Talk:Christian Torah-submission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Calvinism Portal Christian Torah-submission falls within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Notes

We can leave it because the theologians use it, but "abrogated" is nothing but a semantic loophole to get around Matthew 5. It means nothing more than "abolish.": http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/abrogate

Abrogate means to abolish a law and "abolish" is used in Eph 2:15. 75.0.11.48 23:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for the article. I considered it to be of excellent quality except for the parts that I corrected with minor or subtle changes. I was considering adding a footnote about Shabbat timing, but felt that would be more appropriate for the Shabbat or Sabbath articles. Samuel Erau 16:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Shalom -- When someone has time, can they explain to me why the article believes that the NT's comment about circumcision of the heart thereby nullifies the law put forth by Adonai through Moshe back in Leviticus?? We are taught in our assembly that if you DONT get circumcised even if you accept Yashua and the Laws you are not allowed to participate in Passover. Because the Passover laws say an uncircumcised person cannot participate. Help me out; thanks Rivka 19:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My best guess for how you read the article as asserting that the NT nullifies Leviticus is that the article's statement that 1 Cor. 7:18 "should be held to strictly" seems to overemphasise Paul's allowance to merely "let" the uncircumcised man remain so, even though such an allowance may, by itself, merely be an accession to fellowship which does not nullify him later learning that he should obey Lev. 23:5 without neglecting Ex. 12:48. So, to answer your question Rivka, the article's blunt statement that 1 Cor. 7:18 was strictly "prohibiting a change in the status of circumcision", that statement having begun with the word "Therefore", and that statement having immediately followed a statement about circumcision of the heart is what made the article believe (assert) that. Samuel Erau 07:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Rivka, without discussing the specific interpretations of circumcision, I believe that that the question of properly eating of the Pesach lamb is a moot point today, because no one, including Orthodox Jews, are keeping Passover according to Exodus 12. There is no lamb to eat which was sacrificed at the temple, and Exodus 12:48 cannot apply unless that qualification is met. The seders that many people hold are memorial and honoring to God, but do not and cannot fulfill Torah.Namikiw 19:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Namikiw

[edit] Lack of neutrality

This article, as written, is a blanket statement of what the movement in question believes to be true. Encyclopedic format requires that it state the beliefs of the movement as beliefs. In other words, not "The Bible teaches..." but "This movement, unlike somebody else, believes that the Bible teaches..." (ideally followed by a verifiable citation to publications of this movement). Links to follow should be to third-party accounts of the movement, its activities, its controversies, etc., not just to sites of its advocates. Shalom! --Orange Mike 18:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. However, nearly every statement in this article does follow Encyclopedic format. If there are statements which do not conform to this format ("This view holds..." rather than "The Bible teaches") you, or anyone, is free to make those minor changes to make it fit the format, without anyone's objection. (If I have a chance, I may review it myself.) This is also the case with any of the links to controversies, etc. This encyclopedia is editable.

At this point where these phrases are changed, it will be completely objective and neutral, stating fact (They believe...) rather than opinion (This verse means...). Namikiw 19:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Namikiw

The tag still needs to stay on the article. Look at any random passage and you will find "the Bible says..." as opposed to "they believe that the Bible says..."; you will find cryptic abbreviations of Bible references without wikilinks which would make no sense to a non-Christian reader; etc. While it's not as much as a mess as the talk page (which I see is now being used to argue theology instead of discuss improving the article), the article still needs a lot of work. --Orange Mike 20:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Having no wikilinks has nothing to do with "neutrality". If this becomes your only objection, the tag should be changed.

2. The one phrase saying "Biblically prohibited" has been changed to "prohibited in the Torah" - Granted

3. Please cite other specific examples to be discussed and/or changed because it is not clear what else you are referring to. The article does not contain any instances of the phrase "the Bible says," let alone finding that phrase in "any random passage". If there are no other specifics, the tag should be removed. Namikiw 20:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to be written in an objective tone. It describes a view without stating the beliefs of the view are absolute. Not sure what the fuss is about. 129.15.127.254 14:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking Consensus

To me it, it appears that this article is written from a neutral point of view. Since the POV question was been raised, I see that several changes have been made to further improve that status.

I think this article is neutral because:

• this article claims to be one view and not the absolute view
• the individual phrases of this article are also consistent with portraying this as one view among many
• this article cites plentiful sources of many kinds
• this article cites and links alternate/objecting viewpoints throughout

I also note that the one editor who has expressed a concern about neutrality has not helped to improve the article and has not provided any further specific objections.

Therefore, I propose that the neutrality tag be removed.

• If anyone has any objections to removing the tag, please state them specifically.
• If anyone agrees that the article is written in a neutral tone, please state your agreement

Remember that while the view may certainly be met with disagreement, this is not a valid reason to contest the neutrality of this article which attempts to explain the view in an objective and accurate manner. Namikiw 22:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)