Talk:Shituf/Archive 1

Copied from Talk:Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms

Trinitarianism, shituf and Arianism

Tim wrote: "Okay, so is Lisa right and there are NO Rabbinic sources that disagree with Christianity? Apparently so."

Am I the only one who is getting tired of this? Tim, if you want to retain an assumption of good faith, you have to stop this. Seriously. All rabbinic sources disagree with Christianity. You are engaging in spin, based upon your personal POV opinion of the issues, and it's just wildly inappropriate. You've been called on it by myself and by Slrubenstein, and possibly by others, but you don't seem to have any willingness whatsoever to acknowledge that you are mistaken.

You are saying this:

Fact: Shituf = Arianism
Fact: Shituf ≠ Trinitarianism

This is your personal opinion. It may be the view of Christianity as well. It is not fact. Fact is:

Jewish view: Shituf = Trinitarianism
Christian view: Shituf ≠ Trinitarianism; Shituf = Arianism

Consider the path of a disagreement. You want to start after a determination is made about whether trinitarianism is or is not shituf, and look at what Judaism has to say. But the disagreement starts further back on that path. With the very determination of whether trinitarianism is or is not shituf. That is the disagreement.

You cannot say that it is not. That's OR. That's POV. That's simply one view. There is another verifiable view of the matter, and you keep trying to sweep it under the carpet and pretend that it either doesn't exist or has no validity.

You've said "Christianity defines Christianity". And the answer to that is "not here, it doesn't". Here, Christianity only defines the Christian view of Christianity.

Please take a step back and try and realize that continuing to say things like "are there are NO Rabbinic sources that disagree with Christianity?" only places you further outside of Wikipedia policy and makes it impossible for this conflict to end. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- on a complete aside here... this is important even for anti-missionary work. Right now the sources we've found are okay to keep most Jews from going to Christianity if they are taught it well enough to not pay attention to the Christian view. But what about those who are already converted to Christianity? In years past Jews weren't allowed to engage in persuasive dialogue to get their own back. We really didn’t need to address the Christian view of itself because we’d be physically attacked if we tried. But if we want to persuade Christian Jews to return from their apostasy, we need to give answers to what they themselves think. It is their minds we are trying to reach. So, looking for 3 is good for interfaith dialogue (if you’re into that), and it’s also good for polemical attack (if you’re into that). It’s like those well guided bombs we use nowadays. In previous wars we just made bigger and bigger bombs and hoped they hit something. Now we have a bomb that will fly across two countries, down an alleyway, through a window, and into the enemy’s lap. Big bombs, or laser precision? Maybe both is best in warfare, but definitely get that precision if it’s available. Is it correct to say that Judaism teaches the Trinity is Shituf? Well (now that there aren’t any exceptions anyone is aware of, absolutely). And in a Jewish paradigm, that’s about as good as you can do (our concepts don’t fit in their language either). But we live in a new day, where the old truths have an audience that wasn’t available to us before – the lost Jews. Let’s reach them exactly where they are so we can bring them back, shall we?Tim (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Process

Lisa, there are several layers to this:

1. Each religion defines itself
2. Each religion defines its own view – even of other religions
3. If you can find a view of another religion that is recognizable by that religion, use that citation
4. If you cannot find such a citation, recognize that they are not talking about the same concept, make the best citation you can, and move on

Our disconnect has been that I’ve been searching for item number 3 before settling with 4.

“Okay, so is Lisa right and there are NO Rabbinic sources that disagree with Christianity? Apparently so.”

That statement was simply giving up on 3 and settling for 4. I agree with you that 4 is absolutely valid for Wikipedia. It’s just that 3, if it exists, is even better.

That’s all.

The statement wasn’t being argumentative. It was just saying, “Okay, if I a universally intelligible statement can’t be found, file it away in our heads and move on.”

Hope that clears it up.Tim (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And the specific example

I just realized that it may be helpful to translate that process to this instance:

1. The Christian view of the Christian doctrine is the Christian doctrine
2. The Jewish view of the Christian doctrine is the Jewish view of the Christian doctrine
3. If you can find a Jewish view of the Christian doctrine that ADDRESSES the Christian doctrine, that’s the perfect citation
4. If you can’t, then settle for a citation that shows the Jewish view of the Christian doctrine, and move on

Is it acceptable to give a citation of a Jewish view that doesn’t match the actual doctrine it’s addressing? Sure – but for the sake of the readers do a second check to see if there could be an even better citation.

I had thought Telushkin to be that citation. He seemed to be the greatest scholar in all of Judaism to actually fill number 3. Is he the greatest scholar in all of Judaism? Of course not! From Moses to Moses, there has never been another like Moses… (but there are a lot of great men with different names nonetheless).

I was okay with “the vast majority in all of history thinks thus and so” even if it seemed there was an exception. I wasn’t comfortable with “EVERY Jew thinks thus and so” when I was looking at one Rabbi who I thought was an exception. “Every” statements are tough to document on Wikipedia. But, if there really isn’t an exception, THEN “every Jew thinks thus and so” is okay as well. At least we took the time to look.

Fair?Tim (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I'm not sure where you (and others?) have come up with #1, that each religion defines itself. This is too narrow for Wikipedia policy. Granted, for article names, religious groups are self-identifying entities. But for religious terms etc., we don't rely only on what religious "insiders" and their primary sources say ("first order" definitions) but also on observations by reliable secondary sources ("second order" definitions). For a recent discussion of 1st and 2nd order definitions, with Judaism as an example, see Michael Satlow's "Defining Judaism: Accounting for 'Religion' in the Study of Religion" in the Journal of the Amer Acad of Religion (Dec 2006). Thanks. HG | Talk 14:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

HG -- my idea is that when "first order" (1) and "second order" (2) definitions match (3), that's the first citation to look for. If not (4), then have 1, 2, and 4 instead. I'm not saying to AVOID 4. I'm just saying to check for 3 first. That's all.Tim (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with #1 as well, but I particularly disagree with Tim's rule that 3 is better than 4. It's not. Tim wrote: "If you can find a Jewish view of the Christian doctrine that ADDRESSES the Christian doctrine, that’s the perfect citation". But that's not true. Not unless it's a representative Jewish view. Telushkin's, even had he meant what Tim thought he meant, was not. Furthermore, the view of a rabbi in a popular book is not considered an authoritative Jewish view. If Telushkin were to write a scholarly book, using Torah sources and Torah methodology, it would be considered a valid source. Not a major one, because Telushkin is not a major halakhic authority, but at least he'd be a source to use for this. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- for one thing, you and I are in the minority of the "Jewish view." Only 10% of us are observant and give a bleep about halakhic authority. You and I do for our personal lives. Certainly we'd like to encourage more of that in the other 90%. Also, I'd like to be able to lean on you for the big bombs. I'd just appreciate it if you could try to aim them where I'm pointing the laser beam if at all possible. I had THOUGHT it was possible in that instance. I was wrong. But that doesn't mean it's wrong to do so when you can. But more to the point -- a big bomb 3 is MUCH better than a little nugget 3. Absolutely! And should it be "representative"? Yes, again. But, still, look for the 3 if you can. You pull out the guns and let me communicate the location of the target. If you have a gun pointed in that direction -- please, shoot that one first.Tim (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim, you are asking us to violate WP:NPOV, our non-negotiable policy. NPOV demands that all notable views be described in the article. When you write,

1. If you can find a Jewish view of the Christian doctrine that ADDRESSES the Christian doctrine, that’s the perfect citation
2. If you can’t, then settle for a citation that shows the Jewish view of the Christian doctrine, and move on

You seem to be saying that when Rabbis make claims about trinitarianism or Christianity they are not "really" talking about the "real" trinity or what Christianity "really" is. So what? It doesn't matter. I do not care if you think Rabbis misunderstand trinitarianism or Christianity, and I do not care whether you understand judaism, because these matters are irrelevant to writing a WIkipedia article. The issue is NOT this argument over shituf. The issue is much simpler: NPOV. You are putting a condition on what views can be included in an article. You are simply wrong. ANd I am ending discussion on this. You are welcome to argue all you want to, but you would better spend your time reflecting on our NPOV policy and the fact that it requires all of us to accept in article views we consider wrong, bad, inaccurate, or even misinformed. That's it. This is the key point you refuse to accept. I am not going to try to explain it to you again, and Lisa's explanation was clear enough too and I can't imagine she would want to waste time explaining it to you again. If you distort or remove a view on the grounds that you do not believe it is accurately addressing what it claims to be addressing, I will just revert you, and with no further explanation, this paragraph IS the explanation. I will revert you, or others will revert you. And if you see mediation or orbitration your case will be rejected or you will lose, because you cannot violate NPOV. Period. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

All I see Tim saying is, don't use the OR of "every Jew thinks/doesn't think thus and so" as has been done with figs and everything else under the sun here (which is a major reason for my AfD), find some cites. If you can't find cites right now then move on to the next item. Is that a big problem? -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm also saying that if 98% of your audience won't understand what your citation is saying (or will know immediately is on the wrong subject), see if there is a better one. Don't distort the Jewish view, by all means. But see if there is a source that makes some kind of sense to everyone else. If not, go ahead with the unintelligible one until someone finds something better. It is a valid back country view that "I vote democrat because I'm against abortion." Okay, that IS a valid point of view to a lot of people. But, uh... see if there are any others to throw in there too, if you can. And if it's minority or lacks authority -- or distorted -- then it's not good for a source either. But if you HAVE two valid Jewish sources, one of which 100% of the audience can make sense of, and one of which 2% of the audience can make sense of... then do the math. Does that violate NPOV? Excuse me while I see what planet we're all on...Tim (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, I have to add -- this whole line of conversation is a little bizarre. I never said "don't use 4". I just said "check for a 3". Even if you HAVE a 3 and the 4 is more representative of the "Jewish view", well, you're stuck with the 4. But checking for something all the audience will identify is called... uh... writing.Tim (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You're complaining about this:

1. If you can find a Jewish view of the Christian doctrine that ADDRESSES the Christian doctrine, that’s the perfect citation
2. If you can’t, then settle for a citation that shows the Jewish view of the Christian doctrine, and move on

At NO point do I intend to suggest that you avoid the Jewish view. I'm just suggesting to double check sources that make sense to the public forum we're in.Tim (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with finding cites saying something like this:

• Some Jews view Trinity as three separate and equal Gods.
• Some Jews view Trinity as lesser deities leading to the one true God.
• Some Jews view Trinity as being the one God with two manifestations, like Shechinah = Holy Spirit and its presence in humans = tzadikim, rebbes.

The last view is scarce but I've seen it out there. That covers every possible view, doesn't it? -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

BB, the problem would be, as Lisa is saying -- what is the normative and authoritative view? I had thought that the majority view is Shituf but (I think) I've heard Lisa say otherwise. So, you don't want to misrepresent the Jewish view, and you don't want to distort the Jewish view by giving undue weight to a lesser view. To put my own OR and POV in the discussion -- the trinity really doesn't logically "fit" in a Jewish paradigm. I remember the first time I "got it" -- it REALLY looked polytheistic! Shituf was... the most polite way to dismiss it, and it was going over backwards to do even that. I had to pull out Calvin's Institutes and reprogram my brain in the trinitarian operating system before I could get back to work as a pastor. After a while I could go back and forth -- seeing the two views. There actually IS a Jewish response to why the trinitarian's own doctrine is theoretically idolatrous in Judaism, and it's found in Maimonides' Guide to the Perplexed. It has to do with ANY definition to God. A definition is a limitation -- a conceptual handle. The actual trinitarian doctrine is refuted on those lines. But I have never seen any authoritative Jewish sources that applied Maimonides explanation of conceptual idolatry to the trinity, and I was REALLY banking on Lisa being able to find one. I couldn't find it, and I certainly couldn't say it -- but if I kept asking Lisa to look, if it DID exist out there, she had a good chance to find it. Is shituf and idolatry more mainstream than the conceptual issue (which may not even exist)? Absolutely! But I had thought Telushkin had hit it on the Maimonidean angle (I've asked Telushkin and am waiting for an answer) -- which, WOULD be notable enough to include even if a minority view, because Maimonides (if he had been applied that way) is a foundational representative of Jewish thought. I'll have to research Nachmanides now -- he had a debate with a converted Jew that I want to read. He'd also be a good source. But if it did exist it would be SO minority that it fails the notability enough to include it. Again, I only suggested to look for 3. I never said don't do 4 if 3 didn't exist.Tim (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... looks like we're both going to be blocked. I'll meet you in an afterlife somewhere, BB.Tim (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he will block as long as we don't attack anymore. At least I hope he sees blame needs to go all the way around, not just heaped on one side.

Anyway...so is it that you are looking for something that says Gentiles shouldn't even think about God in limited terms, or being of a partnership? The long lists of Noahide laws I think covers a lot of that, I gave a link to one but there are other versions. -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, more of something that Gentiles CAN but Jews CAN'T. I have no idea if this is the right track, but I'm looking to see what people have said on it. If it's notable within Judaism, at least Christians would have a definition that helped them figure out what the idolatry isn't idolatry thing is. Again, I could be on the wrong track, but I'd like to know. And if there is something Jewish, mainstream, and notable along those lines -- that's a definite 3 to include in there along with all the 4s.Tim (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we kind of leave off with that being unresolved? In the archives I posted:

Most recent authorities agree that Children of Noah are forbidden to believe in a partnership. But even according to these, the Children of Noah are permitted to swear by the name of an idol in combination with God (to swear by the Lord of Hosts and a Hindu deity, for example).Idolatry

Well, this says MOST. So they have reason to think that SOME don't agree they are forbidden, right? So you are on the right track, if you want to give all sides of the story. I don't think it matters that one is way more notable than another, for simple honesty's sake if not every single Jew on the planet believes it is forbidden then you still kind of have to say some don't, which is a lot of what I've been griping about here, the desire to make it black or white when it's not really that way. The question now is finding a source that says some believe it is specifically not forbidden. -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this is more to the point:

So long as ascribing power to a deity other than the Creator remains conceptual, it is permissible to the Children of Noah according to many authorities[6]. But worship of this independent being is clearly idolatry. Idolatry -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to say conceptualizing Jesus as a deity other than the Creator is permissible (for Gentiles), as long as you don't worship him. So if it is true that Arians don't worship Jesus but only honor him as this lesser created deity -- I don't know if it is true with all of them -- then that idea of Trinity is permitted, if that's what the Arian Trinity is. Only the idea of Trinity with Jesus worshiped as God is idolatry and forbidden. That's what I'm getting here, anyway. -Bikinibomb (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"I'm just suggesting to double check sources that make sense to the public forum we're in" BEEEEP! WRONG! We do not cherry'pick sources to find ones that figt certain expectiations of hopes we have. We donot look for sources that support points of view we like. We research reliable verifiable sources to dientify notafiable points of view, period. It does not matter wheher you or I ´´think´´ the source makes sense, let alone makes sense to the general public. Yes, we try to ´´write´´ an article that is clearly written. But the standard for sources is that they are reliable and verifiable, NOT that some group finds them sensible. And we include views because they are notable, not because we think some readers will find them sensible. That´s all there is to say. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sl -- once again, I've never said you couldn't (or shouldn't) have a 1, 2, 4 citation. If 4 is more representative of (in this case) Judaism, by all means use 4. But check to see if there is an equally valid 3. If not, stick with the 4. If you HAVE to choose between reliable and verifiable and intelligible, then go with reliable and verifiable. But if you can make sense to all the readers as well, that's even better. I don't know why you keep bleeping intelligibility. It's not about liking something. It's about talking so that a general audience can understand. If the reliable and verifiable (and normative) views Christians have of Jews is that Judaism worships "Shane", then, well, say it. But if something seems off to someone (particularly a Jew), then, well, double check the sources. If there is no better (and equally or more) reliable and verifiable source, then stick with the one you have. But if there is something equally verifiable that says "HaShem" well, look at that too. All I'm saying is that if something's a little off to someone, double check. And if your source is still the right one, well, then it's the right one. But at least you DID check. You can make noises all you like, but it's a process that you would want Christian editors to make as well. Don't you want to know what they heck they are trying to say?Tim (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's say there is a major Jewish view that blah blah is ok for Christians but not for Jews. Sure you can say that, but someone like me who thinks it makes no sense is going to add a little sourced reminder/criticism that ethnic Jews can also be Christians since once a Jew, always a Jew, and then the reader may also see that this popular Jewish view makes no sense, since how can something be ok for Christians but not for Jews if Jews can also be Christians? So if you found a source using the term "Gentiles" rather than "Christians" and better yet another saying that most Jews believe Christians are also Gentiles and not Jews, you'll clean up that messy view so that it doesn't need to be rebutted. Sometimes you need to go looking for sources and cherrypick a little if you are interested in getting the spirit of the correct view across, if not the exact words. Unless as I said you want a rebuttal that makes it look nonsensical to the reader. -Bikinibomb (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

I'd like to suggest folks here carefully review WP:NOR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Note that religious scripture is specifically listed as a primary source. I would include classic Rabbinic works, such as Mishneh Torah in that category. To quote the policy: "To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source."--agr (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of this is if the Bible says Jonah was in the whale, then it's fine to use that primary source to say "the Bible says, Jonah was in the whale." We don't need find where it's used in another source, we can say that right from the Bible. However if one says, "Jonah in the whale is symbolic of purgatory" then that must be found in another source, not synthesized from the Bible by an editor. Same with Jesus, Arianism, and conceptualization. We can only use a source saying that, not add all that in ourselves. Maybe that's what you were getting at. -Bikinibomb (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Re-org

We should keep the Jewish cites in the Jewish section and the Christian ones in the Christian section. Readers might mistake Louis Jacobs for a Christian and get a bit tangled.Tim (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

May need another source

The statement that Judaism rejects trinitarianism as Judaism understands it is not going to be helpful to the Christian readers, since Christianity also rejects trinitarianism as Judaism understands it (i.e. Arianism).

Guys, I am NOT trying to defend Christianity here. Keep the Jacobs source, but can you help me find another one in which Judaism rejects trinitarianism as Christians understand it? We really DO reject trinitarianism as Christians understand it, BTW. Anyhow, I'll do some hunting for a more on target source. Please KEEP the Jacobs source, but I'd appreciate some help finding an on target source as well. I'll start with Schechter, Cohen, and the Rambam.

Thanks.Tim (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's see...if the Judaism idea of Trinity follows Arianism...does Judaism reject it because of the inherent nature of the setup, or just because Jesus is involved? Because if there is a Father God, a Holy Spirit, and a created lesser deity who is also human, how is that really tons different than God, a female Shekhinah manifestation of God, and a Tzadik who is God Himself clothed in a human body? -Bikinibomb (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Tzadik problem is another matter -- and in fact what I am looking for would be helpful there as well. I've seen some instances in which the Tzadikim were treated in an Arian way. For instance, the Chofetz Chaim treats Josephs brothers as Tzadikim, and incapable of sinning. Their treatment of Joseph becomes a righteous beit din condemning him to death for lashon hara, and their action was treated as mercy. So, when I gave a talk at a Lubavitch lunch, I used Joseph as a human example for us to learn from, knowing to stay away from treating his brothers as human. Wrong move. JOSEPH is the Tzadik in Lubavitch tradition, and his brothers are treated as human. Let's forget the different groups, the Jesusers, the Josephers, the patriarchers -- and look for a principle involved... I'll describe it better below.Tim (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Inter vs Intra

More specifically, I'm looking for a citation in which Judaism prohibits an intra-divine relationship, instead of just an inter-divine relationship. For instance, we need something that denies that God can function as his own mediator, or that he would even need to do so.Tim (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, Parts (transferred from Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms discussion)

"God has no body, parts, or passions" (Westminster Confession, 1689 London Confession, etc.) is a foundational statment for Christian doctrine. If we include a Jewish statement that "Worship of any three-part god by a Jew is nothing less than a form of idolatry" -- well, in all fairness we should give a similar statement from Christian sources. Dagg, or Berkhoff, or even Calvin are clear examples, as well as the confessions I just pointed out. Both religions reject a God with parts for a simple reason: both religions insist on monotheism, regardless of what they think about each other. Do we REALLY need a joint statement against a partitioned deity?Tim (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

1689 Confession 2:1 "The Lord our God is but one only living and true God; whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself; a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; who is immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, every way infinite, most holy, most wise, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him, and withal most just and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty." I can find a more concise example, if necessary.Tim (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I see that inclusion is just more POV push and whimsy, a random irk that came to mind. Aren't there more important things to say regarding the Jewish view of Christians, like maybe, Jews don't believe Jesus is Christ as they do, to start off with? From the AfD this article may be going away anyhow, which is good since there will be less problems with sticking to introduction content and cherrypicking quotes like that... -Bikinibomb (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it is whimsical to add to this, and the corresponding Christian glossary, a clear explanation of trinitarianism. If I am right however that this is shared by all Christiand, my suggestion would be to indlude as early a statement as possible - is this not part of the Nicene Creed? Also, if Arianism was decreed heretical as a form of tritheism, can you provide a good secondary source on that conflict (trinitarian vs. tritheism; orthodoxy vs. Arianism)? I am not challenging your claim, I just think more specific sources on this would make the glossaries and any corresponding articles more educational. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Part of my problem is that I gave away two bookcases of Christian theological books because they were giving my mother-in-law the whillies. I kept Berkhof and Calvin. Calvin isn't very helpful, and although Berkhof is a perfect one size fits all theology, I hate to keep quoting from the same source. I might talk my brother into shipping some of my books back. I'll need them anyway for my next book. If needed, I can quote some relevant passages from Berkhof. A. H. Strong, Dagg, Boyle, and some others are available online or on PDF as well. I also have the ante-Nicene fathers collection. Schaff's Creeds of Christendom would be the perfect source for what you are describing.... maybe I can get those online in PDF. I'd hate to buy the three volumes again just for Wikipedia... Hmm... Berkhof's History of Christian Doctrines may serve as well... Next time I take a break from galley proofing I'll hunt down some refs.Tim (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I am in no position to judge your sources, I only know of a book by a historian named Hall on the early Church ... I do think that to comply with NPOV we should use primary sources only when the meaning is plain, and good secondary sources when any interpretation or generalization or synthesis is involved, if you say Berkhof is well-regarded, okay. And if we are discussing Orthodoxy versus heresy, I want to make sure it is clear what Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and mainstream Protestants agree on. As long as you are confident that your sources are appropriate, that is fine with me! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. And anything you can find on Jewish sources prohibiting an intra-divine relationship instead of just an inter-divine relationship would be great. Also, how detailed do we want to be? There are a number of different spinoffs of the Trinitarian idea:

1. Modalistic Monarchianism -- God changes states or manifestations. Sometimes he is father, sometimes son, sometimes holy spirit.
2. Dynamic Monarchianism -- God is simply the father, with the son only human and the spirit just a divine influence.
3. Arianism -- the son and spirit are created partners of the father.
4. Tritheism -- God is three Gods who cooperate.

All these were summarized on Berkhof's Systematic Theology 82-83. Berkhof gave Augustine's De Trinitate as a complete statement in the early church. That should be available online in the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL.org, I think).

The simplest way to "get" the Christian idea is to think geometrically. A physical analogy to the spiritual concept would be a dimensional one. Any physical object is spatially triune in a similar way that Christians have God to be spiritually (NOT spacially) triune. The dimensions are not "parts." Take away any dimension and you do not have 2/3s left. You have 0/3s left.

Their conception of Jesus as fully human and fully divine is similar. Infinite in the divine dimension, and finite in the human dimension. Humanity is NOT deity, but in their doctrine Jesus is both. Not 50% one and 50% the other, but 100% and 100% the other.

Although Jewish responses like Kaplan and Jacobs are perfectly legitimate, a Jewish source that drives against this dimensional concept would be even better to include as well. In Christianity God is infinitely just and infinitely merciful. The mercy must satisfy the justice. In Judiasm God isn't really "merciful" or "just" per se. These are words we apply in a limited human capacity. Therefore they do not need to satisfy each other. There is no spiritual dimensionality to God, and in fact ANY definition is conceptually idolatrous because a definition becomes a limitation to God. All of that's in the Guide to the Perplexed. We've been too busy arguing to get to what I'm looking for, here, but that's basically it.Tim (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's what I mean by whimsy. In one article an editor insists on saying the Jesus has no role whatsoever in Judaism. The lo and behold, in another article sees fit to make "Christianity" a shared term just to add the view of Judaism that Christianity is generally considered idolatry according to Jewish theologians, first unsourced, then after some reverts with a source that doesn't really say that. So if Christianity is about Jesus, one role of Jesus in Judaism is a view of idolatry.

So as a test I changed "Christ" to a shared term to see if she would revert it and of course she did as a Christian only term, she did the same with Yeshua even though it was a common Hebrew name. If Christianity is a shared term, why not its base of Christ? That's the kind of POV spewing game playing bullshit I was trying to help put an end to with those guidelines. I guess the solution is probably to create a new account, keep my nose clean in it, make admin, then if I encounter this in the future I can use my superpowers to clamp down, just as an admin was used to twist and shape this article. -Bikinibomb (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Codes of Jewish Law

The material on oaths is not ancillary. They are the only source in Jewish for this topic. Moses Iseerles is almost the entire discussion in Jewish law on this topic. In contemporary times, these short statements have been used to produce broad theories of how Judiasm views Christianity. But all the tradition of Jewish law has is Isserles. Any statement like "they accept the same God" `is already a contemporary interpretation usually reflective of the author-even if they start off by saying "in Jewish law."--Jayrav (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anyone who disputes that they accept the same God. The question is whether they accept other gods in addition. That's the question at issue here. "They accept the same God" isn't only contemporary. It's probably very close to unanimous, even across the centuries.

The issue of "oaths" is ancillary, because the source in question states that we can cause non-Jews to take an oath without regard to the issue of shituf. In other words, even if shituf is outright idolatry for non-Jews, as it is for Jews, the issue of oaths would not change. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I take it back. I looked at the Tosfot in question, and I was wrong. For those who'd like to actually see it, you can go to http://www.e-daf.com/ and page to Sanhedrin 63b.

The Tosfot in question is commenting on the words "It is forbidden for a person to associate [another deity with God]." Tosfot brings Rabbi Samuel, who says "how much more so is it forbidden to accept an oath from them". After discussing the issue a bit, Tosfot concludes "Nevertheless, in these days everyone swears by what is sacred to them, and they do not thereby imply godhood to them. And even though they specifically mention a vain name, and their intent is to Jesus [lit. davar acher], nevertheless, this is not considered idolatry, and their intent is also to the Creator. And even though they are associating the Creator with Jesus, we have not found that it is forbidden to cause others to associate, since the prohibition of causing others to sin does not apply to [causing] Gentiles [to sin].

Still, the issue of oaths is absolutely ancillary to the issue of shituf itself, since it is only an example in which the question could arise. Furthermore, Tosfot does not suggest that shituf is permissible for non-Jews. Only that it is permissible for us to accept their shituf-oaths, because we aren't forbidden to cause or participate in their sinning. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What I understood from Novak was that the the initial ruling regarded our ability to partner with Gentiles, and then spread in later generations to their theoretical theological partnership constructions. Novak started the history on this with Tam, I think. Does that correspond to what you are saying here?Tim (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done

The article looks like a real encyclopedia article now. Thanks, everyone.Tim (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What I'm Looking For

I responded to Lisa on another page with the following. This may not be the article for it, but this is the idea that I'm trying to find documentation for:

Lisa, I wasn't saying that the "persons" of the trinity are considered to be attributes. Attributes are something that God has in Christianity. What I was pointing out was that Maimonides regards God as not even having attributes. God simply is what he is. We call him certain things and speak of certain attributes based on our experience of him -- but he remains beyond our experience and cannot be defined. Although attributes and persons are not the same thing, the beyond-definitionality of the Jewish God is what will negate both the presence of real attributes and distinct persons. God cannot, in fact, even be callled "a person" in Judaism. The closest we can say is "God is Person" but even that is only... experiential. The Jewish refutation of the Trinity is not in the simple idea of unity so much as in the Maimonidean idea that ultimate unity cannot be defined. Once you call God one thing in a real way, you are at the same time indicating either that he is not another thing too (like mercy AND justice), or that he is not "one" in every possible way. "Mercy" and "justice" are not the same thing in our experience. God cannot be called "merciful" or "just" in a real way. God is simply -- whatever he is. He will be whatever he will be. He will not be (fill in the blank), because (fill in the blank) will be a definition -- and definition is a limitation -- and a limitation negates the utter limitlessness of God, and therefore his unity as well. I'm simply looking for some good sources to say exactly this -- because THIS is the Jewish refutation of the Trinity. Do Jews think the trinity is arianism and reject that conception? Sure. But Jews ALSO do reject the logical foundations that are at the heart of the Christian idea, namely, a DEFINITION called "Trinity." God cannot be defined. The trinity is a kind of definition. Therefore God cannot be triune. God cannot, ultimately, by ANYTHING that you can name.

Again -- it may not belong here, but it will belong somewhere.Tim (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting, doesn't that seem contradictory, to reject Trinity because it attempts to define God, but then define God as having a female presence in the Shekhinah? Or as a human presence in Tzadikim? -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be if these were taken as absolutes. Jews say a lot of things about God, with the caveat in their head that "God isn't REALLY what I'm describing." The problem, though, is that over time this cavet can be weakened, which could have been what happened in early Christianity. Analogous references were taken as realities. Philo had a kind of trinity, for instance. Did Philo think that God REALLY was what he was describing? I haven't read Philo deeply enough to say. Because the caveats can be weakened with time, such descriptions do have a risk. But, well, Judaism is fuzzier than Christianity. Christianity tries to put everything in logical propositional terms. It is full of theological systemizations, while Judaism is not. Can you GET a systematic theology of Judaism? Sort of, but not exactly. In the same way, descriptions of God are, sort of, but not exactly. God is "sort of" masculine and "sort of" feminine. But you won't find Jews thinking God is LITERALLY such things.Tim (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, Christians are less likely to say such things as "God is feminine here" and "masculine there." The reason is that if they focused on that, they would have to define it -- systematically. Christianity is what happens to Judaism when you try to think in Greek.Tim (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Christians do that a lot in relation to the marriage of God to Jesus, the marriage of Jesus to the Lamb's Bride (righteous), and within the Lamb's Bride the marriage of man to woman (systematically in 1 Cor. 11:3), with God at the top of the hierarchy being masculine in all cases.

If Jews say God has a female presence in Shekhinah, what are they literally thinking about it? Either there is just God in one form and He goes everywhere in that very same form, or there isn't and He goes in different forms. Do Jews think He goes in different forms and presences? If they really think that then they are still defining God as being in different forms. And if not, they are still defining God to be in one form. So I'm not convinced that anyone can claim not to literally define God somehow, though of course you can still reject certain definitions. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The femininity is a metaphor. The divine name has a feminine ending and is associated with the feminine idea of mercy. The divine title has a masculine ending and is associated with the masculine idea of justice. The kabbalistic writings exist entirely in metaphors. The only literal aspect to them would be the Ein Sof. I personally don't like the kabbalistic writing for that very reason -- they are literally metaphors and since that is all they are, they speak metaphors in a literalistic way. I think 40 is too low an age to set for the beginner to read them. 80 would be better.Tim (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim is absolutely correct that it is a metaphor. But it's more than that. The Shechina is not God. Nor is it a part of God (any more than you and I are). It is a creation of God, just as everything else is. A vehicle through which we are able to perceive/understand God in a certain way and to a certain degree.

So, too, are the various "attributes" of kindness (chesed), restraint (gevurah), justice, mercy, etc. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Maimonides regards God as not even having attributes but isn't God defined as having attributes of mercy, justice, kindness, etc? So is the real problem with Trinity its basic attempt to define God, if some defining is done in Judaism even if abstract? Or does it have more to do with saying that the father attribute of God sired a son attribute of God giving God a physical attribute? That was always my problem with Trinity, making God Himself a man. Rather than saying God is God and never a man, but He can control and give power to men so much that they became as God over the people, in the case of Moses in Exodus 4:16, and the role Jesus is said to play. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

BB, look at that word "defined" Finite. It sets boundaries on God, dictates something about him, limits him as "this" and therefore not "that." Christians get around that by saying that he is infinitely everything and more. Jews say, "well, he's, hmm... what-he-is." We can say he has attributes, perhaps, but they don't have him. At best they are things he has made or perceptions of him created by his actions, which are themselves created, etc. Again, Christians put terms and names and definition and dimensionality to all of this. But Jews say, "God is..." and anything that we can name is just some limited approximation but not really "him." Here's the interesting thing: Christians look like polytheists to Jews; Jews look like atheists to Christians. We each know that the other is somehow monotheistic in some way, but both sides scratch their heads.

As for "the father attribute" -- the persons are not attributes to Christians. They are, in a way, personal dimensions. Each is all of God but not the other, which is also all of God. Take away 1 and you don't have 2/3s left. You have 0/3s left. Dare we apply math to God??? Jews don't. I imagine that Muslims don't. But both were giving birth in semitic language. Christianity is written in Greek. Philo was written in Greek. Even Messianics have trouble -- often stumbling into Compound Unities which are anathema to both Christians and Jews.Tim (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess why I keep asking about Shekhinah is that I've always seen that it is a dwelling, settling, or presence of a female attribute or dimension of God Himself, and the assumption is that if there are really 2 dimensions or attributes or whatever you would call it, you couldn't take away the female part leaving one male God, you would have no God, since there are two dimensions but only one God.

I've never seen Shekhinah described as a created thing to act as a doorway, window, etc. -- if most Jews view it as that, why don't they say that instead of saying it is a feminine aspect of God dwelling on earth? -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish Deity has no dimension. That's the maddening thing for Christians to get a handle on -- God has no handles. Logically, it's difficult for a Christians to conceptualize just where the Jewish God is. He is everywhere, and nowhere. The Shekhinah -- although I went with the "created" term for continuity, I'll have to research on that. My understanding is that the Shekhinah is God's presence. My presence isn't really me, but the presence of me. Do I create my presence? Only by my Self. As for masculine and feminine -- the Jewish God is both, and neither. I know -- it's maddening. It took me years as a Christian to "get it" and then I got stuck for a few weeks until I could figure out how to reconstruct the logical geometry of the Christian Deity. It's probably easier for a Muslim. Or maybe not. Does the Muslim God have positive attributes? I mean, is he REALLY merciful, or mighty, or just, or...?Tim (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The wiki entires for Jewish view of God, God, unity of God, attributes can all use work. Most of them are messes. Maybe you can put you conversation to work fixing up these articles? --Jayrav (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at them. It may be a few days. I commute over two hours each way to work each day and come home to proof the galleys to my book. But Sunday I may be able to take a crack at the pages. The problem is documentation -- but you know that. That's what takes the time. Get the idea, look for the sources, make sure that's it, put it down in a neutral way...Tim (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying like, this post here is my presence, but it was a created thing and can be deleted and I'll still exist -- and so...the Shekhinah can be deleted and God will still exist?

I can't speak for all Islam since it is as diverse as any religion, but yeah, Genesis says we were created in God's image, and He does things that are loving, compassionate, etc. He can also be hateful to His enemies, but you know, with a perfect hatred that is always justified. It's like, what you see God do is what He is, there's not one God making things happen here to create the illusion of a different God feeling a different way. That kind of seems like polytheism and idolatry, where you have all these attributes that seem like God and you worship as God, but in reality they are created things, windows, channels, etc. and not God. Either you are worshiping a God you know and believe in because of that knowledge, or you are worshiping a creation and something other than God. -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If the Shekhinah is God's presence, how can it be in one place and not another, or at one time and not another? God is everywhere and everywhen. He is "present" even in the most unholy place and unholy act. In the same way, he is experienced even in evil and darkness. He creates all these things. Can the creater be perceived in his creations? In a way. But there is still the need for revelation -- because our perceptions are limited. Even so, no one can comprehend "God" perfectly or completely. One can say, "I know of God because of thus and so" and not be an idolater. Once one says, "God is thus and so" the line to idolatry is crossed.Tim (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What about Psalms 116:5 Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; yea, our God is merciful.? It sounds like you are saying God is not really merciful Himself, mercy is just a thing He created. I get the image of an emotionless computer hooked to our brains giving us the illusion that it has mercy, when it's only a set of instructions. So the merciful thing we worship is just an illusion, which would rather seem to be idolatry. Do you think Psalms is really divinely inspired, if it leads us to worship only the illusion of a merciful God, if in reality we can't really know anything about attributes of God? -Bikinibomb (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

BB, let's move away from the "created things" idea for a sec. What is "merciful" and is that all God is? Is God anything other than merciful? Can he be contained in that word? All I'm saying is that words such as "merciful" or "patient" or "righteous" are never big enough. God makes light AND darkness, good AND evil. The same God does all this. But is he two gods or does he change? You can't contain him in any of those concepts. Is he merciful? In our experience, yes. Is he merciless? In some experience, yes again. Is he sometimes merciful and sometimes merciless? Well, no. He's what-he-is. It is the creation that has different angles of experience. The deviations are in us, rather than in God.Tim (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What is your interpretation of being created in God's likeness? Since it's not about flesh I always believed it was about emotions, thought, etc. That He experiences love, hate, etc. as we do, so that a human is a reflection of God making Him knowable, even with our limitations. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for Judaism on that subject. Personally, this has never been theoretical to me. It's not a statement about God (God is not in our image) but a statement about man (man is in God's image). What we do to men is a statement for what respect we have for God -- which is why the golden rule is found in both Judaism and Christianity as the central statement. In Judaism, this is the highest of all. In Christianity, it is in the top two. Don't do to others what we would not want done to us; this is the whole Torah (Judaism). Do to others what we would have done to us; on this depends the law and the prophets (Christianity). How central is this in Islam?

And yes, we have strayed from Shituf and should probably be working on a different article with this...Tim (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

We were made in God's image. Basically, Judaism doesn't say that usages such as God having an "outstretched arm" are a metaphor for our arms. Rather, our arms are an approximation of that "attribute" of God which is referred to in Hebrew as zero'a or yad. I'm not going to keep putting quotes around the word attribute, so just assume that when I talk about one of God's attributes, I don't mean that it's actually an aspect of God Himself, but only one of the aspect/attribute/middoth through which God is perceived by us.

Bikinibomb asked why most Jews don't say it that way. I'd answer that it's because most Jews don't know. Most Jews aren't theologians, or even particularly learned (from a Jewish POV). Judaism is a religion of tiered knowledge. We don't believe that it is appropriate to teach higher concepts to the average person. At least in principle, we teach people according to what they need to know.

It's like a translation. I'll use the words "pure/impure" or "ritually pure/impure" or similar bad translations for the Hebrew tamei/tahor for the simple reason that the actual words have no accurate one-word translations in English, and I prefer not to give a dissertation every time I have to talk about the concept. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

parts of this talk belong at God in Judaism--Jayrav (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Major edit

See, this is what happens when I take things for granted. I've removed the Isserles quote. Here are the reasons. One is that the quote doesn't exist. Not in Yoreh De'ah 15, at any rate. Maybe it exists elsewhere. Another is that it's not a quote from R' Isserles, but a quote of R' Isserles quoting the Tosfot on Sanhedrin 63a. You can go to E-daf to see the actual page and read the Tosfot for yourself, if you like. A third reason is that the translation was incorrect. And not in a small way. The Tosfot there does not say that shituf is permissible for non-Jews. It says that "we have not found that causing non-Jews to commit shituf is forbidden, as lifnei iveir (lit. placing a stumbling block before the blind; i.e. causing another to sin) does not apply to non-Jews". The Tosfot there is clear that shituf is forbidden for non-Jews. While I am under the impression that sources to exist that permit it, this Tosfot is not one of them. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You do not remove something - Moses Isserles becuase the number in source was incorrect. You are to add a tag - check source or add source. I meant to write 156 but worte 15 instead. I will try to find time to double check. Also I added a full translation of tosafot.--Jayrav (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)And if you do not like my translations then fix them or make a comment - do not remove them.--Jayrav (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

She has also removed my sourced contributions and replaced them with her unsourced OR when she just doesn't personally agree or like it. Get used to it. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ignore Bikinibomb. I apologize, Jayrav. Thank you for adding the full translation. I added the note about davar acher, which is the way Tosfot referred to Jesus generally. So yes, that Tosfot did refer explicitly to Christianity. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

davar acher does not refer to Jesus in tosafot. Use any search engine or reference. That is already a big assumption. Something else may mean saints, angels, the holy spirit, or Tosafot really did care what Christians believed. From the context there is no indication that it refers to Jesus. We are not even certain if tosafot could even distinguish between a statue of Jesus or a saint. If you have a text that translates davar ahar as Jesus, I would place that in the 20th century section--Jayrav (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"common euphemism for Jesus in rabbinic literature." The common usage is that man "otoh haish" neither in Sefer hasidism or Toldot Yeshu or any other text is Jesus davar ahar. Please check your sources. --Jayrav (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Jayrav is right. The claim that davar acher means Jesus is an interpretation. WP:NOR forbids editors to forward their own interpretations of a primary source. If there is a secondary source that makes this intepretation, we should by all means include it. Policy tells us to remove the claim until a citation is provided. Without the citation the whole quote seems irrelevant. I will give people some time to provide the required secondary sources for interpretations of this quote, though. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Monotheism

Lisa, Christianity is a monotheistic religion. That's also the Christian view. That's also the definition given, cited, and accepted by Wikipedia standards.

It's also the reason Christianity rejects divine partnership.

The short version is this: Judaism allows polytheism (shituf) to gentiles. Christianity does not allow polytheism (shituf) to anyone.

Christianity is actually MORE monotheistic in their position than we are. Fair is fair. We tolerate this polytheism and they do not.Tim (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source. That's Wikipedia 101, Tim. Christianity considers itself a monotheistic religion. But to state that it is, as fact, in an article which is about the fact that Judaism does not completely agree, is highly POV. You can say, "which considers itself a monothestic religion", but you cannot say that it is one. Not in this article.

And I'm really getting tired of your POV insistence that trinitarianism is not shituf as a matter of fact. That's not true. It's one opinion. You can't use it as a fact, no matter how many times you want to repeat it.

Personally, I'd like to remove the business in the God in Judaism article about henotheism, but that'd be POV on my part. So I'm not doing so, despite the fact that I find it grossly offensive. You need to learn to do the same. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- Christianity is a monotheistic religion in about 99% of the sources you'll find out there. It's not the place of Wikipedia editors to removed SOURCED statements and replace them with their UNSOURCED POV.Tim (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You could say "which considers itself a monotheistic religion" to make it clearer even though it is under Christian views. But removing references for no reason needs to be stopped, it's just a big "FU" to other editors. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we have to put such a caveat for every religion on every page? In lists of monotheistic religions, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are right up there together on almost every list. Plus, the section is the Christian view. Their VIEW is that they CONSIDER themselves thus and so? That's a bit redundant, don't you think? Instead of having to document their normative status both internally and externally "as a monotheistic religion" I would think rather that we would have to heavily document any position that stated they weren't.Tim (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Her pattern is to obviously get as close as possible to saying "Christians pretend to be monotheistic" without actually saying it. Just another POV push. If it was in Judaism and Christianity in the Christian view sections, I'd refuse to change it. But since it is in a strictly Hebrew term article, it probably can't hurt and will avoid another battle with her. -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I put in caveats stating the views are... views. Anything more will make us look like some kind of antimissionary site.Tim (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Years ago I first heard the phrase "Christians in Jewish drag" -- take a wild guess who said it. Just for kicks I think I'll whip up a Jews for Judaism Seal of Approval image to tag these articles so we know they have been deemed acceptable by the appropriate authorities. -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not me. I just Googled the phrase, and found two sites where it appears. I went to Usenet and found two more. But I kind of like it. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What I put there is nothing even close to what Bikinibomb says I want to put there. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What do I need to do here? I've given one Jewish source for Christianity being a monotheistic religion. I can add others from all branches of Judaism (I started with Orthodox). Also, I can quote the Christian positions against any multiplicity of deities. Christians do not regard polytheism to be acceptable for ANYONE. Do I need to quote those positions as well?

This is getting tedious. I think the Christian section is cited twice as much as all the Jewish sections of this article combined.

Although I've had friends in Jews for Judaism, Wikipedia is NOT J4J (on either side of the acronym).Tim (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with having contradictory sources in an article, Tim. That just means that there are contradictory views out there. But in such a case, you can't say that one of them is a fact and the other is just opinion. That's both POV and OR. Adding more and more sources to support one side of the disagreement does not take away from the existence of the sources on the other side. This isn't a majority vote kind of thing.

I'm not putting in text that says "Christianity is polytheism". I'm simply insisting that their claim to monotheism be given as one side to the dispute. Nor am I saying that this has to be done in every Wikipedia article, but to omit that caveat from this article undermines the entire article. Which is obviously your intent. You have no right to dismiss all sourced views to the contrary and insist on your view. You've been doing this all along. I'm not sure why you converted, Tim. Your connection to Christianity is way too strong. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- I'm simply insisting that the Christian view be stated. That's all. Look, you had the luxury growing up of simply being Jewish. You didn't need to reject anything, real or imagined. You simply needed to accept what you were born with. I didn't have that luxury. To convert I had to do more than reject some fantasy religion you keep making up and calling "Christianity." I had to reject the real thing. What I have a strong connection to is reality, Lisa. Christianity is a monotheistic trinitarian religion. I didn't have to reject shituf ideas because I was never a Jehovah's Witness.

As for contradictory views -- I have not attempted to change the Jewish views. You've correctly stated them, although they show us to be, as a whole, largely ignorant of Christianity. But let's be fair and not look intolerant at the same time.

Everything I've put in is sourced and acceptable by Wikipedia standards, and the more you change it, the longer and more sourced it will be. How deep do you want to dig?Tim (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Judah Ha-Levi’s Kuzari 1:4 refers to “monotheists” when the Christian spokesman say’s to the Khazar king: “for we are truly monotheists, although the Trinity appears on our tongues.” Saadayah lists Christians among the monotheists, not among the polytheists, even as he rejects the trinity. The phrase the community of monotheists (jama`at al-muwahadin) in Jewish thought as applying to Jews, Muslims, Christians, is in Saadyah, Bahye, Maimonides, and others. This discussion belongs on the Jewish conception of God page. God in Judaism--Jayrav (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, Lisa -- the continuous smacks about my conversion are inappropriate and offensive. I have a thick skin, but they are getting in the way of any kind of rational discussion. As a Jew, I object to your making our religion appear to be intolerant: intolerant of Messianics, intolerant of Christians, and -- even more bizarre -- intolerant of people who are fully aware and understand Christianity and choose to embrace Judaism anyway. Treatment of a convert in this way is a violation of Torah as well. I have no interest in being a poster child for conversion, I have little patience for polemics on either side, but I DO insist on factual presentations in an encyclopedia on subjects I know something about and have sources to back it up.

For the record, Judaism is authoritative for itself regarding its treatment of Christianity even if that is based on a misunderstanding of Christianity. We do not have to understand something perfectly in order to make a decision for ourselves. As such, the decisions on shituf are both unnecessary and valid. They are unnecessary because Christians do not believe in partnership. They are valid because to us it seems as if they do and we have to make a rationale regarding our relationship that makes sense to us. Our treatment of Christians, then, is more lenient than it needs to be, but that's perfectly okay. Jews cannot be expected to understand Christianity, nor should they be required to do so. The amount of education required to make a ruling regarding Christianity as it really is would be impractical for the Jewish population and would be dangerous as well -- because people have a way of getting stuck inside paradigms they were merely trying to understand. I would say the same regarding Christian decisions of how to relate to us. They should relate to us based on how they understand us. They do not have to relate to us based on how we understand ourselves. To do so would require them to understand us as we understand ourselves -- something only truly possible with a lot of education and a huge paradigm shift that could lead to a lot of conversions (in either direction) if it was tried.

Ultimately a religion (such as our religion) must make decisions for itself based on the best of our understanding. That's valid. However, Judaism remains self defined. Christianity remains self defined. Our relations with each other do not have to match those self definitions -- and it would be impractical and religiously dangerous for individuals to try.

All that being said -- an encyclopedia that has the temerity to object to Christianity being presented "as a monotheistic religion" in a section titled the "Christian view" -- well such an encyclopedia is not NPOV, is it?Tim (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And yet, I never wrote that it isn't monotheistic. I'm simply insisting that it be presented as the opinion it is. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And I added more opinions, and will continue to add more opinions every time you make a change.Tim (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Polemics

Tim wrote: Uh -- try keeping polemics out. When describing the CHRISTIAN view, describe the Christian VIEW of "persons."

I'm not engaging in polemics. Post Christian apologetics on a different page if you must. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely engaging in polemics, Lisa. Present the Christian views as Christian views -- not the Jewish views of Christian views.Tim (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, "imply" speaks of the speaker's intent. "Infer" speaks of the hearer's understanding. Don't negate a Christian implication with a Jewish inference.Tim (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Peace

I suppose that conflict is part of the NPOV process here. Let's, please, have some peace. I really need to finish proofing my galley and have no interest in being the defender of Christianity on Wikipedia.

Also, R. Wurzburger is cited on this page. He was a most peacful man, and I still mourn his passing. In fact, he is the one who made the decision for the Beit Din to encourage me to finish my book. In his name, Lisa, let us please move on from this.Tim (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

How about creating a R. Wurzburger wiki page? --Jayrav (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Oh, I see you just did. nice idea. --Jayrav (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Done! It's ALREADY being slammed for notability issues. Apparently people think the Rabbinical Council of America lacks notability!Tim (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew for Shituf

Could any one provide the Hebrew graphics for the term, please.Muscovite99 (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Orthodox and Non-Orthodox

Lisa, I was content with Novak and wanted to leave Telushkin out of it since you told me that he wasn't happy with his terms "the trinity represents three aspects of one God". Can we just go back to the edit before today and leave this alone? This is completely unnecessary.Tim (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't start. Telushkin himself disagrees with your interpretation of what he wrote. We went through this. Do I have to e-mail him again? "Three aspects of One God" is not monotheistic in the Orthodox Jewish view. You're reading your personal views into what Telushkin wrote. No Orthodox Jews say that Christianity is monotheistic. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- if "one God" isn't monotheistic, then we need to define the term a different way. Also, Telushkin (if he indeed wrote you) rejected your representation of what I was saying -- which does not resemble what I was saying. I NEVER said that Christianity was okay for Jews, EVER. Nor would I EVER use Telushkin as a source to support something that I do not myself believe. I merely left him out to be polite. Now, I wrote Telushkin myself and received no response. Until then, "one God" sounds pretty mono(one)theist(God)ic to most folks.Tim (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You saw Telushkin's e-mail. I'll reproduce it here for all to see:

Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:53:59 -0600

From: Lisa Liel <lisa@starways.net>

Subject: help, please

Dear Rabbi Telushkin,

I am engaged in a debate with a person I'll call T. T is an Orthodox Jew who converted from Christianity. Previously, he was a Christian pastor and theologian.

The debate revolves around the issue of shituf and the Christian trinity. I have stated that the unanimous view of Jewish authorities is that worship of the trinity constitutes idolatry *for Jews*. T insists that this view is not unanimous, because there is one notable Jewish authority who says otherwise. That authority, he says, is you.

He bases this claim on the following quote from your book, "Jewish Literacy":

Throughout the centuries, more than a few Jewish thinkers have argued that the idea of the trinity (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) seemed idolatrous. Ultimately, however, the majority of Jewish scholars concluded that although Christianity speaks of a trinity, it does not conceive of the three forces as separate with different and conflicting wills. Rather, the trinity represents three aspects of one God. While Jews are forbidden to hold such a belief, it is not avodah zarah."

I read this as you saying that trinitarianism is not idolatry for non-Jews, but T insists that you are saying it isn't idolatry even for Jews. He wants to post this publically on Wikipedia as a notable Jewish position.

Thank you for your help.

Kol Tuv,

Lisa

Rabbi Telushkin wrote back as follows:

Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 15:40:37 EST

Subject: Re: help, please

To: lisa@starways.net

Your explanation is correct. If he posts it as he tells you he wants to do he is falsifying what I said.

Thank you.

WIth best wishes

Joseph Telushkin

If it is avodah zarah for Jews, then it is either avodah zarah or shituf for non-Jews. There is nothing that is avodah zarah for Jews which is not in one of those two categories. And both of those categories are essentially polytheistic.

You read his e-mail back 6 months ago. Posting that quote from his book to give the impression that there are Orthodox Jewish authorities who view Christian worship of a trinity as monotheistic cannot be seen as a good-faith edit in light of your knowledge that Telushkin himself disagrees with your reading of his words.

I will only allow you to keep that quote there with the caveat I added. Remove the caveat, and I'll remove the quote. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- I'll do you one better. How about we just go back to the way it was worded YESTERDAY with just Novak? As an author, I have no intention of using an unwilling source from my own camp! Fair?

As for the subject at hand, the information you supplied Telushkin did not explain that I always held his statement "it is forbidden to Jews" to mean that "it is forbidden to Jews." If I were Telushkin, with just your note, I would have said something similar to what he said. Although "falsifying" is a word I would not have used on so little information. That being the case, out of politeness I would rather we leave the poor Rabbi out of it and go back to yesterday. Or, if you prefer, we can leave it as is. I'll leave the call to you. But I doubt your personal email line would survive any other editor -- so I'd suggest going with my idea.Tim (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's "better"? You originally put that in because you wanted to make it look like Jews don't say what Jews say. I must have missed it at the time, but I think it's important and notable that not one Orthodox Jewish authority, ever, has identified Christianity as monotheistic. If you want, we'll take out the Telushkin quote, along with my caveat. But the "non-Orthodox" stays in, because leaving it out is deliberately misleading. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Then we'll have to leave it as is, since "one God" is, uh, by definition "monotheistic."Tim (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So you're deciding that not only do you know better than all the Orthodox rabbis there've ever been what Judaism says shituf is, but you know better than Rabbi Joseph Telushkin does what he meant by what he wrote? I don't think so. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- what part of "one God" doesn't mean "one God"? Eh?Tim (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The "three aspects" part. Judaism says that God is utterly One. It doesn't matter. I'm declaring that Telushkin quote to be "non-notable" on the basis of his e-mail. You can't use it as a citation. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Declare all you want. It's in print, and it's explicit.Tim (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's your original research. He doesn't even use the word "monotheism" or "monotheistic" in that passage. Your conclusion that "three aspects of One God" means monotheism is nothing but original research. And given the fact that he has specifically disagreed with your interpretation, it isn't even good originally research. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- Telushkin did NOT disagree that "one God" meant "one God." That's not OR. That's just mono(one)the(god)ism. I accepted your compromise and offered you one better, and I cannot fathom why you are baiting and switching. I'm restoring it to your last offer and asking you to call your OWN edit a day.Tim (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No. I was mistaken to let you get away with that. And it isn't right for a Wikipedia article anyway. My bad. No, we're going to go back to the "non-Orthodox" edit, which is non-POV, non-OR, and appropriate. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- Telushkin, an Orthodox Rabbi, manifestly states that (at least) GENTILE Christians are not worshipping multiple deities. This isn't OR. If "one God" isn't monotheism, then NOTHING is. The only OR here is that "personal email" that you claim to have from him (which BTW, no one could verify).Tim (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, he does not. He says that GENTILE Christians are not, by some views, violating avodah zarah. You tried, 6 months ago, to infer from that that it wasn't avodah zarah for Jews either, and he specifically stated that your interpretation of his words was incorrect.

There's only one thing that's avodah zarah for Jews and might not be for non-Jews. And that's shituf. Which is not, by Jewish definition, monotheism. Three aspects to a deity or three deities or one deity and two sub-deities... all three of these are less than monotheism in the eyes of Judaism.

But let's get this straight here. I'm not going into the Christianity article and writing that Christianity is polytheistic. On the contrary. I'm simply trying to prevent you from coming into an article about a Jewish concept and falsely claiming that Orthodox Jews see Christianity as monotheistic. Do I need to write to Rabbi Telushkin again and ask that he intervene personally? After all, you are the one who is libeling him by attributing views to him that he never wrote. "One God", left alone, is monotheism. But "three aspects of One God" is not. Not in the absolute monotheism of Judaism. Christians may have redefined monotheism for themselves by including their trinity in it. Fine. That's term switching, which you ordinarily rail against yourself, but in this case seem to be fine with. Judaism's definition and understanding of monotheism pre-dates even the existence of Christianity, and it is the definition that rules in an article about the Jewish concept of shituf. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- he says that Christians worship "one God" and he even says this is the majority Jewish view. It's not my fault that he didn't STATE "only Gentile" Christians. Of course you inferred that, and if your unverifiable email did come from him, he apparently didn't mean "Christians" when he said "Christians" but only meant "Gentile Christians." Fine -- I accepted that on face value. But the subject of Shituf IS about (at least Gentile) Christians, which has to be included in Telushkin's comment or else you include no Christians at all. It's not me who made an inference that "Christians" means "Christians." It's simply the English language. And, in fact, one would have to radically reword his statement to MAKE it say what you CLAIM he says it means:

• Telushkin, Jewish Literacy, page 552: "Throughout the centuries, more than a few Jewish thinkers have argued that the idea of the trinity (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) seemed idolatrous. Ultimately, however, the majority of Jewish scholars concluded that although Christianity speaks of a trinity, it does not conceive of the three forces as separate with different and conflicting wills. Rather, the trinity represents three aspects of one God. While Jews are forbidden to hold such a belief, it is not avodah zarah."

• Wording required to force Lisa's inference: "Throughout the centuries," every orthodox authority without any exception has held that "the idea of the trinity (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost)" was unquestionably "idolatrous. Ultimately, however, the" unanimous agreement "of Jewish scholars concluded that although Christianity speaks of a trinity, it does" in fact "conceive of the three forces as separate with different and conflicting wills. Rather, the trinity represents three aspects of" three separate gods. "Jews are forbidden to hold such a belief, it is" in fact "avodah zarah."

I'm not the one falsifying Telushkin here -- you are.

And one other thing. Not only is Shituf forbidden by Jews for Jews -- it is also forbidden by Christians for Christians. Christianity holds the concept we call Shituf to be polytheistic and forbidden, and the fact that we allow it for anyone makes us far more permissive about idolatry than they are.

As for Telushkin intervening, he is most welcome to answer my email to him from six months ago.Tim (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I think I've got a great idea. How about we delete the section on "Christian views" entirely, since, as far as I know, shituf is a solely Jewish concept and Christianity has no view of it, per se. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Steve, Christians actually DO have very strong views of the concept we call "Shituf" -- and they roundly condemn it as a polytheistic heresy called "Arianism." Since we APPLY "shituf" TO Christians, the fact that they actually reject the concept is most pertinent. To give an example, let's say that a group of people had a concept for "Jews need human blood for passover" (i.e. the blood libel), and they made a term for it and applied it to us in governing their relations with us. The fact that we ourselves condemn the consumption of ANY blood (even animal blood) would have a place in such an article. I'd like to add that the comparison is no hyperbole. The concept of multiple deities in partnership is as anathema to Christians as the concept of eating human blood is to us.Tim (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Steve is right. This is like having a "Jewish objections" section in the Trinity article. It's a pathetic addition made by someone who can't accept what Judaism says about Christian polytheism. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- the Trinity is not a Christian statement about Judaism. Shituf is a Jewish statement about Christianity. What Christianity actually teaches regarding the concept of divine partnership is as essential as authentic Jewish dietary rultes would be in an article about the blood libel. To bury it is a violation of NPOV. Just tonight I brought the subject up with an aquantaince who is an Eastern Orthodox Monk, and he was completely floored that anyone would allow Arianism (i.e. Shituf) as an acceptable belief for Gentiles. Arianism is explicitly forbidden within Christianity as polytheistic.Tim (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop with the "Arianism" nonsense. Shituf has nothing to do with Arianism. It has to do with any form of worship that does not conform to what Judaism deems to be monotheism. No Christian rationalizations change the fact that Christian worship is not monotheistic as Jews understand the term.

I've seen converts and I've seen converts. And the ones who spend all their time worrying about points of Christian belief and defending Christianity are the ones who don't last. -LisaLiel (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- stop with the personal attacks. They are unseemly, and definitely un-halakhic. And if you think the concept of lesser deities in partnership with God has nothing to do with Arianism, then you absolutely demonstrate that you do not understand Arianism. I've offered a broader definition of Shituf that would actually ADDRESS Trinitarianism and not just Arianism. But until we find a sourced text that does this, then we are stuck with Arianism. If Shituf is supposed to be about Trinitarianism, then please find that definition that does so.

This is ridiculous -- just leave it to the edit from last week and call it a day. We can both walk away and forget about it.Tim (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If you re-insert a section on Christian views into an article on a Jewish concept again, this is going to arbitration. I'm tired of your agenda. I don't care if you created this article with Christianity in mind; the concept of shituf exists with or without Christianity.

Do you know any Wiccans, Tim? I do. I've heard them express this sentiment: "All the gods are one god, all the goddesses are one goddess, and the god and goddess are One." Here's a clear example of people expressing a view that can be seen as "monotheistic" in the sense that it comes down to a single deity. But they pray to a multitude of deities, even if they also see those deities as aspects of a single deity.

Just like Christians do with their "father", their "son" and their "holy ghost".

This is it, Tim. Leave the article alone, and stop trying to force Christian ideology into a Jewish concept, or this goes to arbitration. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- I'd welcome arbitration. To have an article about Jewish concept of a Christian concept without mentioning the Christian concept itself is like having an article on the blood libel without mentioning that Jews forbid eating blood.Tim (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Then you should not have a problem with the article as Lisa wishes to write it; it's NOT a "Jewish concept of a Xian concept". It's a Jewish concept that has been applied after the fact to Xianity. Not the same thing at all. FlaviaR (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine. We start with an RfC on the subject. If necessary, we'll escalate it to an RfC on you. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Should there be a section on Christian views in this article?

Should an article on a Jewish religious subject include a section on Christian views just because the subject is viewed by some Jewish rabbinic authorities as pertaining to Christianity? -LisaLiel (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- third party opinion is the first step. RfC is after that. I've asked for third party opinion on the WikiProject Christianity and the WikiProject Judaism pages. If third party opinion doesn't work, then RfC is a later step. Let's do this correctly this time, instead of the weird escalation like last time. There's a process. Let's follow it. Thanks.Tim (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• You both have been edit warring way too much, and violated 3RR. STOP NOW, or risk consequences of having the article locked and possibly both of you temporarily blocked from editing. I'm glad you have taken steps to get another opinion, but the edit warring must stop as well.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew!Tim (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've reviewed the Christian views section briefly, and it appears that not a single source mentions the term "Shituf". It also appears that whoever wrote that section strung together a handful of different sources to come to an original synthesis in order to rebut some of the claims in this article (even though the cited sources aren't rebutting or even discussing "shituf"). I also do not think we need a Christian view's section. The first paragraph seems off topic. The other two paragraphs may be able to be integrated into other sections. For example, if we have a section specifically referencing a Christian belief, such as, "Jews think the trinity refers to 'three persons'", we should then have the Christian response sentence (but we have to watch for original research as mentioned previously). -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, you have a good point, and I apologize for the edit-warring. I should have taken this to RfC a lot earlier. I've rewritten the article and limited it to an article about the Jewish concept of shituf, without polemics for or against Christian beliefs. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• As promised, the page is protected (for 5 days). During this time, please try to work together to reach a consensus for the direction for this article. Feel free to use a sandbox to make proposals for changes. Also, give the RfC some time for other editors to weigh in. If you reach a consensus sooner than 5 days, feel free to request unprotection. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, THANKS! Geeze, now we can rest for a bit with some rationality. I'm going to pop off for the rest of the weekend. I have a second galley proof to finish and a screenplay submission to make. Stick Shabbat in between there and that leaves no Wiki time. In any case, there won't be any consenus between Lisa and myself. Believe me, I've tried. Please go through some of the edit history to see how I've tried repeatedly to compromise. I even offered to let her remove all references to Christianity -- but she cannot do so, because the concept is applied primarily TO Christianity. In any case, I've asked for third parties to look in from both Christianity and Judaism. I actually SUGGEST that Lisa and I BOTH avoid future edits for at least a month to give others time to do what they want. I suggest this, because the issue seems to be personal (I could be wrong). But even if I'm wrong, blocking BOTH of us from this page for a solid month would be well in order. Can you do that?Tim (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, you have placed protection on this article after Tim vandalized it twice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shituf&diff=223539106&oldid=223537299

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shituf&diff=223539293&oldid=223539106

And after he reverted it from a NPOV article about a Jewish concept to his highly polemic article claiming that the Jewish concept is "all about" Christianity. This is the diff between the two versions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shituf&diff=223539958&oldid=223539783

I would like to request that you lift the protection, revert that diff, and then replace the protection. Wikipedia should not be a place for polemics. This article should contain encyclopedic content; not one person's religious beliefs. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew -- the page right now is the same as it has been FOR MONTHS before Lisa got annoyed with me on a different article's talk page and decided to retaliate with a Wikiwar here. I'd suggest, if you DO any reversion, please revert the page to the way it was before the edit war began this week, and then block BOTH of us for a month to let non-combatants fix it. This is nothing more than a personal issue.Tim (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't "retaliate". Good Lord, do you have some sort of persecution complex? I noticed that you'd written that there were "some Jewish" views that Christianity is monotheistic, and I felt that this was misleading, as there are no Orthodox Jewish views to that effect. All I did was add "non-Orthodox" as a modifier, and you went berserk. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, folks, I guess I'll try to weigh in. I think in theory the idea of a "Christian Response" section would be acceptable, since we are talking about a major and well known criticism of Christianity here. However, as it stands, the section is badly written and doesn't really provide any useful information. I think it goes without saying that Christians would deny that their religion is polytheistic, since we share the Ten Commandments with them and it does say quite explicitly that we are not supposed to have any God before Him. So, my !vote is get rid of the section for now, but if we can work to improve it I would support adding it back.
I would also strongly suggest to both Lisa and Tim that you guys seriously take like a day off of editing and try to put things in perspective. You are obviously both very worked up and you need to chill out and stop undermining each other. It's not very becoming, take it from me. L'Aquatique[happy fourth!] 17:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Comment In general I agree with Andrew C's comment above. But I have problems with both "competing" versions of the article. The problem with this article is that its form has been dictated by a conflict between two users concerning Christianity. It is not really what an article on "shituf" as such means. I suggest it be rewritten as a serious article on the concept "shituf." The structure and the contents of the article should follow from this principle. First, the word should be translated immediately - "partnership" is how Jastrow translates it. Second, we should provide a history of changing ways the concept has been used in Judaism. To my knowledge it plays no important role in the Tanakh/Israelite religion. It is important in the Talmud although you wouldn't know it from this article - in the Talmud, it is used in relation to matters of kashrut, and there should be a section on this. At a later date it came to be used to apply to issues of monotheism and the article should discuss this as well (as it currently does). Now, if non-Orthodox rabbis have written about shituf in any notable way then their views should be included as well and this goes even for Christian theologians; if any have written about shituf then their views should be included. But if no Christian has explicitly discussed the Jewish concept of shituf, I see no place for any discussion of Christian views. Including them would not comply with NPOV and would violate NOR (SYNTH). Slrubenstein | Talk 22:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. My competing version of the article was intended to be along these lines. That it's merely a stub of it is my own fault, but I did want to move it away from the original "all about Christianity" business. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

To help with this discussion, I'd like to add this link [1], which is where the current discussion began.

This article should be changed to the version in this diff [2] and the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism template should be added. Because this is a Jewish term. A technical one which did not originate with the Tosafists, and did not come into being to deal with Christians or Christianity. The novelty introduced by the Tosafists was merely the idea that perhaps Christian worship fell into the category of shituf, rather than that of avodah zarah. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa- This article is already a part of WikiProject Judaism, if that is what you are asking for. L'Aquatique[happy fourth!] 22:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Procedural comment I believe an RFC may be a useful step in this case and suggest letting it proceed and seeing what happens. In general, dispute resolution steps don't have to be done in precisely the suggested order. Nothing is served by getting into sub-disputes about the "correct" way to do dispute resolutions. If it works, it's good enough. At this point, suggest that the parties to this dispute stop adding comments to this section, chill a bit, and wait and see what outside editors have to say before proceeding further. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'm going to rewrite this article as it should have been in the first place. Tim created it with Christianity foremost in his mind, but shituf has nothing to do with Christianity, even if there is a minority view that Christian worship is shituf rather than avodah zarah. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- did I just read you right? "Shituf has nothing to do with Christianity"??? Okay, be my guest, rewrite the article without ANY reference to Christianity and see if you have any article left.Tim (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Shituf is a Jewish concept. You should never have been allowed to create an article on shituf that contained a section called "Jewish views", let alone "Christian views". The first is redundant, and the second is inappropriate.

As you yourself have pointed out, the Tosfot didn't mention Christianity when they discussed shituf. Shituf is also mentioned by Rashi, who predates the Tosfot. According to Jewish authorities, worshipping Baal and God is shituf. Worshipping Zeus and God is shituf. Not everything revolves around Christianity. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh -- try again, Lisa. There are references to Christianity ALL THROUGH the article. If it's not about Christianity, then remove all references to Christians and Christianity. But you can't -- because that's the whole point of Shituf.Tim (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I just removed any reference to Christianity. Since Shituf is primarily applied to Christianity, the article now meets Andrews requirments.

The article itself, however, is now false. But that's up to you and Andrew. If Wikipedia is about making falsehoods -- enjoy.Tim (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

False dichotomy. Shituf is a Jewish concept that existed before Christianity, and is not dependent upon Christianity. The fact that an opinion exists that it applies to Christianity as well is incontestable, but doesn't make shituf about Christianity. And what you've just done is out and out vandalism. Stop it now, or I'll go straight to an RfC on you. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- you said that Shituf "has nothing to do with Christianity". I then invited you to delete all references to Christianity. You failed to do so, and when I deleted paragraphs that mention Christianity, you labelled that as vandalism.

Well, make up your mind. If eliminating references to Christianity is vandalism, then Shituf is being applied to Christianity. You can't have it both ways.

That being said, Andrew -- thanks for the block. I'm going to stay off until I finish a screenplay submission... which will take me a few days. I leave the helm in your capable hands.Tim (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

False dichotomy. Your personal religious views should not have a showcase here, Tim. Shituf is applied to Christianity. It is not about Christianity. And your edit was absolutely vandalism, by any standard you like. It was unreadable and unintelligible. And it was another attempt by you at playing games.

If I have to wait 5 days, I'll wait 5 days. But I will not allow your exercise in polemics to stand. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew -- notice the "I will not allow". Can you just block us both for a month and let people who are not the target of a personal attack do some real work?Tim (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Preemptive and cool-down blocks are against our policy, Tim, and as a general rule we do not block by request. You can get approximately the same results from the WikiBreak Enforcer, but you cannot force Lisa to do the same, nor would it be ethical to try. I strongly suggest that you instead try to find some way to reach a middle ground- perhaps you would like to open an informal case with the Mediation Cabal? L'Aquatique[happy fourth!] 22:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to try that, please. I think it's clear that Tim and I aren't going to agree about this, and I don't think the warring that's been going on is good for anyone. Can you please explain how one opens an informal case with the Mediation Cabal? -LisaLiel (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that this is purely a personal event, and the persons involved should step back and allow both sets of affected parties (Christians and Jews) take an equal look at it and apply Wiki-good-sense. I've addressed Christians and Jews equally. Lisa, on the other hand, has been only enlisting one side.

Here's what's going to happen: an artificial consensus is going to be generated and Lisa's edits will be enforced. Only Christian sources that use the JEWISH term for Arianism (Shituf) will be allowed, instead of Christian sources that use the CHRISTIAN term for Shituf (Arianism). It will appear by an artificial constraint that Christians have nothing at all to say about their own belief, in spite of the fact that they have a great deal to say about it, and have roundly condemned the concept of partnership for the past 1600 years.

And here's what else will happen -- I will no longer care. A personal agenda, and a personally enlisted single side of eyeballs will honestly enforce a single POV upon both Wikipedia and a major world religion.

And hopefully, no one else will care as well, and we can all get a life.

I will point out that the enlistment of a single POV will bring people of good faith and good will who will believe they are applying things even handedly -- but judged by a limited POV that needs balance according to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I'll drop by in August and assess the damage.Tim (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Tim, shituf is not the Jewish term for Arianism (unless you can provide me with a reliable verifiable source for a notable point of view that claims that it is) and your insisting that it is seems at this point to be only tendentious. I frankly do not undersstand your motive. You know, "polytheism" is not "the English word for Arianism" either. (I know you did not claim this; I am trying to use an analogy to make my point clearer for those who do not speak Hebrew). Surely you would not have us write an article on "Polytheism" that assumes that this is just a fancy English word for Arianism, would you? Why then insist that shituf is just the Hebrew word for Arianism? Shituf isn't even the hebrew word for polytheism, it is the Hebrew word for "partnership" and it has been applied to a range of issues in Jewish law. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Tim, unless you can provide me with notable Christian sources the provide an explicitly Christian POV on "shituf" - something that in many months of argument I do not recall you haveing done even once - I just do not see how you can expect anyone to assume you are acting in good faith. And if you indeed provided a reliable verifiable source for a notable Shristian POV on shituf and i mised it, I APOLOGIZE but please, please remind me what the source is and what it says about shituf. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't take my word for it -- give the definition for Shituf to any Christian theologian or pastor and ask him the term used for that definition. The concept of the "spirit" and "son" as lesser beings in "partnership" with God is Arianism. If you want sources, there's a whole Wikipedia page on it. Again -- don't believe me. Check out with any ten theologians or pastors and you'll get a very quick consensus. The fact that we use a different term for Arianism doesn't change it. Now -- if you doubt my motives, DO THE TEST I just suggested. But if you won't, then don't doubt my motives. Doubt your own. Now, also, I'll be back in August. That gives you plenty of time. If you can't be bothered to read the Arianism article and ask the participants to see if this is the same concept in an entire month... then there will be no doubt about motives, will there?Tim (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Tim, do you think that everyone is against you? Let's do the mediation that L'Aquitaine suggested. Anything is better than slamming this back and fourth. Well, anything other than just leaving an article that (a) falsely claims that shituf was created as a means of looking at Christianity and (b) insists that Christian theology be given a voice in a Jewish topic. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with mediation -- as long as both Christians and Jews are involved in the mediation. I've enlisted both sides into this, and I only see you enlisting one. Further, your removal of Christianity's self identification as a monotheistic faith on the Christian page tonight [3] is begging the question. I REALLY do not have time for this. I would prefer that we both step back and stop the war of attrition. Stop stalking my old edits. I don't have time to keep restoring them.Tim (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "both Xians and Jews"? How about Muslims & Hindus? Atheists, Zoroastrians & Mormons? Your entire line of argument sounds like an agenda that has no place in Wikipedia - to try to slant the tenets/terms/articles (etc) of one religion to suit another is shameful; maybe you aren't aware you're doing it, perhaps you don't even realize how you sound. Take a step back & think about what would happen if Jews & Muslims insisted on re-editing any part of Xian pages that could possibly be said to refer to their religion as actually part of their religion. It would be at best chaos, at worst an insult. FlaviaR (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Tim wirtes, "Don't take my word for it -- " Tim, I wish you would not take this personally. This is not about what you think. It is not about what I think or what Lisa thinks. Wikipedia has a policy against original research. What editors think does NOT matter and does noit go into articles. This is not a personal attack on you and we do not need you magnanimously to tell us not to take our word for it. It is a question of oritignal research. Tim further writes, " -- give the definition for Shituf to any Christian theologian or pastor and ask him the term used for that definition." Tim, that is 'still violating our NOR policy. And it still misses the point. And it still pushes us further away from resolving any conflict. The only question here is what are the notable points of view on "shituf" found in verifiable and reliable sources. If you have a verifiable and reliable source that says that "shituf = Arianism" great we can include it. But you seem not to want to research an encyclopedia. You seem more concerned with your own sophistry. This is not helpful. I urge you to focus on our policies! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

New section

It's so good to see such a fine collection of editors at this page. I find myself in agreement with almost everyone, and that doesn't surprise me given what I have heard from them in the past.

As far as I can see, there is a basic idea that all agree on (though there is disagreement on how to implement it). This article is first and foremost about a technical Jewish term, and it is Jewish usage in Jewish context, sourced therefore upon Jewish writings that needs to form the substance of this article.

Were this a dictionary, there would be no more to say.

This, however, is an encyclopedia article, which means it addresses published opinion on a topic (often involving alternate views of the subject matter). We are not simply identifying and disambiguating the range of usage of shituf; for this to be encyclopedic, the significance of the idea in the history of thought must be cited. Naturally, this is predominantly Jewish. However, Jewish sources will be the most reliable about the meaning of the word when it is applied, but not about the "truth value" of propositions formed by such usage.

For example, "shituf means associating some additional element closely with the Creator" crudely describes one meaning. However, "the Christian view of Trinity is shituf" may be true, or may be false, it is a POV and invites responsible editorial efforts to obtain any relevant alternative. At that point, trinity becomes our "search term" in querying the literature. To deny this option is to deny a POV to any scholar that is knowledgable about the Trinity but not with Jewish terminology. It undermines the possibility of Wiki presenting a NPOV. It permits Jewish scholars to be experts on the Trinity, merely because they use the word, while denying others to be experts on the Trinity unless they use the word shituf. The whole point of first defining the meaning of shituf is to introduce reliable words and phrases entailed by that term, which permit responsible comparison with literature that interacts with the idea if not the word itself.

If what I am saying is reasonable, I think the problem is that in the clash between Tim and Lisa, the idea that shituf is defined as the Jewish view of the Christian Trinity has been proposed. I'm not sure that is actually the case. Were it so, though, it is clearly essential to clarify what the Trinity actually is in Christian teaching. Christians have the exclusive right to articulate what they believe, everyone has the right to criticise that.

In a nutshell, the problem boils down to the question of whether shituf is a misunderstanding of the Trinity or a criticism of the real thing. So what if it is a misunderstanding, Christians misunderstand Jews dreadfully, can it never be the other way around? Even Christians misunderstand the Trinity!

I would also add that I don't think we're looking hard enough. There are many Jewish scholars with profound insight into Christianity who will probably articulate the misunderstanding. It's not "us versus them" and a Jewish scholar who makes the point would be ideal, but any scholar ought to be fine. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It does seem that this would be the right place in which to deal with jewish criticism (or defenses) of trinitarianism, and that christian defences of trinitarianism as monotheism should go in articles about trinitarianism & monophysite christianity. But more importantly for the moment, Arianism is not a form of polytheism. It's central difference from most other chritianities is the belief that Jesus of Nazareth was not divine, that is he was simply a human prophet. As such Arianism is further from polytheism than trinitarianism (if indeed that is accepted to be so.)--Bsnowball (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not relevant here. And no, this is not the right place to deal with Jewish criticism of trinitarianism. If someone wants to do that, they can create an article for it. Shituf, contrary to the false statement currently locked into the article, was not created to deal with Christianity. It is a basic Jewish concept that applies to a lot more than just Christianity. In fact, not all Jewish authorities view Christian worship as shituf. Some regard it as outright idolatry. But that's not relevant to this article either. This is about shituf. A Jewish technical term. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Above, Alistair wrote, "In a nutshell, the problem boils down to the question of whether shituf is a misunderstanding of the Trinity or a criticism of the real thing." Now, I may be misunderstanding him, but if he really means this he is violating Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not understand with misunderstandings or valid criticisms. it is interested only in notable points of view from reliable verifiable sources. It is not for Wikipedia to say that the view is a misunderstanding, or a criticism of the real thing. That simply is far outside Wikipedia's objectives and criteria. As long as anyone is concerned with these questions they will be wasting time and abusing this talk page with unconstructive and irrelevant talk. The only questions are, is it a notable view, whose view is it, does it come from a verifiable and reliable source? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's Keep This Simple, for everyone's sake

Folks, this shouldn't be that complicated. We're all agreed (and have been) that:

1. Shituf originated as a concept a long time before it was applied to Christianity.
2. Shituf became the basis within Judaism as the reason Jews are allowed to associate with Christians.

Lisa's position (if I understand it) is that Christianity is EITHER Shituf OR flat out idolatry.

My position is that Shituf either DOES or DOES NOT describe Christianity.

If it DOES, then we should fine tune the wording in our definition so that it actually addresses Christianity, and not just Arianism. This is, by the way, an astonishingly simple fix.

If it DOES NOT, then we should admit it, give a pointer to Arianism, and call it a day.

I really don't care which solution is picked. I would even invite Lisa to decide whether the article should apply Shituf to Christianity or not.

But please don't insist that it DOES apply to Christianity and leave such a laughably obvious definition of Arianism up there. It does Christians no good, it makes Jews look horridly ignorant, and it leaves Wikipedia with an easily avoided self contradictory article.

If Lisa choses to say that Shituf DOES apply to Christianity, then my proposal is that I modify the wording of the definition so that it actually does so, and then get help finding a reference that matches that target.

If Lisa choses to say that Shituf DOES NOT apply to Christianity, then she can give the caveat and pointer to Arianism and call it a day.

I think that this is eminently reasonable on my part, it gives Lisa the absolute control she wants, it keeps Wikipedia from contradicting itself in a single article, and it saves all of us a lot of time and energy better spent elsewhere -- like having real lives.

BestTim (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If we all agree that Shituf originated a long time before Christianity, why does this article contain "It originated in reference to Christianity" in the header?

I have said, and will repeat, that Jewish law looks at actions, and not at intent. This is most specifically true when it comes to laws relating to idolatry. Non-monotheistic worship is non-monotheistic, in the view of Judaism, regardless of whether the people worshipping interpret their actions as being to three deities, three persons, three aspects, three facets, or three anything else. Such interpretations are of no interest to Judaism, and do not play a part in the determination of Jewish law.

Tim insists that the interpretation placed on the Christian worship of a trinity is of utmost importance, and that the Jewish evaluation of that worship must pay heed to the Christian interpretation. I've already given Tim a source, which is given in the Talmud, and which is brought down as practical halakha by all decisors in Jewish law and (as a bonus) can be found in the Wikipedia article on Baal Peor. Jewish sources say that this idol was worshipped by defecating in front of it. And the law is that one who defecates in front of a statue of Baal Peor, even if the person is doing so for the express purpose of demonstrating scorn for Baal Peor, that person has committed idolatry.

Worshipping a trinity is non-monotheistic in the eyes of Judaism. It makes no difference whether the Christians doing it have in mind that they are worshipping three persons or three entities or three aspects or three separate powers or a single triune deity. Those distinctions may matter to Christians. They may create ideologies such as Trinitarianism and Arianism and Any-Otherism. But as far as Judaism is concerned, it's still the worship of a trinity. Judaism's take on monotheism is much more extreme than that of Christianity. I've personally heard Christians claim that the word "One" in "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One" means a plural unity. From a Jewish point of view, this is gibberish. An oxymoron. Judaism says that God is singular and unitary and has no divisions. He is not triune or biune or quarune. Just One.

Slrubenstein and I have both suggested that the article be completely rewritten. I agree with this. The fact that there exists a view that Christianity may be considered shituf rather than outright idolatry in Jewish terms does not make shituf about Christianity. Shituf may apply to Wicca as well, but it's not about Wicca either.

My contention, and this is as simply as it can be put, is that shituf has absolutely no relationship to Christian theological concepts such as Trinitarianism and Arianism, both of which are Christian intents behind an action (worship of a trinity) which is inherently non-monotheistic by Jewish standards. Every time Trinitarianism and Arianism are raised in regards to shituf, it is a total red herring. Judaism evaluates worship as monotheistic or not based on form and action, and not on philosophy and theology and rationalization. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- it's a simple choice that I give you full control over:

1. Shituf is applied to Christianity or
2. Shituf is not applied to Christianity.

I don't care which you pick. I only suggest that the wording in the definition match the intent of the article. That's all. But please don't say, "this applies to Christianity" and then give an definition that obviously does not.

It's VERY EASY to reword the definition so that it is authentic to Judaism AND actually applies to Christianity.

Pick one solution or the other; all I'm asking is that the article not contradict itself.

Pick one -- not both, please. I really do not care which you want. I simply care that the article not contradict itself.Tim (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Try this [4] -LisaLiel (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And let me add that you don't get to say whether it applies to Christianity or not. That is a matter for Jewish authorities to say. Not Christian authorities, and not you. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- I have no intention of making the determination that the "authorities" DIRECT it to Christianity. My only point is that if our definition doesn't match the INTENTION of the "authorities" then either our wording doesn't do their intention justice, or they missed the target. Either way will be instantly obvious to a Christian, so we owe it to the good name of the "authorities" to make darned certain that our definition is properly worded. YOU make the determiniation, but if YOU determine that the article should direct it to Christianity, then make a DEFINITION that really does so.Tim (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- for the sake of everyone's time and my screenplay and book deadlines, I would stipulate to something similar to the wording in your link as long as Arianism and Trinity are both listed in "See Also". You may wish to include Telushkin's statement however, to make the "three aspects" more comprehensible to Christians unaccustomed to that wording. It's not perfect, but as I said before, Telushkin's wording may be as close as you can get from within a Jewish paradigm.

Now for the wording -- one minor change. Right now you have

"Shituf or shittuf is a Hebrew term which describes the worship or belief of other gods or divine aspects in addition to the God of Israel".

That's not even what Telushkin meant. If you can agree to the links and the following wording we can be at peace:

"Shituf or shittuf is a Hebrew term which describes the worship of the God of Israel with a "partnership" of multiple aspects or additional gods".

How's that? The wording is precise enough to be recognizable in application to Tritheism, Arianism, or Trinitarianism.Tim (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Not good. L'shattef means "to include" or "to associate". Yes, shutfut is "partnership, but shituf is not. Different forms of the same root in Hebrew. They're closely related, of course. What is translated today as "partner" could as easily be translated as "associate".

I don't want Arianism or Trinitarianism listed in See Also, because those are utterly irrelevant. If you want Trinity listed there, that's okay.

And Telushkin's quote isn't relevant. This isn't an article about Christianity. It's an article about shituf. It is no more relevant to Christianity than it is to Wicca. Which is to say that there are those who would apply it to each, and there are those who would not.

Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship which associate other powers with the One God of Israel. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship"; "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of non-monotheistic worship which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.

Now how is that for a header paragraph? -LisaLiel (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And we label the article as a stub, so that it's clear that it's unfinished and needs source work. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- either the definition deals with just Arianism or also Trinitarianism, but it's obvious by the content that it does NOT deal with Trinitarianism alone. And in fact your new header didn't even touch Trinitarianism. Here's another rewrite:

Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship"; "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of non-monadal worship which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.

Okay, this actually addresses Arianism (powers), Tritheism (deities), and Trinitarianism (mostly, with the aspects). Also, "non-monadal" keeps the definition as applicable toward Christianity itself. "Non-monotheistic" only really touches Tritheism, and some forms of Arianism, but not Trinitarianism itself.

Deal?Tim (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept the changes to "external powers, deities, or internal aspects", but non-monotheistic has to stay. Like it or not, Judaism doesn't view Christian worship as monotheistic. I accept that Christianity does view it as monotheistic, but Judaism does not. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And the Philo stuff stays out. That was just synthesis and OR, and doesn't mention shituf. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Lisa -- non-monadal is required in that definitin or it will not apply to Christianity. The sages say that it applies to Christianity, so let's honor their intent by writing our definition so that it does so. Besides, your own write contradicts itself. "Any worship that falls short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zara" but somehow you have shituf being both non-monotheistic but not avodah zara! I'm trying to help you from contradicting yourself in a single paragraph. As for Philo, I didn't write that -- but it appeared to establish your contention that shituf predates Christianity. To remove it makes the article look like we made up shituf just to deal with Christianity. I've given my offer on the definition and the two links, even without Philo. Please take it.Tim (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Sages never mention it with regards to Christianity. The Tosafists (Sages is the term used primarily for Tannaim and Amoraim) did, but without mentioning Christianity explicitly. And the paragraph as I've written it is very clear that the definition of monotheism being used is the Jewish one. And Christianity is not monotheistic according to that definition. Try this, if you need the point beaten to death:

Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship"; "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of non-monotheistic (by Judaism's definition) worship which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.

And I'm not contradicting myself. Shituf is clearly avodah zarah. It's just a lesser form of avodah zarah that non-Jews may be permitted. That's a matter of semantics, though.

It seems that you are intent on preventing anything that says Judaism views Christianity as non-monotheistic. I'm not willing to go along with that. I'm writing this without even thinking about what Christians may or may not think, because what they think isn't relevant to an article about a Jewish concept.

Please accept the above version. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Or this:

Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship"; "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.

Lisa -- you finally did it. Yes, this last definition is not internally contradictory. It contradicts Telushkin's statement that "it is not idolatry," but given the email you say came from him, his own statement cannot be taken in a non-contradictory way.

I would edit only one thing -- the semi-colon into "or":

Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.

And we will still need the links to Tritheism, Trinitarianism, and Arianism. Can we rest, now?Tim (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Done and done. Do you want to do it (when the 5 days are up) or shall I? -LisaLiel (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Lo chashuv. Since we're all agreed, whichever of us does it first, it shouldn't matter.Tim (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Procedural comment I would suggest that the parties to the edit dispute stop making comments to this talk page -- completely stop -- and let outside editors have a chance to put a word in. Having requested comments from outside editors, the next step is to listen up and see what the outside editors have to say. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Really? Even if we reached a consensus before most of those outside editors replied? -LisaLiel (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well -- since we've reached the consensus, at least now all the reviews have a single thing to judge instead of several! I'm happy for the break.Tim (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Kudos for reaching consensus, I'm truly impressed. Procedurally, you might now want to restate the consensus text, and any associated agreements, in a new Talk section below. Especially is you still seek outside feedback. For my own sake, also, I'm curious about what Reliable Sources you all would plan to cite to support your carefully worded statement. After all, as you can imagine, WP statements tend to get edited by Anyone over time, even if once supported by consensus. Since it's not a quotation, it'd help to see strong sourcing. Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 04:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your kudos are premature. Tim has reneged on his agreement and inserted a "Christian views" section into the article we'd agreed upon, complete with a statement that Christianity is a monotheistic religion, which is not the case according to Judaism. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

This text is ok. But I would still use Christianity as an example so people know what the heck you are talking about. Since, what else is the term gonna apply to except Christianity, it's not like there are a bunch of other religions with a Thor or a Diana co-ruling with the one God of Israel. Christianity is the only one that has that, as I'm aware.

Example (Caps added):

Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel. AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE CONSIDERATION OF THE SON JESUS AS A LESSER DEITY RULING ALONG WITH THE ONE GOD OF ISRAEL IN SOME FORMS OF CHRISTIANITY.

-Bikinibomb (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Bikini, thanks for your note. There is no form of Christianity that sees Jesus as a lesser deity, or even a co-deity. That would be Arianism, or Tritheism, both of which are specifically outlawed by Christianity. It's not good enough to present a definition that rejects something Christianity is not; the definition must also reject something that Christianity IS. It was never Judaism's intention to AGREE with Christianity AGAINST Tritheism and Arianism. It was Judaism's intention to disagree with CHRISTIANITY, which is what we have presented (or approximated).Tim (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that it can apply equally to Wicca. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no problem precluding Wicca. I just wanted Christianity precluded. For what it's worth -- we BOTH wanted to preclude Christianity. That's the irony of this situation. Anyhow, I'm going to collect (what I think to be) the agreed to version in a sandbox and come back with a link. Lisa, I'll need you to verify that this is what we came up with so the third parties can see what we were looking at.

Be back in a few...Tim (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "preclude". As I understand it, that word means to exclude in advance. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Shituf Page at WikiProject Christianity

Another editor has requested mediation on the Shituf page, so I looked up the mediation process. The first step is to ask for third party opinion -- which is the reason I'm here.

Shituf, briefly, is a Jewish term applied to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The definition of the concept, however, appears to be Arian: lesser beings (the son and spirit) worshipped in junior "partnership" with God. Accordingly, I included a short Christian view section which simply describes that Christianity has formally rejected multiple deities in junior partnership since Nicea.

The contention is whether or not the section should be included.

My argument is that an article describing Jews eating human blood on passover would require a short section describing that Jews actually FORBID such a practice. Accordingly, an article describing Christians in Arian ways would require a short section describing that Christianity actually FORBIDS such a belief.

In any case, since the other editor suggested mediation, I'm taking the first step and asking for third party review.

Thanks.Tim (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Tim has given you false information. The Jewish concept of shituf was not created for application to the Christian concept of the Trinity. Judaism has a very absolute idea of what monotheism is. Any worship that diverges from this absolute monotheism is viewed as idolatrous in Judaism. The one exception is where the worship can be viewed as including the One God worshipped by Judaism. In such a case, the other deities or aspects are seen as "associated" or meshutaf to God, and there is a rabbinic view that this is permissible for non-Jews, and not idolatrous for them (though it is still considered idolatry for Jews).

There is a minority opinion in Jewish law that says that the Christian Trinity constitutes shituf, and not avodah zarah (idolatry). This opinion is not based on Christian concepts such as Trinitarianism and Arianism, since Jewish law is based on actions, and not beliefs. Judaism views statements such as "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" as being contrary to Judaism's absolute monotheism, regardless of whether those three are viewed as separate deities or aspects of a single deity.

The question of whether intent matters in issues of idolatry is asked and answered in the Babylonian Talmud, and the unanimous legal decision amongst the rabbis is that worship that is non-monotheistic or idolatrous in form is a violation of the commandment against avodah zarah, regardless of the worshipper's intent.

Furthermore, Tim sees the issue of shituf as fundamentally connected to Christianity. And indeed, the article on Shituf is written that way. But this is because Tim wrote the article. As a point of fact, shituf applies to other religions, such as Wicca, where a commonly stated principle is "All the gods are one god, all the goddesses are one goddess, and the god and goddess are One."

I think that having a section on "Christian views" in an article on shituf is no different than having a section on "Jewish views" in an article on the Trinity. In both cases, it is non-encyclopedic, and highly polemic in nature. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys -- as I said -- a third party look is in order. In English, Lisa just said you were all polytheists, which is a legitimate Jewish view. My take is that it's nice to have a section saying that you forbid polytheism.

And as for the history of this, the entire concept was created in the Middle Ages in reference to the question of whether Jews could have business dealings with Christians, since they were forbidden to have business dealings with idolaters. The Jewish solution is that, "Yes, they have multiple deities, but they are like junior partners." Loosely defined, "shituf" is "partnership." The context and origin was directed toward Christianity. Christianity, therefore, cannot be excluded from the article without making it polemic.

Again, thanks. You should be honored -- two Jews are asking for YOUR third opinion!Tim (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. I don't think this section belongs here. I'm only responding in order that Tim's false statements not be left unrebutted. Shituf is a Jewish concept. I wouldn't create a section on "Jewish views" in articles on Trinitarianism or Arianism or Transubstantiation or any other Christian concept, because that would be inappropriate. Shituf is a particularly Jewish concept, and should not have a "Christian views" section.

Furthermore, I've edited the Shituf article. Tim originally created it with a strong focus on Christianity, despite the fact that it has nothing to do with Christianity, per se. The source Tim brought in the article from the Middle Ages (and the concept of shituf pre-dates that) doesn't even mention Christians.

Tim says that I called you all polytheists. I recognize that we have different definitions of monotheism. The Jewish view is far more extreme than the Christian view. When we say "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is One", we read that "One" as being utterly indivisible. No parts, no aspects, no anything. Even the "attributes of God" we sometimes refer to are seen as things created by God as tools by means of which we can perceive Him in part. By our definition of monotheism, Christianity doesn't measure up. But by the Christian definition of monotheism, I imagine it does. Tim is merely trying to turn this into a holy war by using incendiary terminology in an inappropriate place. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- in the past few days you've called Christians polytheists at least six times. Anyone can go through your contribs or just read the Shituf talk page. That kind of bias needs to at least be admitted. If it's your belief -- be proud of it.

As for the edits -- Lisa can't edit out all references to Christianity on the Shituf page because it's APPLIED to Christianity. When I removed any paragraph that used the word "Christian" or "Christianity" she reverted it as vandalism.

That being said, I no longer care. I have better things to do than to prevent a member of my own religion to promote falsehood to yours. You're welcome to chime in.

Best.Tim (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Lisa's comparisons with "Trinitarianism or Arianism or Transubstantiation or any other Christian concept" are not equivalent. Her own version of the article cites statements about, or interpretations of, Christian beliefs from Maimonides, Rabbi Walter Wurzburger, & Louis Jacobs. It would seem appropriate to clarify the actual Christian position from the horse's mouth, although I am not sure a whole section is necessary. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Tim, in a Jewish context, Christians are polytheists. And I don't deny that I used the term. I would not do so in a Christian context, both because it's rude, and because it's not necessarily true in a Christian context.

JohnBod, articles on Christianity claim that the Jewish messiah can be a deity. But I wouldn't use that as an excuse to go in and add a "Jewish views" section rebutting it. You're entitled to your beliefs about our concepts, provided that they are sourced and encyclopedic in nature. So yes, my comparison was apt. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Christianity incorporates the Old Testament and regards itself as a successor to Judaism, so many Jewish concepts are Christian concepts too. This is not true the other way round. But articles on Christian subjects that include statements or views about the Jewish faith as practised in the last 2,000 years should represent the authentic Jewish view of the matter from Jewish sources, and many do. That is the situation here. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

John, the fact that Christianity incorporates parts of Judaism doesn't mean that it's immune to challenges by Judaism on the basis of Jewish concepts. The fact that we don't insert such challenges into every Wikipedia article about Christianity is because Wikipedia is not a place for such challenges. That's polemics, and Wikipedia is no place for it.

Limiting Judaism to the past 2000 years is incorrect. Christians make many misstatements about Jewish concepts that predate Christianity, but Wikipedia is not for thrashing such things out. Nor is it appropriate for Christians to polemicize in articles about Jewish concepts. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you've read what I wrote very carefully; at any rate your points do not address it. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

John -- BINGO. Thanks. Okay, I need to sign off now and spend some time with my family. I'll look back in Sunday. Best.Tim (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Lisa, for the sake of the third parties, I've incorporated what I believe we agree on here [5].

I only added a few neutral context links to the three we agreed to (Monotheism, Polytheism, Judaism, Christianity). For the sake of the Jewish perspective of the articly I indented Trinity, Arianism, and Tritheism as if they were all three subsets of Christianity. Christians may not like it, but this IS a Jewish concept.

Please let me (and the third party reviewers) know if the Shituf sandbox meets with your approval so that we can just cut and paste whenever the article is unlocked.

Best.Tim (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely one hundred and ten percent not. I will delete that section on Christian views if you post this.

We agreed on this ([6]) with the replacement of the the first paragraph as agreed upon between the two of us, and with a "See Also" section containing Trinitatianism, Tritheism and Arianism. Now you're reneging and adding a "Christian views" section.

I should have known better than to trust you. Your choice is now to have this go to the Mediation Cabal or direction to Arbitration. I'd as soon send it directly to ArbCom, but I'm willing to start with MedCab. And good luck with any kind of mediation or arbitration after we reached a consensus and you reneged. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- please look further below. I didn't renege. I just had a generic marker without a time stamp. Look in the first paragraph in "A Word About Edits" where I wrote "Right now the latest version that is in the lines that Lisa and I have agreed to is this [7]."

I understand your concern, but that Christian views section was added later by Carlaude.Tim (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Jewish concept - Christian concept

LisaLiel says: Shituf is a Jewish concept. I wouldn't create a section on "Jewish views" in articles on Trinitarianism or Arianism or Transubstantiation or any other Christian concept, because that would be inappropriate. Shituf is a particularly Jewish concept, and should not have a "Christian views" section.

The main problem I would see with a "Jewish views" section in articles on Trinitarianism is that there is "views" rather than a "view" -- better a statement of differing views with a pointer here.

A "Christian view" section in Shituf is different because:

• 1. "Shituf" is a Jewish concept about other's beliefs, "nonJewish" beliefs. Trinitarianism and Transubstantiation are not potentially about Jewish beliefs.
• 2. There is a Christian view on the topic "Shituf".
• And 3. The Christian view on the topic is potentially informative on how to or if [[Shituf] applies to Christians. --Carlaude (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Shituf is not about others' beliefs. It's about idolatry. In principle, shituf applies to anyone (Jew or non-Jew) worshipping God in a less than monotheistic way, but still including God. The people in the northern kingdom of Israel who worshipped God and Baal together were doing shituf, and they were Jews. But shituf isn't distinguished from regular idolatry for Jews because both are equally forbidden.

There is no Christian view on the topic shituf any more than there is a Jewish view on the topic of the Christian trinity. The Jewish view of the Christian trinity is that it's polytheistic. Shall I insert a "Jewish views" section in the Trinity article and point that out? The Jewish view of transubstantiation is that even if worship of a trinity can be considered shituf rather than full-blown idolatry, actually worshipping what Christians consider to be the body of their deity is certainly idolatry, and cannot be excused as shituf. Shall I insert a "Jewish views" section into the Transubstantiation article and point this out? The Jewish view of Christianity is that it is a minor heretical sect gone terribly wrong. Shall I create a "Jewish views" section in the article on Christianity and point that out?

And lastly, the Christian view is utterly irrelevant as to whether shituf applies to Christianity. As I've pointed out to Tim ad nauseum, Judaism doesn't give half a damn what Christians think they're doing when they worship a trinity. Worshipping a trinity is non-monotheistic by Jewish standards whether one does so thinking about a triune deity, three separate deities, or two deities and a gallon of milk. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Carlaude -- I'm assuming that you are a Christian, and you seem to know the subject. That being said, I will attempt to answer your post in a different way from Lisa. Before I start, however, I would like to state from the outset that Lisa and I both agree that the Jewish concept of Shituf is used by Jews in application to Christianity. It was not originally created for that purpose, per se, but it has been applied toward Christianity for a long time.

Now for your points.

1. Is Shituf a Jewish concept about Christian beliefs? I know I've sometimes worded it that way. A more neutral way would be that it is a Jewish concept applied to beliefs other than Judaism (and yes, historically that mainly means Christianity). The doctrine of the Trinity is applied by Christians to themselves. I would agree with your first point.
2. There is a Christian view on the topic. Well, of course, since Jews APPLY Shituf TO Trinitarianism, and Christians DO have a view to the doctrine on which Jews have made the application. It's the same as if I made a view about cannibals, and then said that Jews were required by their dietary laws to be cannibals. The fact that Jews DO have a view about dietary laws is fully applicable even if Jews did not have a specific term for cannibalism. However, Christians certainly do have a term for the use of "Shituf" found in most of these quotes, and even in Lisa's own descriptions. That term, usually, is Arianism.
3. The Christian description of God is fully applicable to the Jewish description of a form of worship they say Christians practice.

That being said, the fact that most Jews miss the mark in the wording is for the precise reasons Lisa's comments may leave you non-plussed. They aren't connecting because they aren't addressing your own faith. Lisa has disagreed with a concept that you also disagree with.

Nevertheless, what Lisa and I have worked on here is a definition that does cover Christianity, in addition to Arianism and Tritheism. The reason is simple: Jewish thinkers say that the concept applies to Christianity. Even if the wording is imprecise, they DO intend the application. Fortunately, I was able to find a wording "aspect" from Telushkin that is applied in reference to the Christian belief. He writes that Christians do not worship three gods, but three aspects of one God. Well, that's not perfect, but I think you'll agree that he's at least in the right ball park.

And so we have a word from Telushkin added into the definition that gives the same conclusion about Christianity -- sometihng like "we aren't supposed to see God that way, but we won't be upset that you do."

And that's basically the point of Shituf. The term is NOT meant to condemn Christianity (Lisa's tone notwithstanding), but rather to be at peace with it. We are us, and you are you. We shouldn't be you, but we're okay that you are. As a man, I feel the same way about women...Tim (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Again (and again and again if necessary), Judaism isn't saying that you have polytheistic intent when you pray to a trinity. We honestly don't care what you have in mind. Judaism is based on actions, and not on beliefs. If you end a prayer with "in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit amen", you have committed an act which is non-monotheistic according to Judaism's definition. And no statements of intent will ever change the fact that this action is polytheistic by Judaism's definition. Do you deny that Christians end prayers that way?

Judaism doesn't care whether you identify it as an aspect or a person or a deity or a facet or a ring-tailed baboon. It's the action that matters. Tim will never understand this. He will continue and continue and continue to insist that Christian intent matters, and it simply does not.

For the umpteenth time, I will say, as simply as possible, that worshipping a trinity is polytheistic by Judaism's definition. Tim is wrong to say "Lisa has disagreed with a concept that you also disagree with". This is a deliberate falsehood. Tim is deliberately claiming that I am even addressing Christian concepts, let alone agreeing or disagreeing with them. I don't care about Christian concepts. It's Christian actions that matter as far as Judaism is concerned, and those are not monotheistic as monotheism is understood by Judaism. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- this is PRECISELY the problem. Christians have EXPLICITLY defined God as a simplex unity (as cited in the Berkhof note in the latest sandbox version of "Christian views"). You are saying that "Gee, Christians don't MEAN to worship multiple gods, but the poor silly souls do."

No, Lisa. Christians are not stupid, and they know their own faith. In fact, Christianity is incredibly concerned with precision when it comes to the singularity of deity. The whole "compound unity" fluff you've seen in the past is a heresy currently contained within Messianic Judaism, which is a carryover from the fact that the Trinity doesn't compute exactly within a Jewish paradigm. It's like running Microsoft Word for Windows on a Macintosh. It IS Microsoft Word, but it will look like gibberish on your machine. The action of praying in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit is not a polytheistic action because it is not a polytheistic belief. They do NOT believe in multiple deities, and therefore they are not praying to multiple deities. You can't PRAY to something you do not BELIEVE. The belief absolutely governs the action in this case.

Now, the fact that you keep insisting that they are doing something they are not doing is the reason we've had trouble with this article. I've insisted that we either have a definition that DOES cover Christianity or have a caveat in which Christianity can state that it does NOT. I believe we have found that wording.

Now, you said "Tim is deliberately claiming that I am even addressing Christian concepts, let alone agreeing or disagreeing with them". No, I'm saying that you are disagreeing with the concept of praying to multiple deities. And I am saying that Christians will shout "Amen, sister!" to that all day long.Tim (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I deny that all Christians end prayers that way. --Carlaude (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've never HEARD a Christian end a prayer in that way. More often it's "in the name of Jesus." Christians pray to God because of Jesus -- and even Maimonides agreed to that. I was simply granting that if Lisa HAD heard a Christian end a prayer that way, the person praying would have been praying to the single Deity.

I think this is off track, but praying "in the name of Jesus" is not that same as praying "to Jesus".--Carlaude (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is off track :-). I don't think Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology will fit in this talk page...Tim (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, Carlaude, I would like to thank you again for coming! Rather than have a bunch of Jews arguing about whether or not they were talking about Christians, it's essential to have a Christian in the room to, uh, chuckle. Sometimes I feel like we're all playing darts, and congratulating ourselves on the fine target that we are hitting -- when in fact we are facing in the wrong direction and can't even SEE the target.Tim (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if Tim and you, Lisa, did agreed (and you don't) that the Christian view is utterly irrelevant to Rabbinical Judaism as to whether shituf applies to Christianity-- it matters to some people what the Christian view is -- and Wikipedia is for everyone, not just Rabbinical Judaism. To leave this out is utterly misleading. --Carlaude (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would agree with that too. Shituf is a Jewish concept that Jews apply to Christians, and if the only readers here were Jews, then it wouldn't matter whether or not the wording made sense. But if it doesn't match, and there's no caveat, then a general audience (which includes Christians) would recognize that the article is self-contradictory and thus diminishes Wikipedia as a resource for real information (instead of fantasy-land wishful thinking "information"). Although we have no obligation to present ultimate "truth", it's helpful not to contradict ourselves with obvious nonsense.Tim (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Tim, you wrote that "Christians are not stupid, and they know their own faith." But Judaism doesn't care about their "faith". Judaism cares about their actions. Catholics use the ending that I quoted above all the time. Sometimes in English and sometimes in Latin. If you ask a Christian "do you worship the Father?" the answer will be yes. If you ask a Christian "do you worship the Son?" the answer will be yes. You can stop right there, because that's already polytheism by Judaism's lights.

You insist that Christian intent when they pray to a trinity is relevant here, and it is not. The word "monotheism" has different definitions to Jews and to Christians. Christians believe that one can pray to a trinity and still be doing monotheistic worship. Judaism disagrees. This is an article about a Jewish concept, and the only definition that matters is the Jewish one. If you want to have a paragraph explaining that the definition of monotheism in Judaism is unique, that's fine. But worshipping a trinity is polytheism according to Judaism, and worshipping a trinity is not polytheism according to Christianity, and as much as you may feel some personal need to reconcile the two, Tim, you simply cannot. This is an irreconcilable point.

Christian worship of a trinity is avodah zarah according to some rabbinic views and shituf according to others. There is no third rabbinic view, and none of these views are predicated on a "misunderstanding of Christian concepts", because none of them are dependent upon Christian concepts. Jews are not "missing the mark", as Tim put it. Judaism makes its determinations on observed reality, and couldn't give a hoot about Christian concepts.

You wrote Now, you said "Tim is deliberately claiming that I am even addressing Christian concepts, let alone agreeing or disagreeing with them". No, I'm saying that you are disagreeing with the concept of praying to multiple deities. And I am saying that Christians will shout "Amen, sister!" to that all day long.

This is a false statement. You want to pretend that Judaism and Christianity are agreeing here, but it's not true. Judaism is saying that Christian worship is non-monotheistic, which it is according to Judaism's standards. This is the fundamental disagreement, Tim. You claim that worshipping a trinity is monotheistic because of some theological hand-waving. Judaism ignores the hand-waving and looks at the actions. Worshipping a trinity of any kind whatsoever, with any rationalization whatsoever, is polytheism by Jewish rules. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- the Nicene self definition of Christianity holds that Christians worship one God. They worship the Father. They worship the Son. They worship the Holy Spirit. They worship one God. If you want to complain, then we can dig into Kabbalah and we won't compare very well to Christianity, will we?

But what do they mean? They mean one God "without body, parts, or passions" (Westminister Confession of Faith).

1. They believe in one God.
2. They pray to one God.
3. They believe God has no body.
4. They believe that God has no parts.

Are you following this? No? Then I don't think it is the Trinity you have a problem with, but monotheism.Tim (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- here is something that might be helpful. You say that "worshiping a trinity" is not monotheism. Well, to test your competence to make that statement, define the Trinity in terms that Christians will agree, and THEN disagree with THAT.

If you cannot define the Trinity, that is, if you don't have an idea what it is, then it is completely irrelevant if you think "blank" isn't monotheism.

Here is where you and I disagree -- I believe that Judaism DOES forbid CHRISTIANITY to Jews. You do not. You believe that Juidaism forbids some fantasy-land religion of pseudo Arianism that you want to pretend is Christianity.

The sad thing here is that Judaism does indeed have something to say in contrast to authentic Christianity. There really is a rational and knowledgable level of address that exists. But one would never guess it from your writing. You are so busy shouting against polytheism that you can't hear all the shouted agreements from any Christians in the audience against whatever unregonizable group you are railing against.

Slow down. Listen. Find the target. It's behind you... A little to the left now... lower... ah! There it is...Tim (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Christian self-definition is irrelevant. I don't have a problem with monotheism. In the view of Christianity, Judaism has a problem with monotheism, because it doesn't accept that worshipping a father a son and a holy spirit is monotheistic. In the view of Judaism, Christianity has a problem with monotheism, because they do think that worshipping a father a son and a holy spirit is monotheistic.

There are two conflicting views of monotheism here. You, even though you may no longer worship a father a son and a holy spirit, agree with the Christian definition, and think that doing so is monotheistic. But your personal view does not agree with the view of Judaism.

Why are you incapable of understanding that this is a fundamental disagreement about the definition of monotheism? Why is it so important to you that Judaism be forced to accept the Christian definition of monotheism? Why are you willing to trample a Jewish concept by forcing the Christian definition of monotheism -- which disagrees with the Jewish definition -- into this article? -LisaLiel (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Lisa -- the only problem we have here is that I disagree with CHRISTIANITY and you do not. You are disagreeing with ARIANISM. Well, Christians disagree with that, too.

You are very much invited to join me in my disagreement with a religion that exists in the real world called "Christianity."Tim (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say that "Lisa disagrees with Arianism." Fine - then THAT DOESN'T belong in here EITHER; redefining the terms of one religion to suit that of another is just plain wrong. I tell you, I am getting dizzy watching Lisa repeat herself over & over & have you sail right by the point she's making. Maybe I can see it more clearly because I know Lisa better than you, or maybe it's just that she & I are on the same page. But you really have to calm down & re-read her point at least once. FlaviaR (talk) 07:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[cut irrelevant text]

Since you are not addressing my concerns, but are undoing my edits, I do not see why you two still argue with each other. Is this an argument to change User:Teclontz/Shituf-box or convince Wikipedia that User:Teclontz/Shituf-box is good as it stands now? Are you to trying to impove User:Teclontz/Shituf-box or just debate terms?

It looks very much like this is a debate of terms aside from the article. If so please cut it out. That is not what this page is about. If you are wanting to improve the article then start by telling me what part of the article you are looking at.--Carlaude (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Carlaude, the prexisting article is on hold because of a disagreement between Lisa and myself. The hold and a third party review came in to deal with that fixed point. Once Lisa and I reached an approximation of what WE meant, then the third parties would review what WE were dealing with. It's a microcosmic hiccup in the larger editing of the page. I'd prefer that she and I step away from the article now and let you and others hack at it for a good solid month and see what external eyeballs can do. But my little sandbox is just a little sandbox. It's not really the real article. If I had my preference, everyone would look at the sandbox, decide whether or not to do a one time cut and paste into the real article, and then saner editors than the two of us (Lisa and myself) -- saner editors including you and the others here -- can step in and work on the real article.

But the sandbox was only really so that the third parties could see what the heck Lisa and I were talking about, not really to take the place of the article itself (or if so... just for a moment).Tim (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This is all fine -- but you should discuss it elsewhere if it is so much not about the real page. --Carlaude (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, none of this is about the real page. It was just another personal swipe that always bleeds from one page to another. This page is just the latest casualty. I'm thinking of changing my screen name and staying away from Jewish subjects just so I won't be stalked.Tim (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I simply do not understand why Christian sources concerning Christianity's monotheism are relevant to the article on shituf. Can you sum it up in one or two sentences? I heave read through a lot of what you wrote, most of which is about Christianity and not about shituf. Why is it relevant? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sl, quite simply -- the article originally claimed that Shituf was applied to Christianity, but showed no definition that did so. Lisa allowed a correction to the definition that includes Christianity within its scope. As such, the article no longer contradicts itself. All I've ever asked for is that the article not obviously contradict itself. I understand that in a very limited POV you haven't seen the contradiction. That's why there are other editors participating and a NPOV policy. The fact that you don't see the POV is okay, as long as you allow other editors to supply the help with the blindspot. ALL OF US have blindspots. That's why there are multiple editors participating. It's not good enough to claim NPOV. An article must ACTUALLY be NPOV. Only the participation of multiple editors can clear that out. With the corrected definition, I have no problem, and have had no problem since yesterday.Tim (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I still do not understand you. Jews DID apply the concept Shituf to Christianity. That is simple and non-controversial. And it has no bearing on the definition. I saw no contradiction in the article. Shituf is associating God the creator with another named being, and many Christians belief that Christianity is an example of shituf. Where is there any room for contradiction? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course they applied it to Christianity, which is why the definition of the article should include that application. Judaism REALLY DOES exclude Trinitarianism from acceptable belief. The original definition did not do so. The new one does. But "another named being" is Arianism. To give a definition that describes Arianism but does not even address Trinitarianism contradicts the application Jews mean by the term.

It could ALSO be that Jews really misunderstand Christianity and we are stuck with Arian definitions. Fine -- give a caveat. It really didn't matter to me. The original article has a caveat because of the limited definition. The newer edits have a definition that needs no caveat. It doesn't have to be perfect. It just ought to be intelligible.Tim (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A Quick Word About Edits

Right now the latest version that is in the lines that Lisa and I have agreed to is this [8].

Since the current definition actually does address Christianity, a Christian clarification is not essential. It was only essential while the article was limited to Arian definitions while claiming to address Christianity. That is, the problem was that the original article wording was contradicting itself. The latest stipulated definition does not contradict itself, because it includes monotheistic Trinitarianism within the definition (or the best approximation from a noted source -- Telushkin).

However, it's certainly welcome to see that a Christian IS participating in edits of the sandbox, and I'd like to see if he believes that we need further fine tuning of the wording so as to not contradict ourselves. That is, if we SAY a concept applies to Christianity, it is helpful that it is to CHRISTIANITY that it applies. Or, if not, we should at least recognize such with a Christian views section.

Summary: I currently believe that the stipulated wording DOES include Christianity within the scope of the definition, and that therefore a separate Christian views section is not essential.

But that's only my own single opinion.Tim (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me what part of of the "stipulated wording", to you, "DOES include Christianity within the scope of the definition" --Carlaude (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"internal aspects". Again, that's not perfect, but it's as close as you can get and still be in a Jewish vocabulary. There is a writer named Telushkin who wrote the following:

"Throughout the centuries, more than a few Jewish thinkers have argued that the idea of the trinity (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) seemed idolatrous. Ultimately, however, the majority of Jewish scholars concluded that although Christianity speaks of a trinity, it does not conceive of the three forces as separate with different and conflicting wills. Rather, the trinity represents three aspects of one God. While Jews are forbidden to hold such a belief, it is not avodah zarah." Telushkin, Jewish Literacy, page 552

I'm sure you'll agree that it's closer to the mark than the descriptions on the existing Shituf page.Tim (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is where on the User:Teclontz/Shituf-box page does the "stipulated wording", to you, "include Christianity within the scope of the definition". I do not follow. --Carlaude (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Carlaude -- it's in the first paragraph (I'll put in bold what addresses Christianity):

Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.

As you can see, what I do not have in bold is "external powers, or deities" (which address Arianism and Tritheism). The intent of the wording is to cover all three: 1) Christianity, 2) Arianism, and 3) Tritheism. Judaism, in fact, disagrees with all three of those religions. The previous wording left out Christianity.Tim (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, Carlaude, if you wouldn't mind, could you hold off on your edits to the sandbox until Lisa and I get a good fix on the version we are stipulating for review? You're welcome to edit the real page here when it comes open, but we're trying to resolve an original problem between Lisa and myself. I've been trying to get the article to either address a disagreement with Christianity, or a caveat if it did not. Lisa (as I hoped) opted for the disagreement, and we put together a wording that is the best sourcable approximation available.Tim (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This is Ridiculous

Right now the latest version that is in the lines that Lisa and I have agreed to is this [9].

Lisa -- look at the timestamps on the history page. As soon as I saw that Carlaude had added a Christian views section I updated this talk page with a timestamp link.Tim (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW -- now that you've undid the Carlaude edit -- please give it a run through so we can make sure we're all on the same page and we'll give it a final timestamp.

Best.Tim (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

An Idea...

Hi folks, I noticed you opened a Medcab case. I am a mediator but I don't think I'm going to take this one on since I have personal involvement. I was, however, thinking about the article while I was laying in bed this morning, and I believe I might have found a compromise. Can every party take a look at User:L'Aquatique/Shituf and see if you find it acceptable? L'Aquatique[review] 17:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note -- the medcab appears to be in error and I'm waiting for Lisa to withdraw it. Also, she and I came up with an almost identical page [[10]] with the first paragraph reading this way:

"Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel."

Although we can't seem to agree to much of anything, we DID agree to that wording.Tim (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry L'Aquatique, but that's not okay. Forget the religious stuff; it's not even okay by regular Wikipedia standards. None of that Philo material mentions shituf. It was one editor's OR/SYNTH. He felt that those passages from Philo could be seen as things that the rabbis would have seen as shituf.

I disagree with the first paragraph as well. Because shituf is idolatry. It's merely a lesser form of idolatry that a minority view among the rabbis hold to be permissible for non-Jews. Nor is it okay to bring Christianity into the header in that way, since only some rabbinic opinions hold that Christianity is shituf, and it no more applies to Christianity (even according to those who say it applies) than it applies to Wicca.

And the "Application to Christianity" section is simply a renamed "Christian views" section. You've chosen to mention that Christianity views itself as monotheistic without mentioning that Judaism disagrees. Why should the Christian view dominate on a page about a Jewish concept?

And the only Jewish views you have in there which postdate the middle ages are non-Orthodox views which run counter to Jewish tradition and Jewish law. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I invite you to improve upon it, then. The problem, Lisa, is that as it is the article is fairly well sourced. Now, I tried to remove as many references to Christianity as I could but the truth is is the header is fairly accurate: shituf is mostly applied to Christianity in modern days. I have been trying to find sources that just talk about Shituf as a Jewish concept and haven't been able to find much. If you have some that I am missing, give them to me and we can move the article in that direction. L'Aquatique[review] 18:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone cares -- I think L'Aquatique's version is even better than mine. L'Aquatique preserved more of the original consensus article.

My primary motivation right now is some peace, however. I'm happy with either L'Aquatique's current version or the timestamped one in my sandbox. L'Aquatique's is better, but I'm okay with mine too. Whatever everyone wants.Tim (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I merged one paragraph from your sandbox into the article and removed the section Lisa called OR. See if you still like it. L'Aquatique[review] 18:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with this one also. I'm not the one who spent all the real world time researching Philo. :-)Tim (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from the Cabal page) Oh -- for the record:

1. I'm okay with this version on Lisa's space [11].
2. I'm okay with this version on my space [12]
3. I'm okay with this version on L'Aquatique's space [13]
4. I'm okay with this Lisa edit on L'Aquatique's space [14]
5. I'm okay with this version in the main space [15]

Hope that makes the mediating easier...Tim (talk)

Can I take a break now?Tim (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

While I see that you want the mediation to easier, LisaLiel states no desire for mediation, per Mediation Cabal, LisaLiel wants only that people that (in part) disagree with her "prevented from making edits to articles on Jewish concepts." --Carlaude (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:LisaLiel/Shituf is a version I'm proposing. It has multiple views on the subject (all Jewish) and mentions, with a source, that Christianity sees itself as monotheistic. Any additional arguments to that effect can be found on pages such as Trinity and Christianity, which are referenced at the end.

There's no reason to talk about a "Jewish controversy" or to include a huge section about Christian theology. It's enough to simply state that Christians disagree, and move on. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh good grief. ANOTHER version to read? Let me know when you're done.Tim (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm done, so long as no one tries to put a "Christian views" section into this one. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"No one"? This is Wikipedia, Lisa -- EVERYONE gets to edit.Tim (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, being inflexible is not helping the situation. The primary contemporary application of Shituf is Christianity, there has got to be at least a mention. Otherwise it violates NPOV. L'Aquatique[review] 19:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a mention, L'Aquatique. It says explicitly that Christianity considers itself to be monotheistic. Not only does it say that, but there's a reference that backs up the statement. I just don't think an article on a Jewish concept requires sheaves of Christian rebuttal. The Christian view can be presented in Christianity and Trinity and other pages where it's pertinent. Here, I think it suffices to say that Christianity views itself as monotheistic, and that Judaism disagrees.

Nor do I think I'm being inflexible. I compromised with Tim on the lead paragraph, and I compromised about having links to various Christian concepts in the See Also section. But I do not think that an article about a Jewish concept is the proper place for a debate on what monotheism is. It's enough to say that Christianity self-identifies as monotheistic and that Judaism disagrees. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So... I'm guessing that no comments means agreement. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No comments means that there's no point commenting. The final edit in my user space is yours. The final edit in L'Aquatique's user space is yours. The final edit in your user space is yours. Basically, you're going to have the final edit no matter what, so why do we need to even comment? What we offer is irrelevant.Tim (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Scope

1. Current article: Shituf or shittuf is a Hebrew term which describes the worship or belief of other gods in addition to the God of Israel.
2. Lisa's edit on Tim's space: Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.
3. Lisa's edit on L'Aquatique's space: Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.
4. Lisa's edit on Lisa's space: Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.

All I've ever asked for here is that the article have a definition that did not contradict the scope of the usage in the article itself (or else give a caveat). That is, that the article not contradict itself.

Since the usage given for Shituf in the current article is applied to Christianity, but is limited to Arianism and Tritheism, then the scope of definition should either include all three religions, or give a caveat.

I understand that in a very limited POV there is no difference between Christianity, Arianism, and Tritheism. But that's my point: the scope of concern in Judaism does equate those three. Therefore the definition of the term must do so as well. Since the term is a Jewish concept, the scope of the definition must include what Judaism is actually using the term for.

To do less would be to create an article that does NOT address Christianity, and therefore fail to include what Jewish sources in the article say that they mean.

Once the definition included all three religions: Christianity, Tritheism, and Arianism -- then it finally had the encyclopedic flexibility to include or exclude any sources Lisa wanted to pick and choose. It no longer mattered. Whatever Jewish sources she would find would be included within the scope of definition.

My AGENDA here has been ENGLISH. Wikipedia is not written in JEWISHESE (that is, conotations based on assumptions that Jews make that do not always mean the same thing to neutral audiences). For instance, Jews often say things like "belief in the Trinity is okay for Christians, but not for Jews."

When a Jew reads that he is mentally registering this: "belief in the Trinity is okay for GENTILES, but not for Jews."

When anyone else is reading that he is mentally registering this: "belief in the Trinity is okay for people who believe in Christianity (gentiles or jews), but not okay for people who believe in Judaism."

We have to be AWARE of our readers. You can't assume that all of the readers of this encyclopedia are Jewish. They aren't. There are atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and yes, Wiccans. You have to use ENGLISH in ways that give the same conotations to ALL readers.

Further, it is not necessary that all audiences AGREE with the article. But it IS necessary that they UNDERSTAND the article. This isn't polemics. This is just GOOD EDITING.

So -- now I'm exposed. You have my agenda. Attack away. I no longer care. ALL of Lisa's articles on ALL of the user spaces are satisfactory, because they have a definition that does not contradict any cited reference she puts in the guts of the article.

Now, can we give this a rest?Tim (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You wanted a caveat. The version I've proposed has one. It says that Christianity considers itself monotheistic, and gives a source for that, and then says that Judaism differs. If you think that readers of Wikipedia are so incredibly dense that they can't read that and conclude that, "Hey, it looks like Judaism and Christianity have a difference of opinion about whether Christian worship is monotheistic or not", I can't help you. Personally, I think that most people will understand that. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said, Lisa -- I'm happy with all four versions. The three ones that you did with the fine tuned definition, and the existing one. Since I don't have a stake in the Philo section, I don't care about that either. You have carte blanche (however that's spelled).Tim (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would support either the version in my sandbox or the version in Tim's. I definitely don't support the article as is in mainspace, I think it gives undue weight to a Christian POV. I haven't read the one in Lisa's sandbox but when I read it last I remember thinking- "this might give undue weight to a Jewish POV". So as I said I think the most neutral is Tim or I's, but frankly I do not feel like arguing about this anymore. L'Aquatique[review] 19:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, all three sandbox versions are the same. Mine, Tim's and L'Aquatique's. I agree that the current (locked) version is bad. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I meant to say I haven't read Lisa's recently. Sorry for the confusion. L'Aquatique[review] 19:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for info -- Lisa seems to have conformed all three to the same version. So, whichever one you look at, the latest version should be the same on all three (that should save some time). My only concern was the scope of the definition.Tim (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

I figure it would appear more of a consensus if I took Lisa's edit and posted it, rather than Lisa being stuck out on a limb later on.

I haven't read every word, but the opening definition includes Christianity within its scope, there is a variation of Jewish views, and there are links to potential similar articles. It actually looks well covered.Tim (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the lead as it stands now is idiotic; watering it down, and putting the wrong stress on things; just so that we all now feel good. I don't have the time or the will to get into it. I wish Professor Berger or Professor Leiman would get involved, experts on this subject; can anybody please call them? Itzse (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I was asked by Tim to spell out what I don't like about the lead. Although I prefer not to continue in a debate where I'm not an expert in; I'll just point out that the lead stresses that shituf is a lesser form of avodah zorah. I think that the lead should stress what shituf is, not what it is not; later in the article all this should be explained. But the lead should say what a Rabbi who knows kol haTorah killo would say what shituf is. Itzse (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Itzse.

1. Current -- Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.
2. Better??? -- Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but some rabbinic authorities consider shituf to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.

Did I understand what you were thinking right?Tim (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

But why does "but some rabbinic authorities consider shituf to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel" need to be in the lead? What for? In my opinion it only waters down this concept, and should surely be explained; in the body not in the lead. Itzse (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that leaving it out would make the impression that ALL Rabbinic authorities hold shituf to be prohibited for non-Jews. I've never read any scholarly claim to that effect; and in fact, the whole point of shituf is to give a possible allowance for commerce between Jews and Gentiles of a shituf-type faith. Lisa? What's your take?Tim (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious to know what you mean by "watering down". What would be a non-watered down phrasing? -LisaLiel (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I mean, I understand that the permissibility of shituf for non-Jews is a minority view, and that it's been way overused by overzealous interfaith activists, but how would you phrase it differently? -LisaLiel (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Would it be better to change "but some rabbinic authorities consider" to "but a minority rabbinic opinion considers"? -LisaLiel (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Because if we don't at least talk about that minority view, we might as well delete this whole article and set it up as a section inside an article on Idolatry. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point; but it does deserve an article because it is an important concept, and all important and maybe unimportant concepts need or have an article. Itzse (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, it may be a minority view, but (while I don't personally want to use Telushkin), he did seem to indicate it was actually a majority view. While he could be wrong, it's still a source that says otherwise. Again, I have no idea whether it's minority or majority any more, and I have to do a lot more reading on the subject. But "some" is certainly uncontestable and conotes "minority." "Most" would conote "majority." So we can conote minority without getting ourselves out on a denotable limb... But I wholeheartedly agree that if we don't at least present this minority view, there isn't anything notable at all about the word "shituf." And in fact one would start to think that all authorities everywhere are suddenly demanding we all move to Israel!Tim (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've sent our definition to my Rabbi for any gotchas, and will send it to Dr. Berger as well. He had asked me to follow up with him after I read a book he recommended anyway, so...Tim (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

To me shituf always meant the "worship of the God of Israel with any association of any other power, no difference what name is given to it". That a "majority", or "some", or "a minority", has no place in the lead; that doesn't explain the concept itself which is the only information which belongs in the lead.

If you do actually have access to Doctor Berger; so please ask him how he would write it, and let us know; thanks. Itzse (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem, Itzse, and I don't know if you've read through this talk page, but Tim has a background in Christian theology. He would contend that when Christians worship their trinity, they aren't worshipping additional powers. I know, that's not how Judaism sees it, but Tim is pretty strongly insistent that either we phrase it in such a way as to include Christianity as he sees it, or we have to say that Christianity doesn't fit into shituf. Tim, would you say that's a fair assessment?

For my part, I completely disagree. The current header on this article was a compromise, and when you compromise, neither side is 100% satisfied. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lisa -- I'd say something more like "they are worshipping a Deity that they define as a single power." Well, there's multiple something going on or they wouldn't have a "tri" in their "nity." Since Wikipedia has a generic audience,

1. how do you phrase this in a way that both Jews and Chrsitians would recognize that there IS some kind of "association" that Jews ARE ascribing to "Christianity"?
2. and is that description faithful to the JEWISH application of the word?

Thankfully, I've found a quote by Telushkin that describes the Christian religion as an association of "three aspects of one God" and he adds that "Jews are forbidden such a belief" -- bingo.

So we have an association of "external powers, deities, or internal aspects". We are NOT stating which one of those three the Trinity ACTUALLY falls in. Lisa and you see it as "external powers" and I see it as "aspects" (and the wording allows either of us to be "right" since it doesn't say), we have a word from a known source, and everyone would read that and say, "Yes, they are in fact addressing Christianity" regardless of whether they thought Christianity was monotheistic or polytheistic -- it's covered.

Had we not had the Telushkin source, then we couldn't have used "aspects" quite so easily (since there is contention). And THEN we would have needed a caveat because the definition of Shituf (in English) would not have incorporated the definition of Trinity (in English), and this is an English encyclopedia dealing with both subjects in respective articles that would not match by definition. Again, it doesn't matter which definition is RIGHT. It's only a recognition that they do not necessarily match (unless we can find a wording that does).Tim (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What I have to say is that shituf is a Jewish concept and should say what this concept is (right or wrong makes no difference here). Surely what Christianity has to say regarding what Judaism says about it can be in the article; but again it is what Judaism has to say which is the subject of this article; just as what Christians say about Christian concepts, has no room in their lead as to what Judaism says about it. Itzse (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Where were you last week? <sigh> -LisaLiel (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Getting unhooked from Wikipedia. Itzse (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Itzse -- I appreciate your point. My Rabbi just emailed me so say "Looks OK to me" and made sure to ask if I had emailed Dr. Berger too (I'm waiting to hear back). He also gave me a third source to ask, so I guess I'll ask him too. In any case, I agree that Shituf IS a Jewish concept, and that the definition that we have MUST be faithful to the Jewish meaning of the word. My only addition to that is that if it can ALSO be faithful to the Jewish INTENT of the word that's even better. Jews not only say "Shituf is an association" but they ALSO say "Shituf is an association and Christianity is an example of it." I think Telushkin helped us out here.Tim (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, some Jews do (say that Christianity is shituf) and some Jews don't (and say it's plain old vanilla avodah zarah). And even among those who do, it's only a minority view that says shituf is actually permissible for non-Jews. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah -- that's why I was okay with everything you have in the guts of the article :-).Tim (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I agree with you that Judaism says that "Shituf is an association and Christianity is the example of it", but I do not understand why the article has to say what the intent is. Who cares what the intent is? A concept is a concept regardless what the intent is. Ok, if you feel that the intent needs to be there, then put it somewhere in the article for completeness.

BTW, I recently got myself blind sighted by a similar occurrence. I had come up with a brainstorm of a scholarly achievement, and wanted so much subconsciously to see it as something a known scholar of yesteryear said, until a good friend of mine pointed out the folly to me saying, your brainstorm remains a brainstorm but this is not what he is saying. The nimshel is; you might be a great scholar and even an authority on this subject but still what does it have with this article? A concept is a concept my friend; the gematriya of the concept, the pnimius of the concept and the intent of the concept, are not the concept itself. Itzse (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a concept or anything. I didn't come up with anything new. Trinity is well defined (weird edit wars on that page notwithstanding). Christianity is well defined (same caveat). I just wanted to make sure that Shituf was well defined, since it is an application to two already defined articles. It doesn't MATTER which of them is "right", only that they either intersect or that the encyclopedia give a caveat about non-intersecting definitions that are applied to each other. I would even be okay with a clear statement that the Trinity is defined differently, and that Jews think Trinitarians don't define Trinitarianism correctly. It really doesn't matter. I prefer the option we have, since I think the other option makes us look a bit silly.

I'd like to add an example: Imagine that Christians have a latin term they use which means "Jews eat pork." Now, the fact that Jews SAY they don't eat pork is something we should note, EVEN IF JEWS REALLY DID EAT PORK. It doesn't matter who's "right." It only matters that we as editors properly cross reference our articles when already defined groups and subjects are stated to be applied together.Tim (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page; I do not want to get involved in debating the nitty-gritty of this; I do not consider myself qualified enough, nor do I want to shoulder the responsibility. I would rather that Dr. Berger have a say. If you could show and discuss this article with him, it would be greatly appreciated. On this page I thank you both and wish you goodbye. Itzse (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Blessings and peace. :-)Tim (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Amen. Itzse (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

External Notes

Dr. Berger

Sent

Lisa, I've sent the following to Dr. Berger:

Dr. Berger,

I've read through Lasker's book and your shiur, and you are right that Shituf is intended to be directed not only to Arianism and Tritheism, but also to Trinitarianism as well.

I have a working definition for "Shituf" that I think covers all three theistic systems, and would appreciate it if you let me know if I am understanding the full scope of the word:

Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.

Is that correct?

The wording "external powers" addresses Arianism, "deities" addresses Tritheism, and "internal aspects" addresses Trinitarianism.

Thanks so much for your help!

Tim

I probably should have finished it with something like "is there anything I left out that I need to add?"

BTW, I'm not trying to take credit for your wording. I'm just trying to stay focused on the definition. I'll let you know what Dr. Berger writes.Tim (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Dear Tim, This still has some problems. Shituf as you define it clearly includes beliefs that fall short of pure monotheism (tritheism for sure). Thus, the second sentence doesn't work. Also, some Jews did not regard "internal aspects" as problematic, depending on how they are understood (attributes for some philosophers; the sefirot for many kabbalists). Best regards. David Berger

The problem is, R' Berger doesn't realize that you see "internal aspects" as defining Christian worship of a trinity. Because that's not going to be the way he sees it. Because that's not the way Judaism sees it. Judaism says "no" to worship of a trinity no matter what the rationale is. No matter what idea lies behind it.

I sincerely hope that you do not even attempt to suggest that what he's saying is that some Jews don't regard Christian worship of a trinity as problematic, based on your idea that "internal aspects" describes that. It would be the worst sort of misrepresentation were you to try that. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- look at the note. It clearly says, "The wording "external powers" addresses Arianism, "deities" addresses Tritheism, and "internal aspects" addresses Trinitarianism". Dr. Berger is an intelligent man. I don't know how you can say that he doesn't realize that I see what I said I see. Plus, I'm sure he's studied theology. He has to have minimal awareness of Christianity (as well as other religions).Tim (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you say that I wouldn't see Judaism saying "no" to worship of the Trinity. Judaism says that. I say that. You're the only one who's NOT saying that because you are limiting your definitions to Arianism. Just, please, admit WHAT it is that Judaism actually rejects. It DOES reject Arianism. It ALSO rejects Trinitarianism. I really don't know why you have fought helping me SOURCE that precise wording, and have in fact fought so hard against such wording in the past. In fact, if you'll note, it is primarily YOUR SENTENCE that Dr. Berger rejected specifically. Come on, just pleast relax and realize we are on the same "side" here.Tim (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Look -- let's just give this a rest. We're on the same side. Let's fight against people we actually disagree with, okay?Tim (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Notes

Lisa,

It looks like we've got a bit of work to do. I can see his point about internal aspects possibly intersecting with some kinds of Jewish thought. We are both agreed, however, that Christianity is seen to NOT be permissible to Jews in Jewish thought, while the Sefirot are.

While I have no intention of OR -- I think some R is in order. If you're willing, I'll do some research this week on Sephirot and try to map out informally what I think the differences are between Kabbalistic thought and Trinitarian theory.

Right now I'm trying to figure out a wording based on Dr. Berger's answer... now that he points it out, I DO see an internal contradiction in the second sentence:

Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews,

but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.

That is, according to the first half, "any...avodah zarah...is...forbidden...to non-Jews".

But in the second half some "avodah zara [is]...permissible for non-Jews".

I recall that Telushkin explicitly said in his quote that belief in the Trinity is "forbidden for Jews, but it is not avodah zara."

Are we getting something wrong in the definition of avodah zara that I'm missing?

Also, if I understand Dr. Berger correctly, tritheism is not really Shituf, but idolatry.

Tim

Dr. Greenstein

Sent

Lisa,

Here's what I wrote to the other source:

Dr. Greenstein,

My Rabbi suggested I email you with a question I gave him. I’ve been working on a definition of “Shituf” to make sure I understand the full application of it:

Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.

If I understand Shituf correctly, it is not only applied by Jews to Arianism (“external powers”) and Tritheism (“deities”), but is also applied to Trinitarianism (“aspects”). Am I correct that it applies to all three theistic systems? Does this wording cover everything intended by the term, or do I need to add anything?

Thanks so much,

Tim

Reply

Tim, Shalom - First, please be sure to give my best to your Rabbi when you get a chance. I think we met at his son's wedding. If I am not mistaken I had the pleasure of sitting next to you and of meeting your wife. With that in mind - how are you doing? Nice to hear from you.

You ask a difficult question. One point to keep in mind is that definitions perform functions. Different definitions can be given for the same thing/term, depending on the context and need. I do not know what the purpose is of clarifying this definition. You write that it is "to make sure I understand the full application of it." But you do not say what kind of application you mean. Do you mean that you want to define what the permissible boundaries of belief are for yourself? Or do you want to define these boundaries for others? Do you want to define this for others in order to decide what your attitude should be regarding their belief, or are you responding to someone who wishes guidance for themselves? Belief is so difficult to explicate, for one's self and certainly for and to others!

Now - regarding your definition - I would start with a definition of `avodah zarah. There is a broad definition and a narrow definition. The broad definition is that it refers to any forbidden worship. But this does not clarify nuances and gradations. I suggest as the narrow, base-line definition - The acceptance and/or worship as a deity instead of God of an entity other than God. This is forbidden through the second of the ten commandments, and also, arguably, as a violation of the "positive command" to accept God, and as a further violation of the "command" to accept only God, alone, as God. (Some do not see these as commands, but as prior groundings for any and all commandments.)

The next question is - if one indeed accepts/worships God, is it forbidden to worship other entities as deities along with God? Here it depends on the "entity." If the entity is conceived as co-eternal with God, this is also forbidden, as above. We are "commanded" to accept only One God and that God is One.

But what if the entity is considered to be a creation of God, subsidiary to God? In that sense, couldn't one say that one has accepted God, alone, as God? But, as defined by Sefer Ha-Chinnukh, this is nevertheless forbidden. He writes (mitzvah 26 [28 in the Chavel edition]) - "If he accepted as deity any of the created entities, even though he admits that God rules over him and his deity, he violates the command, "You shall have no other gods, etc." This is commonly referred to as the sin of "shittuf."

Again, though, the question can be asked - does this refer to "created entities" existent in the material world, only, or does it refer to spiritual entities, also? What about angels? And what does "accept as deity" mean, since the One God is held to be Supreme? Apparently (certainly in the view of many authorities) it is permissible to believe that angels are Divinely empowered to accomplish certain tasks. Thus, acceptance of the fact of their operation as spiritual powers subsidiary to God seems allowed. In the Slichot prayers before the Days of Awe there is a petition to the angels to usher our prayers upwards, to God's Throne. (Some authorities opposed the prayer, but it is still there.) Furthermore, there is one tradition in Judaism (advocated, for instance, by Rav Saadiah Gaon) that accounts for prophetic visions of God as really being visions of a "Created Glory" - a Divinely created manifestation of God's Presence, serving as an intermediary between the Infinite, unknowable God and human beings. The midrash has traditions that explain that all the nations of the world, except Israel, are ruled by Heavenly Princes, appointed over them by God. Clearly these Jews did not think they were guilty of "shittuf."

Finally, your definition seeks to forbid, under the category of "shittuf" worship of "internal aspects." I think that what you mean by that is powers internal to God's Being, as it were. I think this is what you mean when you seek to include Trinitarianism in the prohibition. But, while I am not an authority on the theology of a trinity, I think the claim is that this belief still accords with belief in One God. I would find it hard to differentiate it from the kabbalistic concept of 10 internal aspects of God that are integral to the One God. Indeed, sometimes the kabbalists were accused of being no better than the Christians. They always protested that they were pure monotheists, and so do trinitarian Christians.

As Sefer Ha-Chinnukh explains, this mitzvah is unlimited in terms of time. We must spend every day of our entire lives striving to fulfill it. This mitzvah is never completed until the moment we die. And then, only God will be able to measure how and how much each of us has succeeded. I would suggest that a deep lesson in the halakhic view that "shittuf" is not forbidden to non-Jews is precisely the message that, given how hard it is for ourselves, it is better for us Jews not to legislate how others should seek to describe their complex experience of the One God of us all.

kol tuv,

Observation

I think I can rewrite this now.

1. If the Persons of the Trinity are separate deities, that is NOT Shituf, but idolatry.
2. If the Persons of the Trinity are internal aspects of one deity, that is NOT Shituf, but similar to Kabbalistic ideas.
3. If some of the Persons of the Trinity are created beings (like a man, for instance), that is Shituf (but still intersects with some Slichot prayers even in Judaism).

Well and good. HOWEVER, Shituf is not a statement of limitation or judgment on non-Jews, rather it is a permissiveness on non-Jews that allows us peaceful commerce. The precision of the formular then, is not as essential as it would be for a judgment. That is, you can use a LOOSE definition to be permissive.

Shituf, then, should be a LOOSE definition.

Further, Shituf is NOT meant to be the basis by which we judge "Jews shalt not". It isn't the reason we cannot be Christians, and therefore, again, the definition does not have to be as precise.

Therefore, it is not necessary to define "Person" as either a "created being" or an "internal aspect." It is simply an association. If Christians regard it as an internal aspect, okay. But even if they regard it as a created being they are STILL okay under Shituf.

It is only when they regard the Persons as separate deities that they are not okay.

Tim (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional Shituf Notes

I moved this from the other page:

<sigh> Tim, that's not it. I don't know if it's honestly that I'm just incapable of explaining it cogently. It isn't a matter of "internal aspects" being forbidden to Jews. Any worship of a trinity is forbidden to Jews, whether the idea behind it is "internal aspects" or anything else. The whole "internal aspects" thing is a huge red herring. Once it's a trinity, it doesn't matter what the intent is. Just like someone defecating on a statue of Baal Peor has violated avodah zarah even if his intent was to show scorn for Baal Peor, so too is any worship of a trinity with any and all intents, ideas, philosophies, theologies, rationalizations or flights of fancy that the worshipper might come up with. It's the act of worshipping a trinity that's forbidden. The "why" doesn't matter.

I agreed to let you put the "internal aspects" in there because I just got tired of fighting with you about it. But from the point of view of Judaism, Trinitarianism and Arianism and Tritheism are all the same thing. There is no difference, because any difference is on a frequency that we aren't listening to, and will never listen to.

A car with two doors is a car. A car with four doors is a car. A car with four doors and a hatchback is a car. Suppose I have a 16 year old daughter, and I tell her she isn't allowed to drive a car. Now... she might come and say, "Well, that's a coupe and a sedan and a station wagon there, and I use the word 'car' only for sedans, so I'm going to go ahead and drive this coupe." And I'll reply, "Very nice. You're grounded." Because while there is a point of view in which the distinction between sedans and coupes and wagons is of interest and value, I don't care. I told her she can't drive a car, period. No car, no how.

Judaism says that anything short of worshipping a singular and indivisible God is not monotheistic. How non-monotheistic is it? A little (shituf)? A lot (avodah zarah)? That's not the point. And Judaism says that worshipping a trinity is a car. If you want to say that Christians say it's a sedan, and not a station wagon, well, who am I to argue with you? By all means, let Christians call things sedans and coupes and station wagons and insist that they're different things. Maybe they even are different things. But they're all a subset of "car". And Trinitarianism and Arianism and Tritheism and any other -ism that has ever been or will ever be created to explain the worship of a trinity are all "worship of a trinity". And Judaism says that's non-monotheistic.

Again, I'm not saying anything I haven't said before, and I know it's as unlikely to be understood this time as it has been in all my previous attempts, but I can't help it. There's a little part of me that is certain that if I can just say it clearly enough, it'll be understood. You might disagree, but at least you'd understand. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, you write "anything short of worshipping a singular and indivisible God is not monotheistic". But that's the problem. CHRISTIANS not only agree with you, they INSIST on it. Really, it's a dimensional thing. A billiard ball is one ball. It has three spatial dimensions. The Christian deity has three personal dimensions. That's it. Period. It's FORBIDDEN in Judaism. But exactly in which category is it forbidden, and is that actually Shituf, or is it some other forbidden thing? I think we agree that the "trinity" is forbidden in Judaism. We also agree that tritheism is flat out idolatry (Christians do too). I'm glad for that note from Dr. Berger, by the way, because it was troubling. Anyhow, the only difference is in the definition of the "trinity". You are giving an Arian definition (which is fine, you can state your meaning from the outset and we're set). The problem is that this isn't the Wikipedia definition, nor even the English definition. So, what do we do? We ARE writing in Wikipedia, and we ARE doing it in English.Tim (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Also -- if you're willing, this will really help: when you make a statement about the "trinity" run it through a dimension-analogy to see if that's working out. For instance, "Jews believe in a singular and indivisible billiard ball." Right. But... they don't. Here's the real difference: there is no "inside" or "outside" to God. There are no external or internal anythings to associate him with. The problem of the trinity (more relevant even than shituf, I suspect) is that it is a definition at all. To speak of "internal" or "external" or aspectual relationships is to put God on some kind of intellectual display, which is (if I understand Maimonides right) idolatrous. Anyhow, it's a Shituf page. There's a Trinity page. Maybe they do or don't intersect. As I said, it doesn't matter to me whether they do or don't, only that we note it and move on.Tim (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I am not giving an Arian definition. I am giving a Jewish definition. As I said, it doesn't matter if Christians say that they're worshipping one billard ball with three dimensions or three billard balls. That distinction doesn't matter to Judaism. Judaism says it's forbidden to worship billiard balls. Period. One billiard ball with three dimensions or three billiard balls, it makes no never-mind to us. Billiard balls are verboten.

I give up. I can only conclude that either you honestly aren't interested in the Jewish view on this, or that I'm utterly incompetant when it comes to explaining this to you. Either way, you won't change and I've done everything in my power to explain this to you, and you still come back with the same "Arian" crap. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- my Rabbi doesn't have any problem with this honest inquiry, and Dr. Berger doesn't seem to either. Perhaps we shouldn't do it together, but that doesn't mean it isn't an honest reasonable Jewish inquiry. As I've said before, and again, and will in the future -- I don't care whether Jews are right about the definition of Christianity or Christians are right about the definition of Christianity. I only care, if Jews are applying a concept to "Christianity" whether the definition of that concept matches the definition of the concept of Christianity. That is -- do Jews and Christians have a different definition of "Christian". If so, in an encyclopedia article that addresses such an application, it should be noted. It does not matter who is right, only that it is different. Also, while I agree that this is a Jewish concept and is defined by Jews, I insist that it is written in intelligible English -- that is, English that can be understood by a generic audience.

In any case, maybe we just don't communicate well to each other, which is no fault to either of us. No one is wrong. We are, perhaps, just not compatable. So perhaps we should wish each other the best and try our best to stay out of conflict.

Also, for what it's worth, most of the time when I'm discussing this with a Rabbi I know (at least the times it's come up), the billiard ball analogy is a snap, and they get it. Maybe it's a clergy thing. I don't know. But that could be something I need to be aware of -- since I am also trying to communicate with a generic (non-clergy) audience. So, in that I do appreciate your honesty describing your frustration. I'll try to be aware of this in the future.Tim (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would be a good idea to take this to arbitration? Itzse (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It might -- I still don't know what the definition should be yet, so I don't really have a position to arbitrate (which is why I ultimately only fought for one clause and let Lisa have the rest of the page). When I DO have a position, I'll let you know!

I think the problem here is that I was trying to rely on Lisa for source work, but that's not fair to her (or to anyone). We should do our own source work, you know?

To clarify, arbitration requires two sides. While Lisa DOES have a side, I don't have one yet. I don't know if Shituf intersects with the normative English meaning of the word "Christian" or not. Once I have a side, maybe there won't be a need for arbitration -- but I do know that I don't have anything to fight for at the moment.Tim (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully Final Note

The Rabbis I questioned gave answers that add nuance to Lisa's section of the article (i.e. the guts of the article). However, since Lisa and I have had difficulties in communicating to each other, I think it best if I leave her guts alone and she leaves my highlight alone. That gives her 98% of the article to negotiate with third parties and it gives me 2% of the article to negotiate with third parties.

I think this is fair. If there is a real problem with either section, I'm sure there are plenty of really good third party editors that can keep us straight.

I've tried to make a definition that

1. does not contradict Jewish writing (as selected by Lisa)
2. does not contradict Jewish application (i.e. to Christians)
3. does not contradict normative definitions of terms (given in other articles, such as "Christian")

Again, I believe a 2% / 98% split is more than fair, and it allows the third parties out there to finally have something stable enough to edit at will.

And it gives Lisa and myself a break.Tim (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Philo

The material about Philo does not mention shituf anywhere. If someone wants to present a reliable source that says that Philo spoke about shituf, that would be reasonable for this article. But without such a source, including Philo on the grounds that you think what he is addressing is the equivalent of shituf is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.

If you are unable to provide a rationale for this material being in the article, I will remove it on the basis of WP:OR. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, I think that you and I have had our day on this article. Give it a rest and allow someone, anyone, other than just yourself in isolation, to participate.Tim (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim, can you please stop inserting personalities into this and address the issues instead? Does the material on Philo mention shituf? No. Can what Philo is talking about be equated to shituf? Perhaps, and perhaps not. It's a matter of opinion. But it's original research to say that these quotes talk about shituf.

Tim, do you know what Wikipedia means by original research? It means that what you call "common sense" and "obvious" may not be so to others. And that your "common sense" and what is "obvious" to you is not a valid source for content on Wikipedia.

I am not going to ignore OR in the article simply because you have an obsession about me. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, again, we've had our day on this article. I don't own the intro and you don't own the body. Please allow other people to participate. I've looked at the section and it's talking about partnership. It's within the scope of the definition in the intro and the uses in the body. And it's Jewish. In other words, it's in scope. To exclude it would require rewriting both the intro and the body, which neither of us should do. You do not own Wikipedia, nor Judaism. Please allow other editors to participate. Not everyone has the energy or willingness or time to edit war that you do. But they shouldn't have to, either.Tim (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim "having our day" doesn't mean anything. This isn't about personalities. This isn't about you and it isn't about me. And it isn't about Jerry. It's about Wikipedia and the way it works. No one owns anything. Nor have I ever suggested otherwise. But the Philo quotes do not mention shituf. If what Philo says constitutes shituf in your opinion, that's interesting, but you can't use it as a source for shituf because it's only your opinion.

Now, I'm going to ask you again, as politely as I can, to try and get over your obsession with me and to stop treating everything as if it's personal. This has nothing to do with "other editors participating" or not. It doesn't matter who posts a source that is a violation of WP:OR. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, exactly what part of God in partnership or association with other powers is not Shituf? Are you now changing the definition of Shituf? I also remember Egfrank suggesting to you that a reference cannot be included unless it uses a specific term and you flatly rejected that principle. Please follow the same logic.Tim (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There are rabbinic sources which say that God was talking to the angels. Belief in angels (whose are not separate powers, but who can be considered as "powers" in a broad sense) is not shituf. Or if it is, you'd have to produce evidence that it is. Sources that say it is.

• You and your alter-ego Jerry are saying that what Philo is talking about is separate powers. You have no evidence to support that claim.

I believe the following quote from Philo says exactly that: God being one being, has two supreme powers of the greatest importance. By means of these powers the incorporeal world, appreciable only by the intellect, was put together, which is the archetypal model of this world which is visible to us, being formed in such a manner as to be perceptible to our invisible conceptions just as the other is to our eyes. Philo APPENDICES A TREATISE CONCERNING THE WORLD I--Jerryofaiken (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• The content is introduced by claiming that what Philo says is "some of the best known Jewish examples of shituf". This is an unsupported statement, and would be even if the Philo passages were about shituf, which has not been established. I highly doubt that most people who are familiar with the concept of shituf have ever even seen these passages.

Let me understand this: since your sources are ignorant of Philo then Philo shouldn't be discussed? Wouldn't it be better if you found some better educated sources?

• And the passage is in the "Source of the Concept" section. You can't honestly be claiming that these passages are a source of the concept of shituf. What Philo writes here is no more than a sentiment that exists in rabbinic literature. Perhaps you didn't realize that. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Rabbinic literature indicates that anyone holding the view that God created the world with separate powers holds a minim view.--Jerryofaiken (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, you wrote: "The "rule" you're suggesting, that a citation must contain the actual word it is being used for, is not acceptable. It is arbitrary, in fact...You can't invent rules and then delete sources because they don't conform to your invented rules. That's vandalism and POV"[16]. And I have an alter ego now? I suppose you think the same of HG as well because I'm trying to include him on the Gender of God page. Lisa, the issue here is simple -- you do not own Judaism or Wikipedia. I am not editing this page or the Gender of God page either, and I suggest you step aside as well. Other human beings exist on this planet.Tim (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I'm not saying that it's OR because the precise word isn't used. I'm saying that it's OR because I don't think it's talking about shituf at all. In fact, for you to say that he is talking about shituf is the equivalent of you accusing the rabbis of the Talmud of committing shituf, since the idea that God spoke with the angels before creating Man is Talmudic.

Philo does not hold that these are angels. see the following: ON FLIGHT AND FINDING - (68) On this account, I imagine it is, that when Moses was speaking philosophically of the creation of the world, while he described everything else as having been created by God alone, he mentions man alone as having been made by him in conjunction with other assistants; for, says Moses, "God said, Let us make man in our Image."{19}{#ge 1:26.} The expression, "let us make," indicating a plurality of makers. (69) Here, therefore, the Father is conversing with his own powers, to whom he has assigned the task of making the mortal part of our soul, acting in imitation of his own skill while he was fashioning the rational part within us, thinking it right that the dominant part within the soul should be the work of the Ruler of all things, but that the part which is to be kept in subjection should be made by those who are subject to him. (70) And he made us of the powers which were subordinate to him, not only for the reason which has been mentioned, but also because the soul of man alone was destined to receive notions of good and evil, and to choose one of the two, since it could not adopt both. Therefore, he thought it necessary to assign the origin of evil to other workmen than himself, --but to retain the generation of good for himself alone. --Jerryofaiken (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the fact that it's not shituf is my opinion. I think it's an informed opinion, because it's based on Bereishit Rabbah, but it's still my opinion. And I wouldn't state it in the body of an article. No more should you or Jerry be able to state that it is shituf in the body of the article.

You've already admitted that your opinion was not informed when you indicated you weren't aware of the passages from Philo. What is obvious is that you are only interested in your opinion even if it is an uneducated opinion.--Jerryofaiken (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at this page, Tim. Go down about half way and read:

"And G-d said: 'Let us make man'" (Bereishit 1:26). With whom did He take counsel?

Rabbi Ammi said: He took counsel with His own heart. He was like a king who built a palace with the counsel of an architect. When he saw the palace, it did not please him. At whom was he indignant? Was it not at the architect? Hence, "and it grieved Him at His heart" (Bereishit 6:6) [with which He had taken counsel at the making of man].

Rabbi Hanina said: He consulted the ministering angels.

Are you suggesting that Rabbi Hanina, a Tanna, was committing shituf? Or that any Jewish source would claim that he was? But Philo is talking about the exact same midrash. Not shituf.

But just to round this off, it doesn't matter whether I'm right or I'm wrong about it not being shituf. That's a matter of opinion, and neither you nor I nor Jerry are sources. We're editors. And we're not going to use Wikipedia as a forum for debating the subject. If no reliable source (i.e. a notable expert in Judaism) says that what Philo is describing is shituf, then you can't say it is in the article.

So far you haven't cited a notable source concerning Philo. As you said, your don't believe that your sources are familiar with Philo.

You certainly can't say that it's "some of the best known Jewish examples of shituf".

Amony Christians, Philo is among the best known examples of shituf and not the talmud since the talmud introduces a concept that from the Christian viewpoint is heretical concerning God. Per Christianity, God is the creator of the universe and no one else. God is identified as the creator of the universe so if angels participated in the actual creation of the universe then that would make them also God. Christianity unlike talmudic Judaism rejects the concept as heretical that anyone other than God created the universe. Both Christianity and Judaism indicate that a plurality of some type was involved with creating the universe. Since God claims to be the creator then Christian theology identifies the plurality as the three persons of the single trinity - The Father giving the ideas of creation as commands in the form of let there be... and the Son bringing into physical existence the ideas of the Father...and the Holy Spirit hovering above the water. Judaistic theology recognizes the plurality and either rejects the grammatical literal construction of the words of the torah or accepts angels participating in actual creation. I am differentiating actual creation i.e. physical universe being made out of only the ideas of God versus tending to what was already made. --Jerryofaiken (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And you most certainly can't put it in the "Sources of the Concept" section, because Philo doesn't name it as a concept of any kind whatsoever. He is simply relating one Jewish understanding of the verse. Not a very controversial one, either. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As Philo didn't characterise his own view as shituf, for wikipedia editors to say that it was is a clear breach of WP:OR and WP:RS and the material, in its present form, ought to be deleted. Furthermore if proper sourcing can be provided the discussion should first of all be in Philo's view of God, with then perhaps a reference across to that article from here. But without a source, it should be out altogether. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I note that Moses didn't use the word in the quotations that Lisa added either. They haven't been challenged.

Samuel, can you define Shituf in such a way that eliminates Philo's quote? I'm curious to see the exact wording of a definition that does so, because it is possible that the definition in the article needs to be changed.Tim (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As to your first point, it's no defence of a breach of wiki policy to say that there's been another. But I agree that there is a striking lack of sources in the opening material. I definitely do not wish to offer my own definition of shituf; that needs to be found in rabbinic sources. But if the concept was not originated with Philo in mind, and the rabbinic sources have not given him as an example, there is no excuse for dragging his name into the discussion. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed -- there is definitely a lack of sourcing. I'm not sure if earlier edits were any better in that regard, but I think a good bit of sourced material no longer exists here. I suspect that sources can be found for a good bit. I'd recommend flagging what needs to be sourced and giving a normal time for the editors to supply them: Lisa, Jerry, etc. I no longer have any material other than the first line. I don't know how to do a citation flag, and it's almost Shabbat. Would you mind flagging everything that needs citation? And how long is it appropriate to wait?Tim (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

For now, let's just invite others to comment on what we've said here. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like OR to me, unless someone can quote a scholar who makes the connection (nothing personal, Tim). --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The sad thing is, it doesn't matter how many people point this out. If the material doesn't stay in, Tim will add it to the list of my "crimes" and paint you all as puppets I've somehow mesmerized to act against Tim. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Samuel, do you only allow rabbinic sources? Definitions of shituf should come from knowledgable sources shouldn't they? According to Lisa, none of her rabbinic sources are knowledgable of the passages of Philo. So should we omit all info that doesn't come from a rabbinic souce? --Jerryofaiken (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, I made a mistake there. I used the adjective "rabbinic" because that is where I expected an authoritative definition to be found. What I mean is simply WP:RS. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Didn't we used to have citations for the scriptural stuff? I've seen them somewhere. Of course I've seen Philo somewhere too -- ugh. I don't have time for this! Why can't people just put citation flags on there? You can't research to cite something that's invisible. This edit deletion has to stop.Tim (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I stand corrected. But we need to cite these things or leave them off. I can't keep up!Tim (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been re-reading WP:V, just to make sure that what I've done is correct according to wiki policy, and I believe it is. There are two quite different sections which have recently been deleted/reinstated, and it has been suggested that there is some sort of symmetry, but the two cases are quite different. I put tags on the Shituf#Source of the concept stuff because it spoke about rabbinical opinion without citation at that point. Citations are given further down the same article which make it clear what sort of thing the rabbis said and it seems to me clear that similar or identical references are there to back up this material.

The case of Philo is completely different. All I've seen is "The Works of Philo contain some of the best known Jewish examples of shituf", as a wikipedia editor's very positive statement in the article, and "Of course I've seen Philo somewhere too" above, but never a sniff of an actual citation. To quote Jimbo Wales (in WP:V):

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.

Isn't is reasonable to suggest that those who are so sure there is a citation should supply one? Then we could actually discuss it and make progress. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Is that an invitation? I've found citations for all of them, and for another example as well. But I think my entering the fray here is premature. I'd like to explore another problem that is hamstringing this article. The article name is Shituf, which is some kind of Divine Relationship (this has been pointed out to me offline). Shouldn't "Divine Relationship" be the article and Shituf be a redirect? Right now we are free to say "people call this shituf and shituf is a divine relationship and that's Christianity." Okay, fine. But it's a POV fork that's jumped the gun, because we can't say anything about divine relationships in Jewish and or proto-Christian ideas no matter how well documented by Jewish or Christian writers unless it specifically says "shituf." Well, that's the problem. The article isn't NPOV if you're glued to a term but not its definition.Tim (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed my intro based on sources. I can fix the article as well -- for both sides of this, but only by invitation. Otherwise, you guys will have to do your own homework. I already have the answer sheet.Tim (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, folks, this silence is making me uncomfortable. Are we interested in citations and information or not? (Hint, silence will imply in the negative)Tim (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to change the intro. Positing that shutfut and shituf are two different things is pure invention. Tim, you don't have a source for that, because there is no source for it.

Here is a source from the book The Path of the Righteous Gentile, by Clorfene and Rogalsky:

5. According to many authorities, a Noahide is not warned about the concept of "partnership with God."[5] The concept of partnership is the acknowledgment of the existence of the God of Israel in combination with the belief in the possibility and existence of a deity (independent will) other than God. So long as ascribing power to a deity other than the Creator remains conceptual, it is permissible to the Children of Noah according to many authorities [6]. But worship of this independent being is clearly idolatry. The danger of the concept of partnership is that it frees people to act in accord with nonexistent gods and opens a doorway to actual idolatry. Most recent authorities agree that Children of Noah are forbidden to believe in a partnership. But even according to these, the Children of Noah are permitted to swear by the name of an idol in combination with God (to swear by the Lord of Hosts and a Hindu deity, for example).

[5] Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim, chapter 156, law 1

[6] Nodah B’Yehudah, volume 2, Yoreh Deah, number 148

That's a valid source. It speaks directly to the concept.

And then there's Jewish Times, Volume V, No. 4, November 18, 2005, pp. 1, 5-6. It can be read in full here.

And there's a lecture by Rabbi David Berger, on the faculty of Yeshiva University, which can be found here, and the source sheet for that talk, which can be found here (note that not a single one of these sources uses the Hebrew word shutfut except in reference to a partnership between a Jew and a non-Jew, while the citation from Rabbenu Yerucham refers to the concept as shituf).

And then there's the Noda B'Yehuda, who writes as follows on Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'ah 148:

Behold, I say that they have tied a rope to a rope and a strand to a strand; where does this 'chacham' get this idea that the gentiles are not commanded concerning shittuf?! And nevertheless this thing is found in the mouths of many chachamim... and I have toiled and I have not found this thing either in the Babylonian or Jerusalem Talmud, and not in any of the gedolei harishonim; and if this was true, then the Rambam should have brought in Hilchos Melachim as a psak halacha that a gentile is not commanded on avoda zarah with shittuf, so why did he exempt this din? He also contests that, regarding avoda zarah, there is no difference between a Jew and a gentile, for behold, an explicit baraisa in Maseches Sanhedrin 56b states, 'Everything that a Jewish beis din executes upon, b'nei Noah are warned concerning them'; and likewise in Hilchos Melachim 9:2... and it seems to me that the fact that it has become commonplace for people to say that b'nei Noah are not warned concerning shittuf is according to an error they made in reading Tosafos in Maseches Bechoros 2b.... In light of [Tosafos] the Rama poskaned in Orech Chaim 156.... These words have been misconstrued by many chachamim who reasoned that the intention of the Rama is that b'nei Noah are not commanded concerning serving avodah zarah in shittuf. However, this is not in fact the case. The intention of the Tosephos and the Rama is that combining the Name of Heaven with something else in an oath does not constitute the actual worship of idolatry; rather he is combining the Name of Heaven with something else, but he is not calling in the name of Elokim and he is not saying 'you are my g-d.' Instead, he is merely mentioning him in his oath with the Name of Heaven in a manner of honor, regarding which we find a prohibition upon Israel, as it is written 'and in His Name shall you swear'; this is a warning to Israel not to swear except in His Name (blessed be He) and not to combine the Name of Heaven and something else, as the Rambam wrote in 11:2 of Hilchos Shevuos -and the gentiles are not warned regarding this shittuf. However, regarding the service of avoda zarah with shittuf, there is no difference between a Jew and a gentile!... The general principle that we have received is that anything for which a Jewish court administers death upon, the gentiles are also forewarned upon, as we wrote above. Afterwards I saw in the Sefer Meil Tzeddaka in sec. 22, who also makes the same distinction; however, he did not bring the proof which I have written here....

And then there's the book Exclusiveness and Tolerance, by Jacob Katz ([17]), p. 163, where he brings source after source, all of them using the term shittuf and not shutfut.

All that said, I'll take out the Torah verses, because I can't find a source for their connection to shituf. If I find the sources, I'll reinsert the verses.

As far as the shituf/shutfut thing, if that Novak source says this, then cite his sources, because he's wrong. And the sources I've just brought demonstrate that. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me add that since Novak is a Conservative rabbi, you could put his views in the Conservative section. But not in the header. Not when they contradict a whole slew of Jewish sources like that. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So... we can't cite Katz or Novak's take on the sources, but we can cite your own take? If you really need to own this article, fine. I'll start a NPOV article elsewhere, because Divine Relationships is an interesting subject, and it spans this, Philo, Arianism, angelolatry, Josephus, the LXX, and that friendly topic -- Christianity.

And since you own this POV fork, the only place for NPOV is elsewhere. But not tonight.Tim (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim, of course you can cite them. In fact, I left the Novak quote in. But he isn't a reliable source except for a Conservative view, right? Or are you suggesting that a Conservative rabbi is a reliable source for the general Jewish view (even when he contradicts all other Jewish sources)?

If it makes you feel better to call this a NPOV fork, feel free. I disagree. The article is absolutely replete with sources. Go ahead and start a Divine Relationships article. Since you are dedicated to consistency between Wikipedia articles, I assume you won't mind keeping the explanation of shituf in the new article consistent with this heavily sourced one, yes? -LisaLiel (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at Novak as a historian more than a theologian. As for the definitions of shituf and shuttfut, Novak was more gracious than Katz. What is Katz, if I may ask? And why can't we quote historians unless they are orthodox? Am I missing something. Granted, we're both orthodox, but we're writing history, not orthodoxy. Is Katz orthodox?Tim (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he wrote that book as a historian. The title pretty much says it all. His goal is to justify interfaith dialog. Which is fine; he's entitled to pursue what he finds to be important. But it pretty much renders his whole book under a presumption of POV, don't you think? And even if you disagree with me, a historian is only as good as the source material he relies on. If he says there are two different things, shituf and shutfut, and that the latter is the earlier term, and that they mean two different things, then given the fact that every readily available source says otherwise, the burden of proof would be on him. If he provides reliable sources for the claim, that's fine. Show those. Otherwise, he's only a source for the fact that Novak says so.

If an Orthodox writer says something without any references at all, he's also only a reference for the fact that there's an Orthodox writer who says a thing. If he's a major Orthodox bigwhig, that's notable as far as what the Jewish view is. If not, it's only a source for what he thinks. This was Alastair's problem before, in labeling R' Aryeh Kaplan's statements "POV".

In any case, I don't have Novak's book, and Google apparently doesn't present his content. If he cites someone as saying what you attributed to him, I'd like to know what that citation is. Whether it goes in the article or not, I'm curious to know where he got such a thing from (particularly in light of all the sources that say otherwise). Is that a bad thing? -LisaLiel (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Novak got it from Katz (I have the citation at home). Katz (I think it was religion and tolerance 163-164, but I'm not sure) apparently considered that the earlier Halakhists (Tam) gave Gentiles a pass on shuttfut, an "extradivine relationship" (basically angelolatry and Arianism), but not shituf, an "interdivine relationship" (which Novak correctly pegs as Trinitarianism). In other words, the earlier halakhists did not specifically give gentiles a pass on Trinitarianism, but only on the inclusion of lesser beings in their reverence. Novak doesn't name Arianism (that I saw), but he does name reverence of angels. According to Novak (and I'll have to get Katz's book), Katz argues that the later halakhists misunderstood shuttfut when they lumped it into shituf. Novak disagreed about a misunderstanding, but granted that they did skirt around the trinity when they lumped the two together. Although I had Novak's book, I was clued into this by an email from another editor -- showing where Novak gives the history behind Philo, Josephus, and the Septuagint giving a pass to gentiles who include the supreme God along with their other deities (I think page 41), and tracing it through shuttfut and then shituf (I think page 49) from Rabbenu Tam into the late eighteenth century. He also gave references for what several Rabbis have already told me: the shituf and/or shuttfut boundary is crossed in Kabbalistic ideas regarding the Sephirot.

In any case:

• Novak gives citations for your passage in Deuteronomy and shows who first made that connection.
• He gives citations for Philo, Josephus, and some translation changes in the Septuagint.
• He gives citations for Tam's use.
• He gives citations for later halakhic use.
• He gives citations solving our earlier problem with Arianism (although shuttfut would be Arianism, shituf DOES address Trinitarianism, and the lumping of the two together incorporates both).

And he has a ton of endnotes for all kinds of reading enjoyment and further Wiki editing. Since I'm interested in the subject I plan to read a number of the books he cites -- but it will take a number of months because of my writing and editing schedule.

Also, that other Wiki editor gave me Christian sources for the Philo problem. Christians have to deal with it, because Philo's work regarding the Divine Logos seems directly incorporated into John's Gospel. I've also spoken with a number of Jewish teachers who have made the same point. Christians actually have to defend against this, since they teach that this was a special revelation of God in the New Testament, rather than an incorporation of pagan philosophy filtered through Philo's attempted response.

But the short story is that Novak is operating as a historian here, and I've had a number of Orthodox Rabbis tell me that he did a good job covering the history of this thought. His notes are extensive, and he validates your sources, Jerry's sources, and a number of "nuggets" that all of us miss.

And most important for me -- he solves the Arianism/Trinitarianism problem. Basically it is not Shituf that points to Arianism, but Shuttfut -- but since both are lumped together it doesn't really matter. In other words, Novak would validate you own point on the matter.

That is, if you will allow a Jewish historian to be a source in documenting Jewish views. But I have to leave that to you. I don't have the energy to fight. We could fix the article in a couple of days and end the stupid wikiwars.

Also, we'll need some cooperation from other editors too. When Jerry and Sam got into the chopping war, Jerry was technically correct that Sam was playing a double standard, but I disagree with both of them here: it's a simple matter of treating all POVs neutrally here. Philo is well known, and I'm certain that Steve and Sam couldn't have been unaware of it. In fact, Philo is a huge point a lot of people make against Christianity, and it's doubtful that Novak would be the only writer to note it. Just a cursory look at some polemical histories (such as Lasker) and Swartz's book on Jewish Christian Dialogue both make reference to it, but I haven't researched it in depth.

Regardless, Lisa, I give you credit for at least removing your sources in order to follow the same standard, especially in light of the very strong history we have here on Wikipedia, and your own powerful inclinations on Jewish subjects. But in my opinion it wasn't necessary. I had the citations and said so. It's a simple matter of allowing cooperation.

However, back to cooperation from other editors -- Sam, Steve, Jerry -- cool it. Steve and Sam, I asked a very simple question about how you would define Shituf in such a way that would exclude Philo. Your silence on the matter showed some kind of hidden agenda. That's just wrong. Steve -- you know that we've worked cooperatively on other articles. The silence was unnecessary. And Sam, removing one set of unreferenced source notes and not another set shows a bias that will not allow useful editing here. Wikipedia has a NPOV policy. In order for that to work we have to recognize that we have blind spots and allow editors with contrary POVs to help us out.

And Jerry -- come on -- this isn't the place for the arbcom to be proven. Let's leave the article work to the article.

Lisa, you and I have an opportunity to end this feud, but you have to lower your defenses. You KNOW my agenda, and you know that you can appeal to it at any time: I want any article to be equally comprehensible to all POVs. Sometimes the article is ABOUT a POV and it should do so accurately, but it has to be comprehensible to all POVs. Is Shituf about a POV? You bet! Should it accurately state that POV? Absolutely. But it has to be comprehensible to multiple POVs. And if there is a hole that is "obvious" to one POV or another, don't gloss it over; state it. It doesn't harm the article.Tim (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Katz doesn't mention "shuttfut" (or shutfut). Click here and search if you like. I suspect Novak will have no rabbinic sources that say anything about them being different, and that it's his own OR. Granted, OR is allowed outside of Wikipedia, but if it's his own OR, then he's only a source for his own view, and not for that of Judaism. Particularly when all Jewish sources disagree. You could put something in the Conservative section that says, "David Novak has come up with a novel approach that says..." -LisaLiel (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I see the issue Novak was addressing but not the term. I suspect I'll have to research this further, because it's unlikely that Novak would have been inventing something. The problem is that if he is right -- then YOU are right that Shituf does indeed cover Trinitarianism. But if he just invented it, then I'm right that it's limited to Arianism. I got excited when I saw it because Novak was vindicating you. But I appreciate your honesty there. Obviously I'll need to read Katz's book as well and follow the sources that both of these authors point to.Tim (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No and no, Tim. The rabbis didn't give half a damn about "Arianism". They object to worship of a Trinity. I don't care how Christians conceptualize worshipping a trinity, because it's utterly irrelevant to the Jewish position. This is why I asked that you be prevented from inserting Christian concepts into Jewish articles. You keep bringing Arianism into it, and assuming that the -ism of worshipping a trinity is at all relevant.

I've pointed out to you the precedent of Baal Peor, and the fact that it is halakha pesuka that intent does not mitigate idolatrous worship. You don't like that, fine. Clearly you don't, because you have never -- not once -- responded to this point. Every time I've raised it, you've simply pretended that I didn't say anything. Well, tough luck, mister. That's a verifiable fact, and for as long as you keep trying to insert Arianism/Trinitarianism naarischkeit into an article on shituf, I will keep taking it out, because it is your own personal OR/SYNTH.

If you want to keep screeching to the world that I'm "hijacking" articles and trying to ban you from posting in articles on Jewish content, go right ahead. I'm going to hope that people here have the honesty to recognize that you're full of it.

I ordered the Novak book from the library, but it'll take a few days for it to get here. Maybe as much as a week. I'll look at what he says, and I'll draw my own conclusions. But I don't expect it to change the basic facts. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If they object to the worship of the trinity, then they should ADDRESS that worship instead of Arianism. Novak did so. Lisa, the base facts are that a criticism of a belief should be directed to the actual belief. People criticize Jews for needing human blood on passover. But is that a statement about Judaism itself, or about the accusing party? Clearly we need to either cite references in which terms and definitions are consistent, or recognize the inconsistency -- anything less violates NPOV.Tim (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

They do. You're the only one who says they're addressing Arianism. That's your personal hobby horse. It's OR and SYNTH, and it has no basis and no place on Wikipedia.

And for the umpteen trillionth time, the rabbis are not criticizing a belief. The rabbis don't give a good God damn about a belief. They are criticizing a practice. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, you can't practice a form of worship you don't believe in,

Judaism disagrees with you. See Baal Peor. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

unless you're pretending on TV. Here's the rub, we have sources that you approve of, who are completely unintelligible to people familiar with Christianity.

So what? A lot of the Christian theology in the various articles on such things are utterly unintelligable to most Jews. There's nothing wrong with that, whatever you may think. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But you approve of them because they are Orthodox. Fine. Why not infuse some intelligible terminology from a Conservative Rabbi for the rest of the folks?

Because what you claim he says (and I don't consider you reliable on such matters any more) contradicts every single rabbinic source in existence. And since shituf comes from rabbinic sources, I think they get the last word on what it means. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Novak did a splendid job, and (quite refreshing) he hit the bullseye. Everything I've seen in his book now is absolutely on target, clear English, explains both nuances contained in the current use of Shituf in a way that encapsulates both Arianism and Trinitarianism so that Arianism no longer even needs to be addressed.

I'm quite sure that won't stop you. And it's a shame, really, because you'll simply never understand that your twaddle about Arianism was utterly POV/OR/SYNTH. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Plus, he provides citations for your own Deuteronomy quotes, Jerry's Philo concerns, and even Kabbalistic concerns that at least two Rabbis have taken the time to warn me about. It's perfect.

I'll believe it when I see it. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But no -- he's a Conservative Rabbi. Lisa, I'm just as Orthodox as you are, but I know a perfect Wikipedia source when I see one.

Wait, don't tell me... that'd be one that says what you want to hear, right? -LisaLiel (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Finally, imagine if I had a Wikipedia article on a Russian Orthodox technical term for the blood libel, and I argued that the fact we don't actually eat children's blood on Passover has no place in the article, and no sources can be used unless they were Russian Orthodox and used the Russian Orthodox terminology. And in fact you couldn't even use a Greek Orthodox source because he's not Russian Orthodox. Come on, Lisa -- this is ridiculous. So the guy is a Conservative Rabbi. He's solved every single problem you and I have had on this page over the last eight months -- including your Deuteronomy quote, Philo, and Arianism. Poof -- all solved. Who has the POV problem?Tim (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"Divine relationship"

To respond to Tim's suggestion above that this material belongs in an article about divine relationships, I disagree. Shituf is a Jewish concept. If you want create a subheading in Divine Relationships about it and link to this article, that's fine. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I don't have time to write a NPOV article right now. And Novak was citing Katz for the distinction. I don't have time any more tonight, but if you have his book its the paragraph that spans pages 48 and 49. If you don't have it, I'll type it in later this week. But we certainly need a NPOV thing here, either with this article or another.Tim (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have it. Interfaith dialog is your interest; not mine. I'd be interested in seeing his source. And Katz's source as well (whoever Katz is). If they are notable sources, fine. But at the moment, you haven't shown any reason why the views of a Conservative rabbi trying (according to his book's title) to justify interfaith dialog should be allowed to trump every single rabbinic source out there. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, even if that were his objective, it doesn't invalidate the history and notes that he gives. It merely illustrates his motivation. But I think that you need to drop some defenses here or else you'll end up writing all of the Jewish articles all by yourself. Can Orthodox writers document Orthodox views? Of course -- but so can Reconstructionists if they are writing as scholars, and so can Christians, Buddhists, and atheists. As long as they are doing proper documentation themselves, they can present the history of these views in a scholarly way and as such present a valid source for our own work. I've seen you argue that Orthodox writers can more accurately state the truth of what Christians REALLY believe than Christians can themselves (and you and I both know I can show numerous diffs on this). Well -- turn that around: even atheists can correctly document what other beliefs say. That's the difference between systematic theology and historical theology. A Baptist systematic theology will present the Baptist view, but a Baptist historical theology can present Roman Catholic and Jewish views, because it is not writing "what God thinks" but instead "what certain people at certain times have thought." That's what Novak was doing. And that's exactly what Wikipedia should be doing too. Does he draw his own conclusions at the end of the book? I'm sure he does. But the historical part is, well, history.Tim (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Interfaith Dialogue

Lisa, I think this needs to be addressed also. I'm not after interfaith dialogue here. I'm after interfaith (and non-faith) cooperation, sourcing, and comprehension. Buddhists, atheists, Muslims, Christians, Jews should be able to do neutral point of view research together, and in fact the best way of guaranteeing Wikipedia's neutral point of view goals is for multiple POVs to cooperate. There's just jargon that each group has that means different things. It's not enough for a Jewish concept to be stated accurately; it needs to be communicated accurately. The reception that the generic audience takes should be the same as the intention of the editor and his sources. But jargon is one of those hidden enemies to communication. It's not merely the absence of a term in another group, but also the presence of a different term with the same meaning, as well as the same term with a different meaning. No single POV group can see its own blind spots. Even if one POV group had all the answers to ultimate truth, it does no good if it is using terms in different ways from the other groups. Wikipedia is a multi-group effort.

Will that help interfaith dialogue? Sure. But that's only a side effect of my own goal: clear, universally comprehensible language. Do I acheive that goal in my own writing? Of course not. But that's what other editors are there to help me with, just as I am here to help them with.Tim (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

David Novak

Unfortunately, if a putative reliable source uses poor scholarship, that fact can't be mentioned in a Wikipedia article unless another reliable source makes the point. And I don't feel like writing an entire book about how bad Novak's scholarship is. A blog entry, maybe, but more than that would be a waste of time, in my opinion.

Tim (SkyWriter) cited David Novak earlier, and what he attributed to Novak was so wild that I had a hard time believing Tim. But to whatever extent I was skeptical of Tim's veracity in this case, I both withdraw and apologize for that skepticism. Tim correctly reported what Novak wrote. Novak, however, deserves condemnation for his shoddy use of sources and his presentation of half truths. I'm of two minds regarding Novak. I don't know whether he was so intent on making the case of his book that he was willing to take shortcuts, or whether he just messed up.

I apologize for the length of this entry. But since Tim is intent on using Novak's book as a reliable source, I think it's necessary to show why I don't think it is.

To begin with, the book in question is Jewish-Christian Dialogue: A Jewish Justification. The title alone tells you that the book isn't going to be a work of historic scholarship, but rather a polemic/apology for a kind of dialogue which is very controversial among Jews. In fact, the first section of the book is entitled "Jewish Opposition to Dialogue" (pp. 3-9).

I'm not going to go through the whole book poking at all of the mistakes Novak makes. I'm not interested enough. But I do need to address the material on shituf, because it's this material that Tim wants to use as a source for what shituf is. This material appears on pp. 46-49.

Novak cites the Talmud (Sanhedrin 63b) as forbidding a Jew to set up a partnership (shutfut) with a non-Jew, because the non-Jew might be required to swear by his god. The Tosfot on that statement brings the view of Rabbenu Tam that "even though they associate [meshatfim] the name of God and something else, we don't find that it is forbidden to (indirectly) cause others to associate."

It would probably be a cheap shot for me to note that Novak transliterates the word for "associate" as mishtatfim, a related word that's more common in modern Hebrew. Nevertheless, it speaks to both his scholarship and his knowledge of Hebrew.

At this point, at the end of page 47, Novak says something astounding. He claims that Rabbenu Tam has "reworked" the idea of shutfut, changing it from partnership between Jew and non-Jew to the relationship between the non-Jew and his god. While the words shutfut and meshatfim share the same root stem in Hebrew, they do not share the same grammatical form (binyan). The noun derived from meshatfim is shituf. And at no time does Rabbenu Tam ever use shutfut to refer to the relationship between a non-Jew and his god.

Then on page 48, Novak says that the rabbis were able to extend this leniency even to the Christian trinity because the term shutfut, which Novak claims had been reinterpreted from meaning a partnership between two people into a relationship between Christians and their god was "now seen as being interchangeable with a related term, shittuf, which in philosophical Hebrew denites an interdivine relationship."

How many mistakes can be made in a single sentence? In this case, it'd be three:

• The first mistake is Novak's claim that shutfut was understood as referring to a relationship between Christians and their god, something which he appears to have invented from whole cloth.

• Next, Novak claims that the reinterpreted shutfut was then considered interchangable with shituf. Since the latter refers to a divine relationship and the former refers only to a human partnership (the Hebrew shutaf, or partner, with the suffix -ut, indicating a state), this is an empty claim.

• Lastly, Novak claims that shituf refers to an "interdivine relationship". I suspect that he means "intradivine", but criticizing his English as well might be seen as going too far. Tim, following Novak, wants to contrast this with an "extradivine relationship" (shutfut, although this word has never meant anything but a human partnership). The difference being that an interdivine one would be between parts of a single deity, while an extradivine one would be between two different deities. But there's not a single rabbinic source that speaks in these terms, and Novak appears to have made this up as well.

For these bloopers, he cites Jacob Katz, in Exclusiveness and Tolerance, pp. 163-164, particularly note 2 on page 163. I didn't have to take this one out of the library, because Google has most of the book available online ([18]), including those pages.

Katz, unfortunately for Novak, does not claim that shutfut was used in the way Novak claims. Nor does Katz equate shituf and shutfut. Nor does Katz say anything about interdivine, intradivine or extradivine relationships. Nor do any rabbinic sources.

Yes, Novak says all of this. But he brings not a single source for any of it. Except for Katz, who as everyone can see said nothing of the sort.

So is Novak's book a reliable source? It depends. Is it a reliable source for what shituf is? Certainly not. Novak has originated certain views, but he has no sources of his own for them. But it's a published book, and Novak is a Conservative rabbi. Certainly that should confer a degree of reliability upon the book as a source. And clearly it does. The book is a reliable source for the iconoclastic and novel ideas of one man: David Novak. As such, I used the book as a source for the statement "It is frequently used as a reason to justify interfaith dialog with Christians".

I would not suggest that it is a reliable source for anything else in this article. Not even in the Conservative section, because to the best of my knowledge, despite his being a Conservative rabbi, his views are purely his own here, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conservative Movement.

Because I think that Novak is entitled to know what's being said about him, I'm also going to be e-mailing this analysis to him. His faculty profile at the University of Toronto is easily Google-able ([19]). -LisaLiel (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, thanks for your analysis. I understand that you will feel that the following is irrelevant to the article, but it is very relevant to understand how I am approaching this.

• I (and Christians) understand "extradivine relationship" to be one of God with some other type of being. Arianism falls within this category; a modern example would be Jehovah's Witnesses.
• "Intradivine relationship" (which you brought up) would be one of God with one or more other deities. Tritheism falls within this category; a modern example would be Mormons.
• "Interdivine relationship" would be one of God with himself. By Christian definition these would not be parts (Christianity defines God as a simplex unity). A closer analogy would be dimensions. A billiard ball, for example, would have no parts, but would have dimensions. Trinitarianism (i.e. non-heretical Christianity) falls within this category.

If you don't mind -- please help me understand where Shituf lies. If I understand you correctly, Shituf is exclusively an "extra-divine relationship". Is that correct?

Also, I think you (as do Christians) define an "intra-divine relationship" as outright idolatry.

I also understand that an inter-divine relationship simply does not fall within a Jewish paradigm. If I take your analysis correctly, the Rabbis simply did not create a term for a category of divine understanding that does not compute within any Jewish framework.

All I've been after has been definition. If the Rabbinic sources exclusively define Shituf in terms of an extra-divine relationship, and in fact only conceive of Christianity in those terms, then that's important in the article -- if Christians are to make heads or tails of it.

The point is not to get the readers to agree with the Jewish understanding, but rather to merely grasp it.Tim (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to answer. The answer is that "extra-divine", "intra-divine" and "inter-divine" are all terms that don't apply to shituf. Let me give you an example. Would you say that red is smooth, or is it scratchy? How tall is purple? See, I'm not saying that smooth and scratchy and tall are meaningless. I'm just saying that they have no relevance to colors like red and purple. In the same way, Judaism doesn't care about categories like "extra-divine", "intra-divine" and "inter-divine". None of them are any worse than the others, and none of them are any better than the others.

You've chosen to ignore the reference I've given you to Baal Peor. Three times, I believe. I assume that this will make number four, but as you may have noticed, I'm persistent. The reason and intent don't matter, Tim. Artificial categories (artificial from Judaism's point of view) like those three don't matter. Christianity worships a trinity. As far as Judaism is concerned, that's non-monotheistic. Judaism doesn't choose to get into the minutiae of what Christians think about that trinity. For us, it's cut and dried. Trinity is not Unity. God is Unity.

Now... all of the research I've been doing because of this article has complicated things a bit. Because it turns out that most authorities say shituf is not non-monotheistic worship. That non-monotheistic worship of any kind (yes, including Christianity) is avodah zarah, plain and simple. That shituf is purely associating any other thing (be it a deity, a saint, an aspect, or a cheeseball) with the One (non-triune) God of Israel in speech. Rabbenu Tam, after all, didn't say they could worship Jesus. He said only that Jews aren't forbidden to cause non-Jews to swear by some other thing along with God. So someone saying, "By God and by Grabthar's hammer" as an oath would be committing shituf too. But someone worshipping God and Grabthar's hammer would be an idolator. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me add that it doesn't matter if Christians don't understand how Judaism can say this about worshipping a trinity. If they're capable of reading words on a page, they can grasp it. I'll tell you honestly, maybe you don't realize it because of your background in theology, but probably 99% of the Jews in the world would find discussions of Trinitarianism/Arianism/etc to be utterly unintelligible. That's okay. I know you don't think it's okay, but that's just your own schtick. It is okay. All a Christian reading this article needs to know is that Judaism (other than left-wing liberal modern versions) does not view Christianity as monotheistic. They don't need to understand why that is. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

And let me try once more. "If the Rabbinic sources exclusively define Shituf in terms of an extra-divine relationship, and in fact only conceive of Christianity in those terms, then that's important in the article". The rabbinic sources don't define shituf that way. Maybe it would help if you thought of their definition as a negative one, rather than a positive one. They aren't saying what non-monotheistic worship is. They're saying what monotheistic worship is not.

Do you understand that? Any worship that doesn't meet the Jewish criterion for being monothestic is non-monotheistic. It's an open-ended definition. It's not defined as B or C or D, so that you can come along and say, "Hey, what about E?" It's defined as "not A". Which automatically includes E. And F. And everything else. Is that better? -LisaLiel (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to tend to some home affairs for a spell, but could you clarify something before I dig deeper? You write: "Christianity worships a trinity". Define trinity. You are saying that trinity is either shituf or idolatry. Great. But instead of the word, please write what you mean. ____________________(Blank) is either shituf or idolatry. Thanks.Tim (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, is "one only and supreme God, without body or parts" -- at least as far as that goes... it that monotheistic? Okay, now to the family for a while...Tim (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a dude named Jesus. Who supposedly lived and walked the earth. Personally, I have serious doubts as to whether he ever existed historically, but for the sake of discussion, say he did. Christians worship that guy. That's idolatry as far as Judaism is concerned. Worship a man, a rock, a star or a diet cola, and it's idolatry. Now, you can tell me, "I think that this Diet Coke partakes of the essence of the One God, and isn't actually something separate", and that's fine. Whatever works for you. Judaism, however, doesn't have to accept that. We say that a Diet Coke is something separate. So's a guy named Jesus. Worship it, and it's avodah zarah.

And no, we don't have to define "trinity". The word itself indicates plurality. "Tri" means "three". That's as far as Judaism needs to go. Whether from the polytheism of worshipping a trinity or the plain and simple idolatry of worshipping a man, Judaism does not accept it as monotheism. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see the problem. You are talking about two different things. I appreciate your help here. You actually aren't talking about the trinity, but something else entirely. I have to apologize one more time -- but to finish helping me so that I can answer, could you explain how the sephirot is not idolatry even though it expresses a plurality. Thanks (it's past my bed time, so take your time and I'll give you a good answer tomorrow morning). Thanks again. Tim (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about the trinity. I'm talking about Judaism's view of the trinity, because this is an article about a Jewish concept called shituf.

As far as the sephirot are concerned, this has been asked and answered in your presence, so I have no reason to believe you won't ignore the answer again, in exactly the same way as you've ignored the Baal Peor source (four times, now). The sefirot are not "part of God" any more than all of creation is. They are creations of God. Windows, so to speak, through which we are able to perceive God in specific ways. Every "attribute" of God is something God created. We use the term "attribute" for the sake of convenience. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- thanks for your note. I'll answer each of your points shortly. Tim (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'll answer them. To be quite honest, I've said what I have to say a dozen times here, and I have no hope that you'll ever listen. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa,

Since your notes were so involved, I needed to sort through them in order to form as concise an answer as possible.

The trouble we are dealing with is one of religious analogue. The pieces on Wikipedia will only slowly develop in this area. The information is there, but it will take a while before they start to converge.

As for Shituf – one of the things I left out of the talk page before were secondary notes from those same Rabbis warning me that the Sephirot do indeed constitute Shituf. David Novak also made the same observation in his book. I understand that you disagree with Novak, but the Rabbis I corresponded with told me both in person and in email the same point.

There are analogues in religion – similar ideas covering essential philosophical aspects of infinity in relation to finitude. In Kabbalistic thought there is the Ein Sof and the Sephirot. In Christian thought there is the “one only supreme God without body or parts” (Westminster Confession of Faith; 1689 Second London Baptist Confession; etc.) and there is the Trinity. And, for that matter, in Hinduism there is the infinite impersonal Brahma and the billions of gods. These are analogues. The differences in religions are not matters of whether they have such analogues, so much as in what they do with them.

There are other analogues regarding special revelation and general revelation. General revelation is more of a bottom-up affair. We look at the created order and are able to form certain conceptions of the Creator from what we see. Special revelation is a top-down affair. God “reveals” himself. Take the Torah, for instance: is it the word of Moses or the Word of God? The answer to both alternatives is “yes.” In Christianity, is Jesus the son of Mary or the Word of God? Again, the answer to both alternatives is “yes.” Is a Torah scroll physical? Sure. It is physical, and finite. We read through it and reach the end each year. But although it is physical and finite in length, it is spiritual and infinite in depth – and so when we finish it, we are never finished with it, but have to go back, and back, and back, forever. This is how Christians see Jesus. That, by the way, is the subject of “incarnation” or the “two natures of Christ.” You were getting this confused with an entirely different subject called the “Trinity.” Just as a Torah scroll is physical and finite, the Christian analogue of Jesus is 100% human and finite. That is the human nature. He is not part human. He is all human. The Torah scroll is not part physical. It is all physical. Correspondingly, just as the Torah scroll is spiritual and infinite, the Christian analogue of Jesus is 100% divine and infinite. He is not part God. He is all God. The Torah scroll is not part the Word of God. It is all the Word of God.

The analogues for the Sephirot and the Trinity are completely different. Your mixing up the incarnation and the Trinity is like a Christian mixing up the Sephirot and the Torah. These are entirely different subjects. In Judaism, “God is Person” (I like the way Neusner expressed that). In Christianity, God is also Person – but He is Person in every “person” that is possible: first, second, and third persons. God is within us; God is beside us; God is beyond us. God within us partners with God with us to reconcile with God without us – itself an eternal process since that which is by definition “beyond” is always beyond. God is first, second, and third person – something in “I” working with “Thou” to reconcile with “Him.” God is not limited to any single person in a grammatical or rational sense. Judaism does this too, but we don’t formally express this as the “Three Person God.” We simply express this as “God.”

On a purely rational and philosophical way, these are accomplishing the same thing.

And yet, we don’t simply express this as “God” do we? No, we don’t. There is the Ein Sof. But the Ein Sof is by definition beyond us, singular in such a way that it cannot be “with” anything or anyone. God has no partners – not even us. To become “with” the Ein Sof would be to make it no longer “Ein Sof.” It would be like a Christian saying that Jesus is “God the Father.” No, he cannot be God the Father (God beyond us) any more than up can be down. Instead, he is “God with us” – Immanuel. God “beyond us” cannot be God “with us” unless he were to change, become finite, and no longer be “beyond.” And in both Christianity and Judaism, God does not change. God is not limited to “beyond.” Neither is he limited from “beyond.” And neither is he limited from “with” or “within.” God is infinite, without boundaries, without limitations, and without absence. He is within, with, and without. He is first, second, and third person. He is all these things and must be all these things because he is infinite. And if he were not any of this, he would be finite. Judaism has a similar philosophical problem of the infinite Creator. Because he is infinite, there are no handles by which we can grasp him. But he isn’t limited from us either. And that’s the problem. If God is infinite and we are finite, what are we interacting with? Does one interact with part of infinity? Well, no, because in neither Judaism nor Christianity can God have any “parts.” But are we interacting with all of God? Well, yes… sort of. “All of God” is in the tiniest grain of sand, and is simultaneously greater than all creation. But that computes with us about as well as 1=3. So we create these aspects of God in our philosophical system called the Sephirot.

To get to your Baal Peor point… the Rabbis are not condemning the belief that God is infinitely Person (i.e. Person in every possible way), but they are condemning the action of worshipping God as infinite Person. Okay – if that’s what you really want to say, so be it.

And you’ll answer, “no that isn’t what I’m trying to say at all.”

And I’ll answer, “no, that isn’t what you are TRYING to say – but it is certainly what you are ACCOMPLISHING.”

To be honest, the Sephirot are not as clean an approach as Christianity. These aspects really are parts. As such they must be created.

In Christianity, God doesn’t create himself. Neither does he have created parts. He is eternal, infinite, and entirely whole – one in every way that a Person can be; first, second, and third.

And he is whole with us and without us. He ultimately doesn’t need us, because even entirely alone, he is never alone.

What does this have to do with the article?

Glad you asked.

I finally had to leave the definition on Shituf alone once I saw that Novak was saying the same thing that the Rabbis offline were warning me about – the Sephirot are Shituf. If this article were being worked on from an NPOV collaboration of editors, this would be a simple thing to document (not only from Novak, but from other sources as well).

But this isn’t NPOV, and this isn’t a collaboration. This is a single editor effort, with a strong POV that doesn’t recognize subjective analogues, but instead must define all of reality, and indeed all other religions, from an objectivist Orthodox POV grid.

The truth, friend, is that Wikipedia is not about Truth. Wikipedia is about finding notable and verifiable sources from any POV they come from, and simply documenting what is there. That’s it.

And as I frequently point out – Wikipedia.en tries to do this in English.

But Wikipedia cannot do this in the environment the present article is governed under. At least, it cannot do this when two editors are clashing the way we are – with overhead nearly as infinite as the same Jewish God you and I both worship in an Orthodox way.

And that’s perhaps the greatest irony of all. We are both Orthodox Jews, passionately committed to our Lord and Faith and way of life as revealed in Torah – both written and oral. That’s not our problem. Our problem is not that we are committed to our POV.

Our problem is that you believe our POV defines all reality and is in fact itself the definition of NPOV.

And I know it is not.

But I also know that Wikipedia will grow faster and better without the tendentious overhead the two of us create. Is Wikipedia better served by my tweaking an article that has nothing to do with Judaism while you own whatever articles you want? Sure it is. At least we won’t endlessly clutter talk pages so much that we finally crash the servers.

And you know what? Judaism articles will grow in spite of your ownership. They have to – because you are finite, and you cannot contain Judaism to the sphere of your own time and expertise (as great as those are). The entire corpus of Wikipedia will grow around you until it towers around the tiny islands of Judaism you keep down against the rising tide. No amount of sand bags could hold back the Red Sea once Moses lowered his staff.

So I’ll improve other articles in cooperation with other editors in support of NPOV.

Good luck with your sand bags.

And in the end, Wikipedia will be okay. You have a lot of great things to contribute. You are a talented writer, with great learning and great research to offer.

I do too. And so I propose that we keep out of each other’s way.

This is the last time I will interact with you on any article under this name. And in fact I will make a point of not interacting with you on any other name. Wikipedia is better with the two of us acting separately than together. You get to keep any article you want. You can say anything you want, with no argument from me. And if you come into another article and an editor leaves – it might be me, or Alastair, or Bikinibomb, or Egfrank. Or it could just be someone else.

But Wikipedia has more sandboxes than you can even visit, let alone control.

I’m going to go play well with others now.

All the best to you.Tim (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)