where; so long as we don't have a different source that contradicts what they say (i.e. Kahane and Carlebach were never involved with Noahidism) it's safe to assume that they were whether we like it or not. Havradim (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Under this heading, the article contains a paragraph beginning with "In one place in his books...," which goes on to say that concept #2 is based on an interpretation that there is a "contradiction" between two statements by Maimonides in "one place" and "another place," "in his books." Those places have not been cited in the article. In fact, the two places are two exactly adjacent paragraphs in the same chapter: Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings 10:9 and 10:10. The article then states, "Many people quote the first of his statements, not knowing about the existence of the second one." The fact that there are two different concepts of Noahidism "in Judaism" did not arise because there are people who read one paragraph of a chapter in Mishneh Torah, and are oblivious to the fact that there is another paragraph that immediately follows it -- which is what that sentence has been inserted to imply. That sentence is irrelevant to the two different scholarly opinions in Torah Law that the article is presenting, and it needs to be removed. Rather, the two different concepts of Noahidism arose because the Torah scholars all held that Maimonides did not contradict himself, and it was only left for them to explain why his Torah laws stated in ibid. 10:9-10 only appear to be a contraction at first glance, and that there are two possibilities for how the apparent contraction can be resolved. Therefore, to be accurate for the statement of either of the two concepts, the article should be changed to say that there is an "apparent contradiction" in Maimonides' words, instead of a "contradiction". Beyond this, the article presently only goes on to explain how rabbis who rule according to concept #2 reconcile the two paragraphs by Maimonides. The article neglects to explain how rabbis who rule according to concept #1 reconcile the two paragraphs. This omission needs to be corrected in a factual manner, with the main citations, in order not to be one-sided.Divine Code (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2019Divine Code (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm new to this article, and had to deal with the same or similar obscurity. I perceive that @Divine Code is knowledgeable of the sources and should be allowed to copyedit this section.

See my comment below Talk:Noahidism#Ritual_law_question_-_Primary_Source_Citations_needed Jaredscribe (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've removed Jewish from "monotheistic Jewish religious movement" on the basis of "The term “Noahide” refers specifically to a non-Jew" in Feldman, Rachel Z. (8 October 2017). "The Bnei Noah (Children of Noah)"^[1] under FOUNDER/GROUP HISTORY listed in the External links. Mcljlm (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Feldman also explains that the modern Noahide movement was founded in Israel during the 1990s by Jewish Orthodox and Religious Zionist rabbis tied to the Hasidic Jewish dinasty Chabad-Lubavitch and various Religious Zionist organizations, such as Oury Amos Cherki (founder of Brit Olam – Noahide World Center), and is still directed by Jews as it has always been since its inception;^[2][3][4] therefore, Noahidism qualifies as a Jewish new religious movement even though its scope is aimed at non-Jews, since this movement doesn't exist as a separate religion outside of Orthodox Judaism, and Orthodox Jewish rabbis have always controlled it.^[2][3][4] GenoV84 (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Calling it a Jewish religious movement implies it's a religion movement whose members are Jews, like members of a denomination or other Jewish movement listed in Category:Jewish religious movements^[5] rather than a movement specifically for gentiles organised by Jews.

Incidentally I attempted to make "Category ..." a hyperlink with [[ ]] but it didn't appear in the preview. Mcljlm (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to also add that Noahidism existed before Judaism. Abraham came later, so there is no need to list this as a Jewish religion. Rubix619 (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, Orthodox Jewish and Religious Zionist rabbis are the leaders of the modern Noahide movement and are directly involved in systematizing the hierarchy, doctrine, rules, beliefs, practices, and activities of the various Noahide communities around the world; hence, there are Jewish members inside the modern Noahide movement, who are evidently an integral part of it. Without them, Noahidism wouldn't even exist in the first place.^[1] GenoV84 (talk) 08:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

That Jews are the preceptors of the teaching, does not imply that they are leaders in the political sense, except within their own land and communities as would be expected of any nation. They do not "control the world", as you seem to fear. Jaredscribe (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Feldman explains clearly that Elijah Benamozegh was the first in the modern era to use the term "noahide", in the 19th century long before modern Israel was established or modern Zionism was a thing. @GenoV84 is misreading or misquoting his sources. Jaredscribe (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

In a sense both of you are right - it is neither "Jewish" nor "Not-Jewish"

This is what I had proposed

is a monotheistic religious movement based upon the Seven Laws of Noah, as transmitted by Jewish teaching

Thoughts? Suggestions?

My contribution was similarly reverted by @GenoV84. It appears that this editor not competent to make managing-editor level content decision, and IMHO, should probably go do research and constructive contributions instead. Therefore I will ask that he refrain from further argumentation, since his position has already been made clear, and he does not represent a consensus. Jaredscribe (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Jaredscribe: Hi, I suggest you to read and get educated on the topic of this article before accusing other editors of bad faith or lack of competence, because that kind of behavior is clearly disrespectful, weird, and uncivil on Wikipedia, and qualifies as a form of personal attacks. Moreover, you are posting these attacks on a discussion that dates back to 3 years ago, which is an even weirder choice on your part. I reverted your edits on the article Noahidism because they didn't appear to be constructive or neutral regarding the subject of that article. You were reverted for the same reason by user Zero0000 on the article Supremacism. Here's why:

1. The several online and academic reliable references cited throughout the article clearly state that Noahidism is a Jewish new religious movement that was founded in the 1990s by Orthodox Jewish rabbis closely tied to Chabad-Lubavitch and Religious Zionist organizations in Israel;^{[2][3][1][4][5][6][7]}
2. Similar sociological phenomena of Gentile sympathizers to Judaism in Classical antiquity are already mentioned and linked throughout the article as well;^[8][9][10]
3. Me and other editors have struggled to find neutral, reliable references from non-partisan sources in the past that could provide a different outlook about the modern Noahide movement but they were all non-neutral, partisan websites managed by Jewish Orthodox and Religious Zionist rabbis involved in the movement itself (such as Chabad.org, among others), whose claims were rather dubious and quite evidently propagandistic, so we couldn't use them in accordance with WP policies and guidelines;
4. As long as informations are well-sourced and the sources are reliable, those informations are supposed to stay here and should be freely accessible to everyone because Wikipedia is not censored. According to the aforementioned WP policy: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of this encyclopedia;
5. I would also point out to the very first pages of Feldman's academic research on the Noahide community in the Philippines (2018);^[3] she reports that the modern Noahide movement was founded by Orthodox Jewish and Religious Zionist rabbis from Israel in the 1990s, who have decidedly instructed the Filipino Noahides to believe that they are racially inferior to Jews and are forbidden from reading Jewish scriptures and performing Jewish rites and customs, as well as to support their messianic, supremacist movement in order to rebuild the third Jewish temple in Jerusalem:^[3]

"Today, nearly 2,000 Filipinos consider themselves members of the ‘‘Children of Noah,’’ a new Judaic faith that is growing into the tens of thousands worldwide as ex-Christians encounter forms of Jewish learning online. Under the tutelage of Orthodox Jewish rabbis, Filipino ‘‘Noahides,’’ as they call themselves, study Torah, observe the Sabbath, and passionately support a form of messianic Zionism. Filipino Noahides believe that Jews are a racially superior people, with an innate ability to access divinity. According to their rabbi mentors, they are forbidden from performing Jewish rituals and even reading certain Jewish texts. These restrictions have necessitated the creation of new, distinctly Noahide ritual practices and prayers modeled after Jewish ones. Filipino Noahides are practicing a new faith that also affirms the superiority of Judaism and Jewish biblical right to the Land of Israel, in line with the aims of the growing messianic Third Temple Movement in Jerusalem."^[3]

GenoV84 (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Furthermore, your recent edits on this article consist of unexplained addition of unsourced, dubious claims and deliberate disruptive editing with misleading edit summaries in which you deliberately deleted sourced content with multiple academic and online reliable references ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]), and you have already been warned for the same behavior on Judaism-related articles. Considering all the religious propaganda and promotional, unreliable, unverifiable claims that you have been pushing on this article, it's difficult to believe you don't have a conflict of interest regarding the modern Noahide movement and its links to Chabad. GenoV84 (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes I did make 9 total contributions, but the edit summaries were accurate. Here is a before and after comparison on the whole series [13]

As you see, nothing was deleted. On the contrary I added content, some of which is now being discussed below at Talk:Noahidism#Ritual_law_question_-_Primary_Source_Citations_needed

After putting a {{disputed}} tag over a section full of unsourced claims, I proceeded to put a third opinion opininion at the bottom, per WP:BRD, and vaguely mentioned Maimonides hoping someone would know the exact citation. I'm somewhat happy to see that now a third editor has deleted them all, so we can discuss. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I added three other substantial points in this series of contributions [14], all of which are mentioned by Feldman 2017, and Feldman 2018, the very same "reliable academic source" that User:GenoV84 is using. I will address those content disputes in separate talk page section. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

He has falsely accused me on two counts 1) that I deleted sourced content (I didn't), 2) that in citing Feldman's research in the Phillipines, or her work on world religions and spirituality project I'm doing propaganda, which if it were true, he would also be guilty of doing, for he not only cites it, but trumpets it as ultimate arbiter of truth on this article. As stated before, he misrepresents the source, therefore ask competent editors to follow the citation and read it carefully, and confirm that my assertions are justified by the source. The incoherent and false accusations made against me are deliberate and disruptive, and this editor appears to be guilty exactly of that which he accuses me. Therefore let him be warned, again. He is also WP:casting aspersions about an imagined CoI with Chabad, whom I have never cited. This is distracting us from the mission of the WP:Encyclopedia, and I ask him for the second time to STOP. He clearly does not represent a consensus, nor does he appear to understand WP:Content policy Jaredscribe (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Jaredscribe: I suggest you to cool down and collaborate with me, this is not a trial and we are not judges. Don't attack other editors, but focus on content and institutional context. It's essential that everyone involved in this discussion should communicate in an unambiguous (on policy and evidence, don't assume others know), interested (on problem solving), and non-hostile manner.

I noticed that sourced paragraphs with notes were missing between the previous revisions ([15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]), that's why I restored the content that was removed. Meanwhile, I restored the content that you added in which Benamozegh and Pallière are mentioned, sorry about that; I will expand that paragraph with further informations in the future. GenoV84 (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Regarding my other contributions that were unjustifiably removed (and for which I am now being slandered) Talk:Noahidism#Include_mention_of_Elijah_Benamozegh_and_Aime_Palliere

Jaredscribe (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Jaredscribe: I restored the content in which Benamozegh and Pallière are mentioned; I will expand that paragraph with further informations in the future. GenoV84 (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Trying to WP:PRESERVE what we can, after the content below was removed on account of lacking citations. It is permissible to use sectarian and WP:PRIMARY source citations for these, provided they are attributed as such and not put into wikivoice, and it is necessary to use primary sources in this case. the first two had been longstanding on the article. when I added the third explication (which is, I am aware, the main orthodox opinion following Maimonides, Melachim u milchamotehim), all three were removed. not remembering the exact reference off the top of my head, I will get to this later.

• The Bnei Noah movement, whose members observe the Seven Laws of Noah or Laws only and hold that the remaining commandments do not apply to them. This is the view of Chabad-Lubavitch and a few other movements. This means that Noahides may not observe the Sabbath as a matter of obligation, study the Talmud (except for portions related to the seven Noahide laws), etc.[citation needed]
• The Bnei Noah movement, whose members hold that they can adhere completely to Judaism to learn from the Jews and together promote the World to Come (Olam Ha-Ba) but without becoming a part of the Jewish people (i.e. without converting to Judaism). After Bnei Noah accept the obligatory seven commandments, they can, if they so desire, carry out the rest of the Jewish commandments, including studying the Torah, observing the Sabbath, celebrating Jewish holidays, etc. This view is held, for example, by Yoel Schwartz and Oury Amos Cherki.[citation needed]
• Noahides may voluntarily perform Jewish rituals, but not on an obligatory basis as "mitzvot" per se, since they have not been commanded in these. They may not claim "sanctification by the command", nor may they "Judaize" by placing these as obligations on other gentile Noahides. See Maimonides for example.[citation needed]

Jaredscribe (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Jaredscribe: Hi, as I already said in the previous discussion, me and other editors have struggled to find neutral, reliable references from non-partisan sources in the past that could provide a different outlook about the modern Noahide movement but they were all non-neutral, partisan websites managed by Jewish Orthodox and Religious Zionist rabbis involved in the movement itself (such as Chabad.org, among others), whose claims were rather dubious and quite evidently propagandistic, so we couldn't use them in accordance with WP policies and guidelines.

GenoV84 (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I was WP:Bold to add the third option, with a ^{[citation needed]}, hoping there were some knowledgeable Jewish editors around who would know the citations in Maimonides, but now I fear they have been warned, threatened and driven away from the article.

It seems @DivineCode knew the specific citations from Maimonides, and and is furthermore acquainted with with two or more ways that scholars since then have interpreted/reconciled his words. My limited knowledge concurs with what he wrote above at Talk:Noahidism#"two_different_concepts_of_Noahidism_in_Judaism", and I beg him to expand on it, or someone else with this level of subject matter competence.

Therefore if he has not abandoned the project, or given up on this article, I beg him to return, contribute and edit my proposition, in keeping with WP:Content policy, which permits notable partisan opinions on controversial subjects, provided that wp:Due weight is given to the each of the various partisans, and it permits the use of WP:primary sources when they are used carefully and attributed. Jaredscribe (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @DivineCode, see comment above Jaredscribe (talk) 05:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

1860s:  The idea of Noahidism as a Judaic religion for non-Jews was developed by Rabbi Elijah Benamozegh. 1920-1930s:  Aime Palliere became a Noahide and spread the teachings of Elijah Benamozegh in Europe. ^[1] Two direct quotes from an allegedly "Reliable, academic source" (at the very top of the web page) There is no justification for removing these important and relevant historical facts from the article. Jaredscribe (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

These historical facts are prominently mentioned on Feldman 2017 - world religions and spirituality project, which source the managing-editors have cited throughout the article for numerous claims. Jaredscribe (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Jaredscribe: I restored the content in which Benamozegh and Pallière are mentioned; I will expand that paragraph with further informations in the future. GenoV84 (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply