Talk:Seven Laws of Noah/Archive 2

Suggestions for Improvements
I'm not qualified to edit the article, but I think one thing missing, that is relevant would be something about the beliefs regarding reconciliation for those that disobey the seven laws of Noah (i.e. beliefs regarding "forgiveness" (can a person supposedly LOSE their "place in the world to come" and/or gain back a "place in the world to come"? Might also be relevant to better define what "place in the world to come" means (and equally important, what it means to NOT have a place in the world to come!)

Also there is brief mention in the article about prosthelization - if it is generally accepted by Jews that following Noah's seven laws is the key for Gentiles to gain a place in the world to come why don't they generally share this information with Gentiles (I don't know anyone that has even ever heard of noah's seven laws, I just happened to stumble across it)? This info seems pretty relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.76.72 (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Christian topics
Someone insisted on categorising this with Category:Jewish Christian topics. I dispute this. The Noahide Laws have no role in Christianity, and post-hoc apologetics will not change this. Christianity has never attempted to satisfy the Noahide Laws, and there is a strong indication from some Jewish sources that Christianity can't actually conform to the Noahide Laws. JFW | T@lk  23:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Category "Jewish Christian topics": "comprises articles pertaining to the religious interface, differences, and relations between Judaism and Jews -- and Israel as the Jewish state -- with Christianity and Christians." Of the sections in Noahide Law, I notice: "Other religions as Noahide", "Christian criticism", "Christian adoption of the Noahide Laws?". In addition, the word "Christian" appears 30 times. I can understand an objection to placing this article in the "Christian" category, but the reasons for objecting to its placement in "Jewish Christian topics" escape me. Quite clearly, in addition to being a Jewish topic, it is also a Jewish Christian topic. As for your claim that "Noahide Laws have no role in Christianity", I quote this from the article: "Several Christian congregations have abandoned traditional Christianity (rejecting the Nicene Creed) and adopted Noahidism in recent years. In the United States a few organized movements of non-Jews (primarily of Christian origin) have been influenced by Orthodox Judaism; rather than converting to Judaism, they have chosen to abandon previous religious affiliation and live by the Noahide Laws. The rainbow is the symbol of many organised Noahide groups, and the best-known group is probably the one led by Vendyl Jones. So far, however, being a Noahide has never been considered to be part of an organized religion."

According to organised Christianity rejection of the Nicene Creed is a departure from Christianity. But whatever, this is not a "Jewish Christian topic". At the so-called interface between Christiany and Judaism the Noahide Laws have never featured. JFW | T@lk  22:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I can immediately think of five prominant exceptions to your claim that: "At the so-called interface between Christiany and Judaism the Noahide Laws have never featured." 1. Council of Jerusalem 2. Apostolic Constitutions 3. Isaac Newton 4. Jewish Encyclopedia 5. Vendyl Jones. All five are cited in the Noahide Laws article. Four are Christian, the Jewish Encyclopedia cite is about Paul of Tarsus, another Christian. I'm sure there are other exceptions. Isn't one exception sufficient? Can you cite a significant reference for your claim? If so, shouldn't it be included in the article? If not, perhaps you should concede that your pov might not match the facts of evidence? Can you express what you feel are the errors or dangers in placing this article in the "Jewish Christian topics" category?


 * Noahide laws do not really feature in modern Christianity. However, there is a fairly popular scholarly suggestion that the so-called 'Council of Jerusalem' of Acts 15 based its decree on the Noahide laws. Whether that is a correct intepretation of Acts 15 and whether, if it is, the author of Acts is correct in his presetation and interpretation of the actual events is, of course, open to question. But this, and other suggested allusions to them in the New Testament (Revelation in particular) does mean that they are of interest to reconstruction of early Christian ethics, and Jew/Gentile relations within the early Church, and it is at least plausible that they were being applied (in some form, and in some places) at some point in early Christian circles. I'm not arguing that any of this is correct, but it is a live academic debate, and means that the Noahides are at least of interest to Christian scholars, and perhaps also to the ealy Christians themselves.--Doc ask? 20:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree with JFW, his arguments make perfect sense. IZAK 04:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * JFW is correct only if one views all Christian sects that do not agree with "Christian Orthodoxy" to be excluded as Christian. Some of these sects view mainstream "Christian Orthodoxy" to be incorrect teaching in a number of areas including the abrogation of the Law, or the Torah. Is Orthodox Judaism the only reference source for articles on Judaism?--Kevin 20:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Of course Orthodoxy cannot claim a monopoly on Judaism-related articles. But the whole category "Jewish Christian topics" is misleading. It is supposed to be a historical category that deals with the years during which Christianity split off from Judaism. It is not supposed to contain articles which may have an ideological link to both religions (the list would also be endless). There is NO proof that the early Christians were thinking about the Noahide Laws when they were converting gentiles to their new ideology. JFW | T@lk  21:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Partial Agreement -At least we have come to an agreement on the description of a Christian to include almost any group claiming to follow the teachings of Christ. I would agree with your statement above (conditionally) that Christianity in general, does not conform, nor even attempts to teach obedience to Noahidic Law (the condition is to remove comprehensive adverbs such as never). We only need to come to agreement on the comprehensive understanding of Noahide Laws (and perhaps the purpose of the Jewish Christian article). Your description of what the article is supposed to be about in terms of history is not in agreement with the description of the subject, or the inclusions. Agreed, the list of articles under the present description could be almost endless (far longer than necessary, even at this point). Yet, your description would narrow the list to exclude many pertinent facts linking the histories of Primitive Christianity and Judaism. There are some who still attempt to observe this primitive apostolic Christianity, which in many ways links more to Judaism than Orthodox Christianity. Agreed, there is not absolute proof that the Noahidic Laws were considered in early Christianity, yet there is ample evidence to support the theory.


 * I have experienced that some are offended by the terms Jewish or Judaic being combined with Christian. Could this be considered an underlying reason for your disagreement, JFW?--Kevin 23:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Are we having a disagreement? Anycase, I don't need to disclose what informs my decision to hold the views I hold. JFW | T@lk  00:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That is fine. I might have suggested a minor change in the title of the Jewish-Christian topic list to be more PC, if there was an issue. Noahidic Laws will be a relevant addition to the list; my suggestion is that the description of the list be more precise, and those subjects that are superficially related be removed.--Kevin 00:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree with JFW, though this may be resolved now, which is good. KHM03 01:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The real issue is that Christians believe in a Trinity and Jews consider this to be idolatry; this has only a tangential connection with the Noahide laws, so I don't think this article rates a Jewish/Christian category. There are enough irrelevant articles in that category already. Ben Standeven 21:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ben, have you seen the info on shittuf in the article? Not all authorities see Christianity as idolatry. But you are right on the basic premise. JFW | T@lk  22:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

In addition, Ben, you are correct in the understanding that most calling themselves Christian do view the acknowledgement of the trinitarian nature of the One Most High, as required for orthodox Christianity; this is not an undeniably written doctrine in the scriptures understood as either the original Hebrew, or even the Christian New Testament. There are a few Christian sects that view this teaching as human speculation, and possibly Pagan in origination. The article includes discussion the idolatrous nature of trinitarian belief. We are in basic agreement on the subject, I believe; our differences might be on the description of Christianity as only those groups that accept trinitarianism as orthodox, or acceptable.--Kevin 03:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Christianity in this article
The material on Christianity vs the Noahide Laws was sprinkled through the article. I have now moved everything to the relevant section, and I suggest all Christianity-related content remains there. It's odd that while this is a Jewish subject, about half the article is still about whether it is to be accepted by Christians, discriminatory of Christians, a part of Christian history, etc etc. Perhaps some condensation and rationalisation, with the necessary source support (which is now lacking) will make the article more lean & mean. JFW | T@lk  15:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for consolidating the Christian perspective. I agree that it needs some work. I disagree that this is only a Jewish subject. This is a subject about Jewish acceptance of Gentiles. It has been a source of friction between the two groups for thousands of years. This subject is not under the heading of Judaism. Let's do a disambiguation to distinguish and include the Christian perspective (of which there are many sides).--Kevin 16:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There has not been friction between the groups for 2000 years because of the Noahide Laws. The friction is because most Jews would not convert to Christianity, and were subsequently accused of deicide. I'm quite unhappy with your new fork Noachian Law, which I've put of AFD for obvious reasons. This is one article on the concept of the expectations of Jewish law from Gentiles. Nothing more and nothing less. Please just work on the "christianity" section on this page; removing all irrelevant content and sourcing the remainder will do more good than creating a new article to flesh out every single point. JFW | T@lk  22:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds like there should be two articles: "Noahide Laws in Judaism" and "Noahide Laws in Christianity" with a disambiguation page for Noahide Laws, much like the current divisions for Sabbath, Passover, OT/Tanakh, Messiah, etc..


 * Firstly, 63.201.27.54, I think it's mighty rude of you to flag up a request for comments without letting us know on this page.


 * No personal attacks please. Address the issues.


 * Do not confuse criticism with personal attacks. I've been addressing the issues, thank you very much. JFW | T@lk  10:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think splitting the article is the worst thing one can do. There are no "Christian" Noahide Laws. I think all the relevant information can easily be contained in this article. In fact, I think the Christian relevance is much overstated. I'd say >95% of all Christians would not have the slightest idea what the Noahide Laws are, as they are a distinctly Jewish phenomenon. There will be no split and no disambiguation page. At any rate, disambig pages are only for articles with similar levels of importance, see Disambiguation. JFW | T@lk  00:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * All the more reason to separate the two articles: Noahide Law in Judaism and Noahide Law in Christianity. You can be self appointed czar of the Judaism article, let other people handle the Christian article. You don't even need to bother yourself with the Christian article, that way you can continue to convince yourself that it doesn't exist.


 * I am not a self-appointed Czar of anything, but you cannot demand a split where the content does not need it. All the Christian views on the Noahide Laws hinge on its existance as a primarily Jewish phenomenon. That makes a fork unsustainable. JFW | T@lk  10:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * We are in agreement that there has not been friction between Jews and Gentiles due to the Noachian Law. Noachian Law can be used to bridge the void between the two. From the Christian perspective this primarily deals with the early Jewish converts' (to Christianity) unacceptance of fellowship with uncircumcised Gentiles. There is much to be stated concerning the friction caused by both early Jewish Christian rejection of the Gentile converts, and Roman Catholic antisemitism and murderous persecution, all in the name of the Creator. The last is far more offensive than the first, yet each viewed his unbelieving neighbor as either untouchable, or worthy of death. Both are arrogant, and one murderous, and without reason in view of Noachian, or Mosaic Law. There is no justification for either view of self-righteousness regardless of birthright, or belief. That is what the article is about, whether it be from the Jewish perspective, or the Christian perspective. Noachian Law is the bridge which only the humble and contrite will attempt to cross.


 * There is a place for Primitive Christian belief alongside Noachian Law. We are the minority, and perhaps the remnant, that observe these universal ideals without judgment on those who do not. You are becoming more correct in your estimation that >95% of Christians would not know what the Noachian Laws are about, and would not this be a great opportunity to teach those who seek answers to why? The relevance is of supreme importance to a minority who seek reconciliation of the two divisions. This is a very important and controversial subject that concerns Christian understanding, far more than Jewish concerns. There is much to be gleaned by the understanding of the these precepts, from both approaches to the issues of acceptance, and conformity to one anothers' understandings of the requirements for obedience.


 * There are some sources that I will add to the article, but you must understand that Primitive Apostolic Christianity has always been persecuted along with Judaism, and squelched throughout history and yet there is evidence of this belief in continuance through to this day.--Kevin 04:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I will have no further discussion if you feel the need to rant about "Jewish pomposity", "arrogance", "self-righteousness" etc. You'd better change your tone, and fast. Obviously you have unconventional views. If you expect to be taken seriously you'd better start providing some useful outside evidence on the role of Noahide Laws in Primitive Apostolic Christianity. JFW | T@lk  04:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * My apologies! It was not my intention to rant. There was just some confusion about how some view Noachian Law, and you misunderstood my comments as to where friction between Jews and Christians is derived. I just wanted to make myself clear as to how Noachian Law may be seen from both perspectives as a healing approach. I have made my above statement more precise, and left out the P word. I think you misunderstood my intention, saw red, and ignored the rest of my comments. I was not saying everyone is included, only those who refused to accept one another.--Kevin 18:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
This article needs to be split into "Noahide Laws in Judaism" and "Noahide Laws in Christianity" because of dictatorial statements like this: "I think splitting the article is the worst thing one can do. There are no "Christian" Noahide Laws. I think all the relevant information can easily be contained in this article. In fact, I think the Christian relevance is much overstated. I'd say >95% of all Christians would not have the slightest idea what the Noahide Laws are, as they are a distinctly Jewish phenomenon. There will be no split and no disambiguation page." The Jewish material should go to "Noahide Laws in Judaism" and the Christian material, which a certain dictator claims does not exist, should go to "Noahide Laws in Christianity". There is plenty of precedent for this for obvious reasons: Old Testament versus Jewish Bible, Sabbath versus Shabbat, Passover (Christian holiday) versus Passover, Christ versus Messiah, Hell versus Gehenna, etc. Obviously, both Judaism and Christianity are based on the same source material, but draw different conclusions, for this reason articles should be split, neither side will ever agree that the other might be correct or sometimes that another side even exists. But of course it does, and neutrality dictates seperate articles.


 * All the "Christian" conclusions hinge on the Noahide laws as a Jewish phenomenon. A subpage would be warranted if the material became too bulky (e.g. >32 KB), but at the moment we're nowhere near. Please stop calling people "dictators". That's a personal attack. JFW | T@lk  10:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Please stop acting as a dictator. I assume you are Jewish and I understand your desire to defend this article from a Jewish perspective, which is fine, but underlines why there should be a "Noahide Laws in Judaism" which is from the Jewish perspective and a separate "Noahide Laws in Christianity" which is from the Christian perspective, thus avoiding these problems which will occur over and over. Obviously, Christianity is based on a "Jewish phenomenon", thus the need for separate articles. Obviously Judaism and Christianity draw different conclusions from the same source material. There is no point in arguing which one is the correct conclusion, just separate the articles, express both pov's.


 * I have explained this to you ad nauseam. My religion has nothing to do with this. The conclusions are the same. You should stop calling me names. Those are personal attacks. JFW | T@lk  15:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As I am apparently the czar of this article, I have done a general copyedit. This has enabled me to look carefully at the material presented. I think all views are here in a coherent and logical fashion, and the important points about basic Jewish requirements for non-Jews (Acts 15) have all been brought out. I really wonder what the benefit would be of an extra article dealing with that phenomenon specifically.


 * I doubt, by the way, that Acts 15 refers to any form of Noahide laws, but this is just my personal view. The whole concept of "Noahide" is not mentioned, nor the number seven. In fact, the earliest Jewish source for the Noahide laws is Tosefta Avodah Zara 9:4, which was committed no earlier than 200 CE. JFW | T@lk  11:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The number 7 is not the Christian view, Christians come at this same topic by looking at the laws present before Moses, in other words laws at the time of Noah, hence Noahide Laws. The earliest source for Christian Noahide Laws is Acts 15, circa 100ce. And you are correct that the Jewish concept of Noahide Laws is not mentioned in Acts 15, what is mentioned is the Christian concept. Understand the need for seperate articles now? You are attempting to interpret the Christian Noahide Laws from the Jewish perspective, nothing wrong with that, but the npov way to handle that is in seperate articles. Christians derive the Christian Noahide Laws from the Christian Bible plus Apostolic Fathers plus Ante-Nicene Fathers. Jews derive the Jewish Noahide Laws from the Jewish Bible plus the Talmud.


 * So why bother inserting all that material into this article then? Who on earth calls these laws "Noahide laws"? If you want to write an article about them, "Noahide Laws" would be a very poor choice of title. JFW | T@lk  15:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Christians had already been taught obedience to the Ten Commandments. The Noachian Law is mainly included within the Ten. The Council of Jerusalem was clearly adding the items not specified in the Ten as the only other requirements they were going to place on the Gentiles. As you stated above, the term Noahide, or the number seven were most likely not even in use at that time.--Kevin 19:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"Noachian law" appears to simply be a variant of "Noahide Law", and is used to describe the Noahide laws. What encyclopedic sources are you using for your descriptions of the Christian view of them? Because I haven't been able to find any. Jayjg (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Primary source is Apostolic Constitutions, part of the Ante-Nicene Fathers collection, cited in the article.


 * http://www.google.com/search?q=Apostolic+Decree


 * http://www.didache-garrow.info/firstchristiandocument/whatisdecree.htm
 * "The Didache's base layer contains precisely the kind of ambiguity required.
 * Didache 6.2-3 'If you are able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord [=Torah], you will be perfect (teleios), but if you cannot, do what you can. Concerning food, bear what you can, but abstain strictly from food offered to idols, for it is worship of dead gods.' This is the final instruction in the sequence leading up to the baptism of Gentile converts. Once baptised they are entitled to participate in the Eucharist (cf. Did. 9.5). Significantly, there is no explicit requirement to be circumcised. At the end of the text, however, Didache 16.2 reveals that this was only intended as a temporary concession, not a long-term solution.
 * Didache 16.2 'You shall assemble frequently, seeking what your souls need, for the whole time of your faith will be of no profit to you unless you are perfected (teleiothete) at the final hour.' The concept of 'perfection' refers to full Torah observance (as understood by the particular community) and would have included circumcision."

And I will repeat my question: where is the term "Noahide". If these laws are not identical with the 7 laws from the Talmud, and nobody calls them "Noahide Laws" (including your source above), why use this article as your vehicle? JFW | T@lk  15:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly; nothing about "Noahide" or "Noachian" there. Jayjg (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Would you prefer the long form of the Apostolic Constitutions: "Laws .. given to the ancients who lived before the law, under the law of nature, Enos, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Job, and if there be any other of the same sort"? You don't believe "Noahide Laws in Christianity" is a reasonable abreviation of the above quote? What would you suggest? Pre-Mosiac law? Pentateuchal law before Moses? Old Testament law before Moses?

Those are some peri-Noahide laws (Melchizedek lived after Noah, and Job's epoch is not certain). But the Noahide laws without a modifier refers to the seven laws from Talmud Sanhedrin. How about you move this content to Apostolic Constitutions. It seems we have found a home for it after all. JFW | T@lk  20:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If you want to get technical about terminology, the correct Jewish term is "Seven Commandments". "Noahide Law" is the Christian term, just as "Mosaic Law" is the Christian term for Jewish "Torah". So, move the Jewish content to article "Seven Commandments of Judaism" and the Christian content to article "Noahide Law in Christianity" for clarity.


 * One more comment: After all this, does anyone seriously still believe this is *NOT* a Jewish-Christian topic? LOL


 * Yet another comment: JFW, taking the Jewish pov, suggests moving the Christian content of Noahide Laws into its source of the Apostolic Constitutions. Of course, one could just as easily take a dictatorial Christian pov: Why not move the Jewish content of Noahide Laws back into its source of the Talmud. Obviously, perhaps painfully, Noahide Laws is a Jewish-Christian topic, even if some people are uncomfortable with that fact.

No, the correct Hebrew term is Sheva Mitzvot Bnay Noach, "The Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah". There is no Christian term for it; Christians don't do the Sheva Mitzvot, at least they hadn't done so until Jewish writers brought them into the public discourse in the 20th century.

Your reply aimed at me personally shows in all its colours how poorly you have read the above discussion. There are no Christian Noahide Laws! There are some pre-Abrahamititic laws that the Primitive Apostolic Christianity people express a great deal of interest in, such as the High Sabbaths, but you are morbidly mistaken that this subject should go "back into its source of the Talmud" (whatever you mean by that). The majority of the article is about this phenomenon in Jewish law and its adherents of the newly developing Noahide movement. This is not a Jewish-Christian topic, and your irony is completely misplaced. JFW | T@lk  23:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, Kevin, one of the protagonists of the Jewish-Christian theory, has done the sensible thing and moved the relevant content to Primitive Apostolic Christianity. I'm pleased we're finally getting somewhere. JFW | T@lk  23:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Simply speaking, the "Noahide Laws" are a Jewish concept, and are only testified to in Jewish sources. Some writers have argued that they overlap the "Apostolic laws", that POV is an entirely modern view. Jayjg (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Facts are facts: The Christian Apostolic Constitutions "Laws .. given to the ancients who lived before the law, under the law of nature, Enos, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Job, and if there be any other of the same sort" predates the Talmud's "Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah"..

So what? JFW | T@lk  00:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it's always possible that they do, but what does that have to do with the Noahide laws? Jayjg (talk) 00:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Your claim is that the Jewish Noahide Laws preceded the Christian Noahide Laws, when actually it's the other way around. No historian would be surprised at this, obviously the issue of what Bible laws applied to non-Jews arose first in Christianity. Judaism of course has always had converts, but they convert, to Judaism, which generally means circumcision for males since that's the greatest difference between Judaism and Greco-Roman paganism from the Greco-Roman perspective. But, again obviously, the question arose, should Christian converts convert to Judaism? One answer is no, they should follow the Christian Laws of Noah. An additional claim made was that only the Jewish Laws were called Noahide when in fact it is the Christian Laws that are called Noahide (i.e. "Laws of Noah") and the Jewish Laws are called the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah. Seven is the most significant part of the Jewish Noahide Laws, but isn't a factor in the earlier Christian Noahide Laws which instead are merely whatever (number irrelevant) laws were present in the Christian Bible before the Christian Mosaic Law, the Christian notion being that God decreed the Mosaic Law to the Jews whereas the other laws stated in the Christian Old Testament apply to all people, thus they would apply to non-Jewish Christians. Of course none of this is understandable from a pov perspective, only when you step back and take a neutral historical perspective does it begin to make sense. If you insist that Christian Noahide Laws don't exist, then from your pov, they do not exist. That's the beauty of Platonic logic.

Dear 209.78.18.73, there are no Christian Noahide Laws. There are some laws mentioned in Acts 15, which seem to be Jewish laws meant for non-Jews, but they are not called Noahide laws, the non-Jews in question are not designated "Noahides", and so on. You can do with your Platonic logic anything you like, but not mangle terminology until it suits your point of view. The "neutral historical perspective" does not seem to be in agreement with you. JFW | T@lk  13:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've made no such claim; rather, I'm pointing out that there are no pre-20th century sources which refer to "Noahide laws". All you need to do to disprove that is to cite reputable sources which provide references to "Christian Noahide Laws". Jayjg (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The noun Noahide does appear to primarily refer to Judaic teaching and identification pertaining to legal requirement. Yet, secondarily there is also some Christian discussion of the original requirements of the Gentile Christians relating to Noachian law. The term "Noachian" is an adjective which modifies a noun as to time and/or understanding. Noachian time and/or understanding precedes the birth of Judah (or Yahudah), therefore it is an adjective that is not limited by Judaic, or Christian belief and/or understanding. There should be a separate article which disambiguates between Noachian and Noahide, and allows for NPOV articles that include all POV.--Kevin 04:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Kevin: show me one serious source that supports your assertions. Otherwise please do not post on this page. Jayjg and myself have requested numerous times that you support your ideas with evidence. All you have just done in your comment today is rehash the same comments you've been making since the beginning of this discussion, and I think we'd be going round in circles if I were to explain to you again the relevance of the original research policy here. JFW | T@lk  04:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a good article on the subject of early Christian adherence to Noachian law at www.haydid.org/spirit2.htm by Dr.Ron Moseley. He quotes several books and New Testament passages that support the view. David Flusser also has authored Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, in which he discusses observance of the Noachian commandments as incumbent on all God Fearing gentile converts to Primitive Christianity. Here is an excerpt of the article by Moseley:


 * These laws of Noah were basically the same as the spiritual principles listed in the New Testament for Gentile converts requiring them to love their neighbor, avoid sexual sins, pagan rites, idolatry, and to worship the one true God. This was the ruling of the early church leaders in Acts 15:28, 29 when they listed the Noachide Laws as the necessary things that were required of the Gentile converts. The earliest church was one body made up of believing Jews and believing Gentiles. They were united in the Messiah who broke down the wall of partition between them [Ephesians 2:14].. The Acts 15 decision was regarding Gentile converts who had embraced the one true God and His Messiah, and these necessary things were the only part of the 613 Jewish laws and traditions required of Gentile converts. Originally there were three Noachide Laws that were commonly summarized into a list of seven, and then often a shorter record of four categories as we see in Acts 15. In studying these we actually find some 66-67 biblical imperatives as off-shoots of these main categories that pertain to the Noachide system. These Gentiles were called by various names including; "Righteous Gentiles," "Proselytes of the Gate," and "God Fearers." Jewish law divides all non-Jews into three categories: (1) the Akkum, one who does not observe the Noachide laws; (2) the Ben Noah, one who does observe the Noachide laws; and (3) the Ger Toshab, one who, before Jewish courts, declares his intention of adhering to the Noachide laws, and is then permitted to reside in Palestine. While the Jews always kept the basic 613 Laws for obedience and identification as the "Chosen of God," the believing Gentiles had a different system of the same morals in the Noachide Laws. David Stern in his Jewish New Testament Translation says the New Testament is not actually a New Covenant, but the Law of God given through Jesus the Messiah to the Gentiles, like the original Law was given through Moses to the Jews, and that this is the actual meaning of Hebrews 8:6 concerning the term, better covenant.


 * The article concludes that the understanding and observance of Noachian precepts was the basis for Primitive Christianity.--Kevin 18:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Kevin, why has it taken you more than a week to come up with some basic sources? Moseley wrote the cited material in 1993, which is several decades after Lubavitch started popularising the Noahide Laws. The Flusser book he quotes is from 1988, and the Lichtenstein book is actually a Jewish source - it does not discuss this phenomenon in Christianity. So we have a small number of authors borrowing the Jewish term to refer to the Apostolic Constitutions. So what has happened is that Jewish terminology was applied to these laws after they gained popularity in the scientific and popular press. I find this a fairly poor reason to start a parallel page, as this phenomenon did not develop independently but in response to the Jewish "Seven Commandments". In what way do you disagree with my conclusions? Doesn't it make much more sense to say that "Christian writers in the 20th century found similarity between the Noahide Laws and the Apostolic Constitutions" with a reference to Moseley? I think this is the best way forward. JFW | T@lk  18:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Your claim that the Apostolic Constitutions are the Noahide Laws is incorrect, as far as I know, you are the only one making that claim, I can only assume for rhetorical purposes. The Apostolic Constitutions are an early Christian text, part of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, part of the Bible of the Ethiopian Orthodox. According to the Apostolic Constitutions 6.64: "Wherefore my sentence is, that we do not trouble those who from among the Gentiles turn unto God: but to charge them that they abstain from the pollutions of the Gentiles, and from what is sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; which laws were given to the ancients who lived before the law, under the law of nature, Enos, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Job, and if there be any other of the same sort." Thus, the Apostolic Constitutions are the earliest record of the use of the term "Laws of Noah" and the reference to Acts of the Apostles 15 is clear. These "Laws of Noah" were of significance to Christianity well before they were to Judaism, which as stated earlier, see above, would be obvious to anyone familar with the early history of Christianity.


 * But it doesn't single out Noah's laws, no? It just lists a couple of pre-Abrahamitic Biblical personages. And subsequent Christian literature does not refer to any body of laws as "Noahide Laws" until the 20th century, right? JFW | T@lk  20:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to be unreasonable JFW, this has not been my priority. Perhaps you are confusing my comments with some others unsigned above (for example the above with which I differ with his conclusion that the laws of Noah were insignificant to Judaism prior to Christianity). Regardless of the date of the sources, my purpose was merely to give support to my point that there are various authors who have discussed the evidence of Noachian instruction being the source of understanding for primitive Christian inclusion of Gentile converts. So you seem to be saying that Jewish writings can be documented to have occured previous to modern Christian references to Noachide Laws, or even Noachian precepts; does that mean that the terminology is owned by the originator. These were translations from the Aramaic Tasefta source. I would think the English term Noachian, referring to the era of Noah does not have to be solely possessed as Jewish terminology. Apostolic Constitutions, or Apostolic Decree as a reference is acceptable from Noahide Laws. It is just that the term Noahide is rather limited in scope, when approached from a Christian point of view. Noachian requirements of God fearing Gentiles seems more broad in approach in my POV. Many of the Christian authors use the term Noachian when referring to Primitive Christianity, and Noachide Laws when referring to Jewish parallels. That is a better approach from the Christian perspective.--Kevin 20:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

As all these authors are developing their terminology borrowing from the Jewish concept I am not inclined to change my mind here. If you can prove to me that any aspect of Christian law was called Noahide, Noachian or anything similar by notable Christian writers prior it the popularisation of the concept by Jewish writers will I be anywhere close to conceding. Otherwise, you are invited to change the Christian adoption paragraph according to our discussion above. JFW | T@lk  20:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

created another fork to confuse the issues. Noachian Covenant now redirects here. The links can be removed. Please provide evidence that any writer uses the term "Noachian Covenant" in any context. This is getting tiresome. JFW | T@lk  03:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

On the basis of the limited evidence that Kevin has given us I have now removed most speculative material from the section in question. Most of it was speculative, unsourced and hence likely to be original research. I will repeat my assertion that until the 20th century few Christians cared for the Jewish concept of "Noahide Laws", and all else is historical revisionism of doubtful significance. JFW | T@lk  03:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Question
"the ... principles ... upon which our great Nation was founded ... known as the Seven Noahide Laws ... without these ... civilization stands in serious peril of ... chaos ... Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991 ... in tribute to this great spiritual leader ... his ninetieth year will ... turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws" Sure do seem to be a bunch of "..."s in this quote. "the...principles...upon which our great Nation was founded...known as the Seven Noahide Laws..." Is this accurate and contextual? --Yodamace1 20:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * After you read the entire quote it hardly makes more sense... It's lip service to an influential constituency, something like the Jewish equivalent of the Christian right. Actually, many people, including many observant Jews, would find the statement as goofy, out of kilter, false, or any combination thereof. elpincha 13:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Another Question
In modern Hebrew, the term 'gilui arayot' refers to incest alone. In Biblical Hebrew, besides incest, it also referred to a woman having sex with a man who is not her husband, regardless of relation. However, none of these definitions imply a generic rule of sexual morality. Where did the broadening of the definition to include other supposed-sexually immoral acts come from? If this isn't a mistake, it needs to be sourced. --Telecart 21:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Gilui Arayot both in the modern and biblical useage refers to all types of sexual imorality. The source is the Mishneh Torah.  Accoriding to many opinions the rules in the bible are stricter than those for a non-jew.  Jon513 21:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * For the statements of "Not to crossbreed animals" and "No castration" the sourse is stated as Shmuel ben Hophni Gaon. Jon513 22:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Rabbi Aaron Lichtenstein
The Rabbi Aaron Lichtenstein who wrote a book about Noahide Laws is NOT the same Rabbi Dr. Aaron Lichtenstein, the Rosh yeshiva of Yeshivat Har Etzion. I think he might be a first cousin. Jon513 21:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

accurecy
The ip address 203.214.133.79 believes that the section Christianity "need[s] to be rewritten with more accurecy". Jon513 17:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Judaism
The article belongs in the Judaism section. It has nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity is idolatry according to the Noachide Laws. Keep this article under Judaism. This article shouldn't have anything to do with Jewish-Christian "dialogue."

The key word here is JEWISH-Christian. You are eliminating the Jewish bit and keeping the Christian part

The article belongs in the "Judaism" section. It has nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity is idolatry according to the Noachide Laws. Keep this article under Judaism. This article shouldn't have anything to do with Jewish-Christian "dialogue." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.243.60.3 (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

External links II
The external links on this page has gotten out of hand. Looking at the links, very few of them met the criteria of External links and should be removed. I have already tried to removed many of these sites in the past and they seem to just be constantly put back in. I don't have any inclination in edit waring with such people. Jon513 19:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Are the above the reason why a link that I posted does not appear? I posted http://sagavyah.tripod.com [The Path of Abraham / Biblical Monotheism] which is the only site I have seen so far which collects the SOURCES for the Noachide Laws from the Mishneh Torah.  The Mishneh Torah is the only historical codification of Jewish law which also codifies the Noahide Laws, though of course there are some disagreements among poskim about a few specific details of the Noahide Laws.  Nonetheless, ANYONE who is somewhat familiar with Orthodox Judaism and the Noahide laws should know that Maimonidies Mishneh Torah is the main AUTHORITATIVE source for these laws in Jewish history, aside from the Talmud itself.  Could someone please explain to me why the site I mentioned above does not appear?  If it's a matter of the Mishneh Torah not being an authoritative source on the Noahide Laws, then I don't know what is.  Additionally, of all the websites I've seen on the topic of the Noahide Laws, I do not know any other site which goes into detail about the Noahide Laws while all the time making clear distinction between the Noahide Laws themselves, as codified from the Talmud, and the various interpretations and applications of these laws which various individuals have made over time.  Thanks.   -  Mikhael

Cleanup
I find the layout of this article to be too inclusive of different noahide issues. Please note, I agree that the content is good, I am acting in good faith.


 * 1) The Seven Laws of Noah should have its own article and be the main article on the topic having noahide laws merged with it.
 * 2) B'nei Noah has also been tagged for cleanup, so I think perhaps noahide could be its new title, replacing the hebrew title.
 * 3) There should be a noahide template as apposed to the present Judaism one.

The main point is that the Seven Laws of Noah will only be about the laws, the origin and their subdividions. All else will have its own article. Chavatshimshon 06:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the sort of thing that editors can do when they are being "bold" here in wikipedia. It does seem like a bit of work to me, and that it requires far more knowledge of this area than I have. I might go and develop the footnotes section a bit in the meantime, though. - Kukini 01:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Chavatshimshon, sorry I'm late to the party. I guess you noticed my discussion of the Noahide Laws in the Clementine literature, which are believed to be of Jewish-Christian origin. How can I help with the cleanup? Ovadyah 02:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above statement that this article should be only about Noahide Laws and not Noahide groups. I would start by putting the Recent Developments and Other Religions sections in an archive to separate this material from the main page.  There may be some useful material in there that can be retrieved later.


 * With respect to the main topic, it reads too much like an editorial. It's as if someone looked up the Laws in the Talmud and provided a commentary on what they mean.  Interesting reading, but it's also original research.  It would be better to look at the history of the Noahide Laws and report on what scholars or historical figures think they mean.


 * The current section on subdividing the laws is a list of lists. All this material needs to be put in summary style.


 * To make this article truly NPOV, I would bring together the versions of the Noahide Laws from the Talmud, Acts 15, and the Clementines, then report on scholarly discussions of what is the same and what is different. What are the remaining contentious issues, if any, about which scholars can't agree?  If these Laws can be retrieved from the Mishnah, that would be preferable, since the Talmud is much later than the other sources. Ovadyah 14:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. As Noahide Law is first and foremost a topic in Jewish law (halakha), the talmud and its commentaries should be presented as mainstream.  Acts 15 and Celmentines is a separate subject which some equate with Noahide Law and others do not. While the talmud and its commentaries cannot be easily read by everyone it is in no way original research. It is standard practice in all topics of Jewish law and rituals to use the original talmudic source, not scholarly sources, to quote Jewish laws. Jon513 22:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It could be split: Noahide Laws (Judaism) and Noahide Laws (Christianity), there are plenty of other similar precidents. The earliest reference is Jubilees 7:20-33 (2nd century BCE) which is both Jewish apocrypha and Christian scripture (Ethiopian Orthodox). 75.14.208.206 00:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What evidence is there that a notable body of Christianity calls its rules of behavior for non-Jewish converts "Noahide laws"? So far as the sources that have been provided are concerned, the idea that the two concepts are the same, or that the Jewish phrase is appropriate for the Christian concept, seems to be entirely original research. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There is plenty of WP:RS, see Council of Jerusalem. Also, "Noahide Law" is an English phrase, not a Jewish phrase. 75.14.223.198 19:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Folks, I was asked to come here to help, not pour more gas on the fire, so please assume I am acting in good faith. A lot of sharp disagreements are taking place on this talk page. Imho, some disagreement is healthy, and it will make for a better article. Don't let it degrade into incivility. (See the Nazarene archives for how bad it can be.)

First of all, our job as editors is to report the facts as we find them in credible sources. Stating that the Noahide Laws are Jewish halakah, and therefore the mainstream opinion, is original research. Citing a review article or scholarly publication that says so is reporting the evidence. The Talmud is an appropriate source for listing the Noahide Laws. An editor's interpretation of what the Noahide Laws mean based on the Talmud is religious commentary, and therefore, original research. I would say the same for any commentary about Acts 15 or the Clementines. Similarly, stating that Acts 15 and the Clementines are a separate subject is an opinion. Fine for the talk page, not fine for the article. A published source that reaches that conclusion is fine for the article. An opposing view from a published source that says they all derive from the same source document is also fine, and including that view would make for an even better article. Follow the evidence. Ovadyah 20:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, it is very good we are discussing this. The article will be cleaned up in accords to the very source of the Noahide Laws themselves which is the Talmud. Citing Council of Jerusalem as source for the said idea would not be in line with Citing Wikipedia, where as citing the Talmud is in line with Citing sources. The one thing I would like us to establish is that this article should detail the laws and shortened in the general. In the process we could create a bunch of other articles. FrummerThanThou 10:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with this course of action. There is so much good material here already, it should not be that difficult.  I would start by archiving material that is outside the scope of this article, such as Noahide groups.  This will end up in a separate article.  Let's agree on the outline of the article for the remaining material.  For example, I would like to see a History section.  JFW already mentioned some useful historical references in the archives.  We should also agree on how to disagree if possible.  Minority views based on verifiable sources will make for a better article. Ovadyah 15:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am going to proceed with the cleanup by creating an archive on the talk page for Noahide Groups and move the Recent Developments and Other Religions as Noahide sections into it, as I stated previously. Nothing will be lost. We need to narrow the scope of the article and focus on the essentials. Ovadyah 01:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I would not waste time right now on the Subdividing the Seven Laws section. This all needs to be rewritten in summary style. Let's work on the lead section and the Intro/Backgound and Seven Laws sections first. Ovadyah 01:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I created an External Links section in the archive. Someone, please move most of these links to the archive, and only keep the links that are essential for the Noahide Laws. Ovadyah 01:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I moved all of the links to the Noahide Groups archive. This section was like free advertising for every Noahide group under the sun.  Move back only those links that deal specifically with the Noahide Laws themselves. Ovadyah 18:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Demolition of the article
I'm really not quite sure why a large amount of fairly high-quality content has been removed on 12 Dec. Specifically, the move for a Sanhedrin and the role of other religions were covered in a fairly even-handed manner. There is no indication that sufficient consensus was achieved before this removal. I have reintroduced said material. JFW | T@lk  23:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason JFW, was to remove material that was more relevant to Noahide Groups than Noahide Laws. It had nothing to do with POV, just topics to be included in another article.  I'm fine with your revert because I was just trying to simplify the process.  Just keep in mind that your unilateral actions are not the definition of "consensus" either. Ovadyah 03:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus? Please read WP:CON before labelling my actions as unilateral. Noahide Groups is not an article and I dispute the need for its creation. I think this article is a good container article for all things Noahide, and the title is quite good (as without Noahide Laws there is no suitable definition for Noahide). JFW | T@lk  16:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * JFW, I'm here to help, not to pick a fight. Several people have suggested a Noahide Groups article.  I'm assuming good faith on your part, but this suggestion cannot be summarily dismissed (like you just did) without discussion.  That explains why you reverted my move of the Noahide Groups material. Ovadyah 22:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed
I added requests for citations in the lead section. Better to add them as you introduce new material than scramble at the end to find all the sources. Right now, the article has a mix of reference tags and inline citations. It's better style to go all one way or the other. Personally, I think ref tags are less intrusive to the flow of the article. Ovadyah 15:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that reference tags are better, but most relevant literature seems to use inline. I've added the relevant ones. Bear in mind that the intro is meant to summarise the article's content in news style. Therefore, if a point is being backed up with more detailed references further down in the article it is probably not necessary to give all the references in the intro - this would disrupt formatting and ease of reading. JFW | T@lk  16:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine for now. Maybe not fine later for GA and FA.  The lead should be a self-contained summary, including references.  It will all shake out during peer review. Ovadyah 22:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Article content disputed
A quick look at the intro suggests serious POV and reliability problems. One comparitively minor problem is representing certain Orthodox beliefs as being the beliefs of all of Judaism. A much more serious problem is representing the B'nei Noah, a tiny group which is only borderline notable, as being something substantial. For example, I deleted the sentence "Adherents are often called B'nei Noah (Children of Noah) or Noahides and may often congregate in Jewish synagogues". While I agree the B'nei Noah are (barely) notable enough to get an article, the reality is almost nobody has heard of them, and they're almost never found congregating tin Jewish synagogues -- repeated use of the word "often" gives a tiny group an appearence of common-ness that it just doesnt' have. The article seems to have a number of problems of this sort. Article needs rewriting to focus on its topic -- the 7 Laws of Noah as articulated in Orthodox Judaism -- with a tiny mention at the end that there is a small group of people interested in doing this. It also needs to conform to WP:NPOV and WP:OR in places. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The intro was rewritten almost completely by, who has been pushing this particular POV for quite some time. The truth is that the 7NL are a traditional Jewish concept, and that in the last few decades small groups of non-Jews have discovered that it provides a belief framework that is compatible with Judaism but does not require conversion. There has been much push from Lubavitch, e.g. the Public Law thing was passed mentioning the Rebbe specifically, and there have been groups who are not just Jewish gentiles but Hasidic gentiles!The article needs to reflect the above.
 * Shira, I feel you should avoid NPOV/totallydisputed tags. Please review the content first, and use tags only if no conclusion can be reached. JFW | T@lk  19:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's completely fair to apply an NPOV tag first and then remove it after the disagreement has been resolved. A dispute of neutrality should never be summarily deleted.  There is enough evidence of a dispute to warrant a discussion, therefore, I am reapplying the NPOV tag.  Keep the discussion going.  A revert without further discussion may mean we need a trip to RFC. Ovadyah 22:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * After further reflection, I agree with Shira's point about the B'nei Noah. This small group should not be mentioned in the lead of the article.  It merits a sentence or two, that's it, maybe with a link to another article.  I reiterate Shira's main point: "Article needs rewriting to focus on its topic -- the 7 Laws of Noah as articulated in Orthodox Judaism".  Contrasting or dissenting views are fine, but they should be developed in relation to the main topic.  The article has problems with WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Ovadyah 23:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ovadyah and Shira for participating and contributing. I felt this article's lead needed a rewrite and think I did a more or less adequate job. I'm unsure as to what exactly the point is regards denominations other than the Orthodox Judaism having a take on Noahide law and and how it is expounded in the Talmud. Is anyone here also concerned with what other Jewish denominations think about Korban Pesach, Loans and interest in Judaism or the intricate halachic details of Shomer chinam or sachar? In Google, searches for "Noahide" - "Reform" or "Conservative" will not show results contending the Orthodox community's fostering a Noahide Community, or further that a non-Jew in Jewish law, has any other means to attain paradise. We can't change a fact we don't like. This is simply what is maintained in Jewish law and is thus included asuch in almost every encyclopedia (i have Britannica and everyman's). As for a mention of the community in the LEAD, please also see Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism, I think it would fall short of consistency not to mention them even in their small number. I am reverting some omissions made from the LEAD and hope we can establish together whether certain statements curtail the WP:NPOV and WP:OR policies before we make rash changes. Cheers. frummer 04:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also about the fact that Rambam states belief in bodily Resurrection as a tenet as apposed to belief in "Paradise". Paradise may be wrong but in Hebrew Rambam is trying to define the word "olam Haba" I will therefore rephrase "Paradise" with "world to come" thought i hoped to avoid that since Rambam's view was contended by most authorities including most strong the Gra. frummer 04:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Clementine Homilies
In the Clementine Homilies chp. 7.4 are part of the Proclamations of Peter that sound much like the Noahide Laws:

"And the things which are well-pleasing to God are these:
 * to pray to Him, to ask from Him, recognising that He is the giver of all things, and gives with discriminating law;
 * to abstain from the table of devils, not to taste dead flesh, not to touch blood; to be washed from all pollution;

and the rest in one word,-- as the God-fearing Jews have heard, do you also hear, and be of one mind in many bodies; let each man be minded to do to his neighbour those good things he wishes for himself.

"And you may all find out what is good, by holding some such conversation as the following with yourselves:
 * You would not like to be murdered; do not murder another man: you would not like your wife to be seduced by another; do not you commit adultery: you would not like any of your things to be stolen from you; steal nothing from another.

The Homilies date from the 3rd or 4th century. Ovadyah 04:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Ovadya, I'm sure the "Proclamations of Peter" is an interesting read but unfortunately it is irrelevant to the Noahide Laws. Please read more about the origin of the Noahide Laws so as to understand that later Christian sources eluding to similar principals remain irrelevant to construcing more sources and detail. Cheers. frummer 04:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Frummer, while these are not the Noahide Laws as defined in the Talmud, they clearly have some relationship. Since the Homilies are stridently anti-Pauline, I don't consider them to be they are not "Christian" in the way we typically think of Christianity.  They are much closer to the NL than Acts 15 and may derive from a common source or oral tradition. Ovadyah 04:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe I can find a place for this under Christian Adherence, although any adherence to these laws would be historical at best from a Christian perspective. Ovadyah 05:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think these "don't consider them to be Christian" laws which you say may be similar to the Noahide Laws but which according to Judaism have no connection may be deserving of an article themselves, if you have primary sources backing up the title you give them. But from you say they are passing principles mentioned somewhere. frummer 07:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a high priority for the article. If I find a source later I will consider adding it.  Right now, the article has bigger problems. Ovadyah 17:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A comment on Acts 15
I came across an article that argues, persuasively imho, that Acts 15 and the Noahide Laws do not share a common source. It also discusses an alternative theory that the requirements of Acts 15 were derived from Leviticus 17-18. Both theories have their problems, and the article debunks them in detail. The article concludes that all four of the prohibitions involve things associated with pagan cults. Almost lost in the footnotes is the observation that the Western text of Acts 15 has only three prohibitions, which agree with Rabbinic traditions about the three primary sins of the Gentiles - idolatry, shedding of blood, and immorality. Interesting reading. :) Ovadyah 04:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert
As it is right now there are only two sentences mentioning Noahides. They are from "advertisements".


 * One in the lead paragraph, saying adherents are often called Noahides, which is well known fact, in fact there are more than 25.000 thousands hits for "Noahides" and "Noachides" in Google. It also mentions they "network" in shulls, since they are not an independent religion that's what they do.
 * The second sentence is in the third paragraph, which mentions they congregate less since they're not a proper organised religion compared to other current ones.

I have reinserted the Six Laws of Adam link. They are mentioned in primary sources such as the Talmud, and Yad Hachasaka of the Rambam. Please discuss. frummer 07:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, the expanded summary is better. A summary in the lead section should be able to stand on its own and tell a complete story.  An unresolved issue is whether to include Noahide Groups within an article on Noahide Laws.  JFW seems to feel pretty strongly that they should be (correct me if I'm wrong), while other editors have said the article should focus on the laws themselves.  Until this issue is resolved, it will be hard to make progress.  I don't have a stake in this, and I am willing to mediate if needed, but by all means, continue to discuss it. Ovadyah 17:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You would indeed be right that the article shouldn't read like an advert for such a small group, which is why they only get two mentions in the Lead. I think they are minimal and we should focus on other issues if this is to be a good article. Right now im working on getting sources for those three important fact tags. frummer 06:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The lead looks good to me, Frummer, although I'm not one of the editors with big issues. You will be glad later that you spent the extra time tracking down citations. As a whole, the article is lacking in citations of verifiable sources.  An editors' exegesis of the Tanakh and Talmud is not a legitimate source.  One of the biggest reasons for revert wars is people throwing opinions back and forth.  It could all be avoided by just stating the facts as they appear in verifiable sources.  Keep up the good work. Ovadyah 20:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

observing laws for Jews
The article says:
 * Furthermore it is actually forbidden by the Torah for non-Jews on whom the Noahide Laws are still binding, to elevate their observance to the Jewish mitzvot. This contradicts the Rambam, who writes clearly that non-jews may observe certain Mitzvot.

Could whoever posted this quote the exact source--not just the book's name but the author, date published, and page no. of this quote. If this info. is not provided, I think this phrase ought to be removed. Yehoishophot Oliver 16:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that this contradicts the Rambam is completely right. You can find what Rambam wrote about non-Jews who keep the Noahide laws being allowed to keep Jewish commandments as well in Hilkhoth Melakhim u'Milhhemothehem 10:11-13 [9-10 in inaccurate texts]  This book of halakha is part of Sefer Shoftim in the Mishneh Torah of the Rambam. I pointed out this very thing on my website: http://sagavyah.tripod.com/id68.html

It is true that the non-Jew remains prohibited from FULLY keep the Torah as a Jew, but the limitation itself is very limited. I know that either the Shulhhan Arukh, or some other popular (and latter) work of halakha adds to the prohibition that they can not wear tefillin. A Jew is prohibited to help idolators appear as Jews, such as to wear tzitzit. A non-Jew who keeps the Noahide laws is not considered an idolator in Jewish law. There are MANY distinctions between the two types of non-Jews.

Yosef Omedyashar 10:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Islam
The absurd claim is made here that Maimonides holds that "Islam is a Noahide religion." This is nonsense, if it means to imply that observance of Islam is permitted for non-Jews. It's not as it violates his clear prohibition of inventing a new religion:
 * The general principle is that we do not allow them to make new religious rituals and to make Mitzvot for themselves based on their own decisions. Rather, they may either become a righteous convert and accept all the Mitzvot; or stand fast in their laws [the Noahide Code] without adding or detracting from them. Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings, 10:9.

All that Maimonides says is that non-Jews do not technically violate the prohibition of idolatry be following Islam. But they do violate the above prohinition and therefore it is simply incorrect to imply otherwise. I am unaware of any statement of the Ran (Rabeinu Nisim) on this matter, but if whoever posted it would like to enlighten me, I'd appreciate it. In the meantime I've removed it because the whole concept is absurd, aside from the fact that it's unsourced. Yehoishophot Oliver 18:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Maimonides never says that Islam violates the prohibition of inventing a new religion. Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings, chapters 8,9 and 10 which talk about Noahide law, never mentions the word Islam. But then again he doesn't say that Islam qualifies as a Noahide religion either. What he does say is that Islam does not violating the prohibition of idolatry (Maimonides, Responsa II, 293., Letter to Obadiah). --85.250.206.228 20:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So what that they don't mention Islam?! The forbid creating a new religion, and therefore it's false and misleading to suggest that Maimonides was okay with Islam and considered it an "acceptable Noahide religion. Yehoishophot Oliver 21:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You must bring a source that specifically says what you are saying, other your comment is WP:OR and disallowed in wikipedia. --89.138.17.199 08:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you for real? Maimonides specifically says that inventing religious practices is forbidden for gentiles, and you expect the words "according to Maimonides, Islam is a Noahide religion" when Islam is clearly an invented religious practice from the perspective of Orthodox Judaism to be left unedited?! That's aside from the fact that no source was adduced anyway for the preposterous claim that "Islam is a Noahide religion".

As for the answer to Reb Ovadya the Ger, all it says there is that Islam is not idolatry for non-Jews! Idolatry is only ONE of the Noahide laws. It does not therefore follow that Islam is acceptable for non-Jews, when Maimonides there simply doesn't address the acceptability of Islam vis a vis the other Noahide laws. Yehoishophot Oliver 12:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Christianity
I have edited this section. The former version implied that if Christianity is not considered idolatrous as it is shituf and that is not forbidden for non-Jews, this necessarily implies that Christianity is acceptable for non-Jews. This is simply false. There are other aspects of Christianity that can, and, many argue, do constitute violation of the Noahide laws. In any case, the fact that it is proven that there is a controversy over the specific prohibition of idolatry in no way proves the attitude of Judaism to Christianity in terms of other aspects of the Noahide Code. This distortion (intended or not) is identical to that of the section on Islam whose editing I have justified above. Yehoishophot Oliver 10:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This whole section needs sources, and could arguably be blanked until it has them. Basejumper 13:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I just took out the unsourced part, it should be added if there is a source. TO put in an article that some Jewish opinions regard Christians as idol worshipers definitely needs sourced quite strongly. Basejumper 13:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Almost all Jewish opinions consider Christianity idol worship. Some however rule that shittuf (lit. "association") - that is attaching another entity to God and worshiping them together- is only forbidden as idol worship for Jews, but not for gentiles. see here for a small summary here for a long discussion, [more on the same page, also on that page. [[User:Jon513|Jon513]] 12:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for showing me these, but they seem to indicate it is idolatry for Jews, but permissbale for non-Jews. ALso, the first one indicates that according to the Satmar Rav Zionism is idol worship. I hope you are not suggesting that we add that Zionism is a violation of the 7 Noahide laws. Basejumper 17:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Tanach vs Mishna
I by no means claim to be a scholar in Noahide Laws or biblical studies. Looking through the article though, I do not feel that there is a clear distinction between the things that are in the Jewish Bible (the Tanach) and the Talmud. It seems like a lot of the claims do not come from the Tanach (or at least, I can't find them). Looking at Genesis 9:4-6, for example, which is the first source, I can only find three of the seven laws explicitly stated. Like I said, I'm not very familiar with all this, but it seems to me like it should at the very least clarified by someone who knows what they are doing. As some of the earlier comments also said, there are also a lot of claims about what is "according to Judiasm" which do not apply to all practiced and accepted forms of Judaism. I think perhaps this is a similar thing that needs to be clarified. If the Tanach does in fact make explicate statement to the Noahide Laws (all seven that is), perhaps those sections should be added to the refrences. Like I said, I'm not really very qualified to be changing or clarifying any of this, but as I do stand, I am confused. Thanks! Crito2161 02:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Tanach includes the books of "Written Torah" - given by God to Moses, then put into text. Talmud is the "Oral Torah" - said to be first spoken by Moses to his people, then passed through generations of tradition-keepers, eventually put into text as well. Both Tanach and Talmud, with their commentaries, are binding the Orthodox Jews (and Noahides). Someone please correct me if I am saying wrong. TRakowski 13:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A difficulty here is that traditional Jewish discourse often uses "Biblical" as a translation of "D'oreita," a phrase that refers to material regarded as "from Sinai", whether or not it appears in the Bible. For example Artscroll's Schottenstein Edition of the Talmud routinely calls laws believed to be orally transmitted from Sinai "Biblical" whether they appear in the Tanakh or not, and routinely calls laws that appear in the latter portions of the Tanakh "Rabbinic" because they are believed to have been instuted after Moses. I would agree, however, that portions of the article as it stands present a Haredi Judaism point of view as being, not only "Judaism", but as fact. --Shirahadasha 16:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

References to torah forbidding gentiles
This appears twice, once in the introduction and once under background, stating that gentiles are forbidden from carrying out certain mitzvot (commandments). In the introduction, the reference is to Talmud Baveli and is vague enough that I couldn't follow it. In the second case, it's to a Jewish Encyclopedia entry that has a lot more gray than the absolute proscription implied. I feel these statements should either be backed up more clearly or, better yet, removed, as they are unnecessarily inflammatory. --GUSwim 04:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What would you like it to be backed up with? It is also in the mishneh torah (shofitm, melachim, 10:11-12) link to hebrew. I think I read something on this topic in Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society.  Jon513 11:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, the reference to Shoftim, Melachim is something I can follow. I still think that those phrases should be deleted, though. I don't think they contribute to what is otherwise a positive message. Judaism evolves with the times. Statements like that are taken by non-Jews as the presumptuousness and exclusiveness of Judaism. Do you think the article loses anything by removing the (in my opinion offending) phrases? GUSwim 21:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * censoring information because you want a "positive message" is exactly what POV is about. Judaism contain aspects of both exclusiveness and universalism, with modern rabbinical authorities differing on where the balance lies. Jon513 10:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this relevant to the article's subject? How? Best, --Shirahadasha 13:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is about Judaism rules and regulation for gentiles! Of course it is relavant. The quote from the article is:
 * Judaism holds that gentiles (or goyim "non-Jews [literally 'Nations']") are not only not obligated to adhere to all the laws of the Torah (indeed, they are forbidden to fulfill some laws, such as the keeping of the Jewish Sabbath in the exact same manner as Israel [8])
 * .Jon513 14:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But the article is about the Seven Laws of Noah; the relevant part is that gentiles aren't obligated to perform all 613 mitzvot, not that they're forbidden from performing them. And as you acknowledge, rabbinical authorities differ on where the balance lies. So the simplistic statement would require more information and analysis that's outside the scope of this article. My point is one of relevance, not of POV. I brought up the distastefulness only as an argument for the importance of considering this (what is actually otherwise a minor part of the article), not as (sole) motivation for changing it. And including it in an article about Seven Laws of Noah is in and of itself POV. GUSwim 19:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * To say that gentiles are not obligated in most of the 613 mitzvot would be misleading because it implies that they are permitted or even encouraged to do them; I cannot imagine that you would want the article to misinform its readers. As for relevances, to exclude all halakha regarding Gentiles that is not strictly the "seven laws of noah" can only be justified as a matter of semantics disconnected with reality. It is clear to me that if someone made an article entitled Judaism Law regarding Gentile besides the Seven Laws of Noah it would be brought to AFD immediately and the consensus would be to merge it here.  There is also discussion by the Poskim on what extent Gentiles are obligated in respecting parents, yet no one labels it one of the "seven Law"; should this also be excluded from the article.  Or perhaps we should rename it to Jewish rules and regulation regrading Gentiles, but I don't think that it would do much in making the subject matter clearer, and would probably have just the opposite effect.  I do not think it is a far stretch of the imagination to say that this article should include all halakha directed to gentiles.  You will find that most books on the topic take a similar approach and freely include topic not strictly covered by the 7 laws.  Jon513 22:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to chime in on the discussion above, but I do have an observation that may be somewhat on point to the general subject. When the article says "It is actually forbidden by the Talmud for non-Jews on whom the Noahide Laws are still binding, to elevate their observance to the Torah's mitzvot as the Jews do", I don't understand it. I have a grasp of all the words, but the meaning of the sentence eludes me -- and the citation isn't helpful to me. I'm not qualified to edit or to say what is relevant to this topic or not, but I believe that whatever is included should be presented in a clear manner. Sweet byrd (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

75.21.116.175 (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope I can clarify this with what I, in all humility, understand about the basics of the query--and it is good as a point about this entire article, which is biased and innacurate. Gentiles are absolutely forbidden to adhere to Jewish mitzvot (commandments) because they were given to the Jewish people only. There are very specific mitzvot that a Righteous Gentile may never do: wear the phylacteries, wear the tallis, hang mezuzot on/in the home, grow the sidelocks, observe Sabbath exactly as the Jewish people observe, and generally observing holy days as Jews do. These are especially forbidden to Gentiles and you can see why: so that no one may mistake a Gentile for a Jew, which would be fraud. That is the cold, straightforward explanation. Hope it helps and I didn't offend anybody!

Freemasonry and Seven Laws
I wonder if it would be useful for readers if this was mentioned. A brief quotation: In the Krause MS, under the head of "the Laws or Obligations laid before his brother Masons by Prince Edwin," we find the following article .... 'The first obligation is that you shall sincerely honor God and obey the laws of the Noachites....'" http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/mackeyfr.html It would require an expert in the field, if admitted. 142.68.44.156 00:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a good discussion of this point http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/anti-masonry08.html (see Are freemasons really Noahides?) and a discussion of the point from a rabbinic point of view at the end of the page http://en.wikinoah.org/index.php/Freemasonry_and_Noahide_Law --Ibn nuh 07:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Six Laws
"The Noahide Laws were predated by six laws given to Adam in the Garden of Eden."

Can anyone name these six laws ?

Siyac 15:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It means all the seven laws except for tearing off flesh from a living animal, which was first commanded to Noah. That's when the seven laws altogether became known as the seven Noahide laws. Yehoishophot Oliver 14:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That should be mentioned in the article, and another article about the commandments and laws of Adam/Eve should be built then. 70.51.10.38 (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What counts as "God"?
I'd find it helpful if someone could elaborate on what it means to not be Jewish, but to recognize God and acknowledge him as the source of the seven laws. I understand that the Jews are not just people who believe in their god, but ones who have a special relationship with him. But does that mean that non-Jews are still expected to worship the same god as the Jews (in the sense of believing that the Jews are correct in their theology and cosmology), or would any monotheistic religion qualify as long as it upheld these laws and saw its god as their originator? Inhumandecency 02:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is quite clear that according to Maimonides' definitive ruling, not disputed by any other authorities, non-Jews are expected to adopt the beliefs of Judaism (without converting) in order to be fully observant of their laws:

"[He is considered a Pious Gentile] only when he accepts them [the Noahide laws] and fulfills them because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them in the Torah and informed us [the Jewish people] via Moses, our teacher, that even previously [i.e., before the Giving of the Torah at Sinai], Noah’s descendants were commanded to fulfill them. However, if he fulfils them out of intellectual conviction, he is not a resident alien, nor of the Pious among the Gentiles, nor of their wise men. (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings, 8:11)"
 * This is aside from the almost all the details of the Noahide Code are only discussed in the Oral Torah; thus, a non-Jew who does not accept the truth of that law lacks the theological base to connect with the laws for non-Jews. I hope this is clear. --Yehoishophot Oliver 06:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

75.21.116.175 (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What is clear here is that much of the Orthodox Jewish mainstream demands total obedience and acknowledgement by Gentiles wishing to observe even the tiniest TRUTH and LAW as expressed in the Torah Truth is, the Torah is not exclusive or the oldest source of these laws, they are just the only ones left with any true link back to original sources. My advice to the Gentile is to steer clear of the Jewish angle on these "Seven Laws", and study, and think for yourselves!


 * RevAntonio, you invoked your right to vanish. So why haven't you vanished?  You continue to troll this article, inserting your OR where it isn't appropriate. -Lisa (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The article's name has to be "seven laws of noah's sons" or "seven laws of bnei noah"
in hebrew: שבע מצוות בני נוח.

seven=שבע

mitsvot/laws=מצוות

sons (of)=בני

noah=נוח

please change it, it{s not the mitsvot of noah himself!!
 * Technically you're right, but that article name would be too wordy. I vote to keep it as is. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the fact that Lichtenstein named his book "The Seven Laws of Noah" is enough to say that it is a valid translation. Jon513 (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your translation, but we have no obligation to name it the same way as the Hebrew version. The Bible narratives shows the laws being given to Noah, so the current name is not inappropriate. The Hebrew name reflects the idea that the laws were intended for his descendants to keep as well... but this name does not appear in the Bible. --Dweller (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Here I give you what the bible said, the original one!!! וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת נֹחַ וְאֶת בָּנָיו; וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ, וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ. וּמוֹרַאֲכֶם וְחִתְּכֶם, יִהְיֶה, עַל כָּל חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ, וְעַל כָּל עוֹף הַשָּׁמָיִם; בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר תִּרְמֹשׂ הָאֲדָמָה וּבְכָל דְּגֵי הַיָּם, בְּיֶדְכֶם נִתָּנוּ. כָּל-רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא חַי, לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה: כְּיֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב, נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כֹּל. אַךְ בָּשָׂר, בְּנַפְשׁוֹ דָמוֹ לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ. וְאַךְ אֶת דִּמְכֶם לְנַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם אֶדְרֹשׁ, מִיַּד כָּל חַיָּה אֶדְרְשֶׁנּוּ; וּמִיַּד הָאָדָם, מִיַּד אִישׁ אָחִיו אֶדְרֹשׁ, אֶת נֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם. שֹׁפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם, בָּאָדָם דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ: כִּי בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים, עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם. וְאַתֶּם, פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ; שִׁרְצוּ בָאָרֶץ, וּרְבוּ בָהּ. and in free translation (the bolded part): "and god blessed Noah and his sons and He told them..." He talked to Noah too, but the 7 orders were to his sons. I don't think god gave Noah the order Prohibition of Idolatry in while Noah was 600 years old! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.250.44 (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Say, in the first place, there is NO LIST of "seven laws" that were "given" to Noach. This is easily gleaned if you read Genesis 9 and keep going to the story of Abraham's beginnings. So I can never tell where people get this from outside Jewish literature, which Gentiles have no obligation to acknowledge. Reading the Torah, it can be seen that Noach lived a certain way, and he was commanded to do a few certain things. That's all. Secondly, I have to agree, it is semantically wrong to title the page "Seven Laws of Noah". That should be obvious! It should read something like "The Seven Noachide Laws". Don't be so snitty and unkind about good suggestions!
 * RevAntonio (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Some regrouping
While reading through this article I noticed that some material had either been misplaced or was scattered through the article. I have taken the liberty of doing the following reorganizations. If they are of concern, please feel free to revert:

Egfrank (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) the section formerly labelled "Christian Criticism" contained no Christian criticism. The material was regrouped as follows:
 * 2) * two paragraphs on the use of the noahide laws to form a secular government were moved to their own section. I suspect there is additional citable material on this topic and hope this move will encourage another editor to find and develop this material
 * 3) * the paragraph on Noahide laws being seen as part of the 10 commandments was moved to a section titled Seven Laws of Noah. This describes the content of this paragraph more accurately than "Christian criticism".
 * 4) Seven Laws of Noah: A section was created to describe examples of public non-Jewish and secular endorsement of the Noahide laws. The two examples already provided (Druze and US Congress) were moved to that section. It is hoped that this grouping with encourage editors to find and add other notable examples of public recognition of this Jewish contribution to larger society.
 * 5) Seven Laws of Noah section - the section was renamed to Seven Laws of Noah so that a non-Jewish reader would more easily understand what questions were being answered by this section and how Ger Toshav fits into the idea of Noahide laws. A link to Ger Toshav as the main article was also added.
 * 6) Seven Laws of Noah - material discussing various issues relating to Christian observance/non-observance was moved to this section. This seemed to better characterize the material currently in the article and also reduced the prominence of this material.  Noahide laws apply to all non-Jews, not just Christians so it didn't make sense for more than a third of the top level sections to be devoted exclusively to Christian issues.  In addition,
 * 7) * material on Trinity copy edited to make it clearer that (a) rabbinic opinion of the Trinity depends on how they understand it (b) the rabbinic understandings of Trinity upon which some decisions are based only apply to a minority of Christian denominations
 * 8) * uncited material on Ten commandments vs. noahide laws replaced with cited material on Christian ethics. Christians don't explicitly take on the Noahide laws as a legal code but their ethics result in the same set of rules, with the possible exception of idolatry. Christians, of course, don't consider themselves idolators but some rabbinic authorities do.
 * 9) * I've removed a somewhat long off-topic section labelled "Christian adherence". I wouldn't normally dare to do such a large delete especially with cited material embedded but there are multiple problems with this section:
 * 10) ** some material seemed more appropriate in other locations within the current article - e.g. Emden's opinions on Christianity and claims that some Christian groups are non-Nicene creed believers. I've moved that to the appropriate section.
 * 11) ** Off topic. Upon reading the remaining material closely, it is really about the extent to which Christians felt themselves obligated to follow regular Jewish law and not just noahide law. There is a main article elsewhere that goes into great depths about how Christians understand biblical law and I've added that to the beginning of this section.
 * 12) ** WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. Some cited material appeared to have no connection other than it mentioned the word Noah and happened to be Christian. There was no cited material explaining how these had something to say about Christian noahide observance. In fact there wasn't even an uncited statement.
 * 13) ** WP:UNDUE: The Christian sects being described represent a very small segment of Christianity and their views should not be used to define christian observance as a whole. Their perspective is however noted in the revised text via a statement mentioning the fact of the disagreements, followed by extensive footnote discussing some of the details of those disagreements.
 * 14) ** The section was originally added to explain that some Christians do indeed follow the Noahide laws (see ) or at least percieve themselves as such. The new cited material I believe explains this in a manner that pertains to the vast majority of Christian denominations.  The old material applied only to a very small fraction of Christians.
 * I think there is a misunderstanding of the Congressional Act that makes references to the Noahide Laws. The act is not actually an explicit endorsement per se, as that would violate article 1 of the Bill of Rights.  What it was, is fact, was simply a recognition, and it was done so in tandem with the recognition of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Chabad-Lubavitch movement, in honor of his 90th birthday at that time.  What the bill actually enacted was the establishment of `Education Day, U.S.A.' on that day, and now known as Education and Sharing Day.  Some have tried to argue that this bill is an official endorsement by our legisative branch of the Noahide Laws, but legally, this is not actually so.  To better clarify the nature and motivation for the mention of the Noahide Laws in the bill, I have changed he wording to of the paragraph. Jemiljan (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.Jemiljan (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In Seven_Laws_of_Noah I'm uncertain of the causal relationship explicit in the statement that "Christians consider themselves monotheists and as such non-idolators." This section seems to describe well the difficulties of the Trinity, but seems not to touch on more–if I may–obvious forms of potential idolatry, like Orthodox icons. I'm not making a judgement on whether it is idolatry or not; I just think that it might be discussed.

Additionally, making a sweeping claim for a group of people would do well with a citation, even if it seems obvious.

Trinity and idolatry
In Seven_Laws_of_Noah I'm uncertain of the causal relationship explicit in the statement that "Christians consider themselves monotheists and as such non-idolators." This section seems to describe well the difficulties of the Trinity, but seems not to touch on more–if I may–obvious forms of potential idolatry, like Orthodox icons. I'm not making a judgement on whether it is idolatry or not; I just think that it might be discussed.

Additionally, making a sweeping claim for a group of people would do well with a citation, even if it seems obvious. --Msanford (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This whole section seems very problematic. The rabbinic view doesn't mention the Noahide aspect. And the Christian counter-argument on shituf, seems rather a stretch at this point from the article topic. Plus, there are no reliable sources cited for claims like "Most Christians reject a shittuf definition of the Trinity." (Consider that most Christians haven't any idea of shittuf, this sounds like WP:OR.) I'd knock out this section by giving it a summary sentence or so to the Shittuf or related article(s). HG | Talk 04:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Simply a mistake, I suppose
Tractate Sanhedrin 56a/b, quoting Tosefta Sanhedrin 9:4. Never Gemara can quote Tosefta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.223.61.58 (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nonsense: happens all over the place. It treats the Tosefta like any Beraita. JFW | T@lk  21:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe the IP wants more precision, like Sanh ..., quoting a baraita found in Tosefta.... After all, it's not clear quite that the Talmud writers had a version of "our" Tosefta. HG | Talk 04:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And I do also highly recommend you...
To actually take a look at Bava Kamma 38a (also spelled as Baba Kamma). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.223.61.58 (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Because... JFW | T@lk  21:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Shmuel ben Hophni's 30
There seems to be a lot of continuing disagreement and editing about what should go in this section and the current version has 32. For consistency sake we should probably at least get the number right. There's not much online content that I can find (I was disturbed to find a link to my own talk page on the 4th page of google results). but the best online sources I can find at the moment are:
 * http://www.surferscentralsynagoguegoldcoast.com/mitzfot-laws.html
 * http://www.milechai.com/judaism/bnai-noach.html

Although I cant vouch for either pages accuracy, they do at least appear to use different wording for the same concepts. I will try to look at the original source at somepoint, but in the meantime if anyone else can find anything better online it would be greatly appreciated. Here is what the better of the sites lists however:
 * 1) The singularity of G-d (That is, to believe in G-d)
 * 2) No idolatry
 * 3) No blasphemy
 * 4) To pray
 * 5) No false oaths
 * 6) No suicide
 * 7) No murder
 * 8) No adultery
 * 9) Formal marriages via bride price & marriage gifts
 * 10) No incest with a sister
 * 11) No homosexuality
 * 12) No bestiality
 * 13) No castration
 * 14) Not to eat an animal that died naturally
 * 15) Not to eat a limb of a living creature
 * 16) Not to eat or drink blood
 * 17) Not to crossbreed animals
 * 18) [Justice]
 * 19) To offer ritual sacrifices
 * 20) No theft
 * 21) To respect father & mother
 * 22) No Molech worship
 * 23) No witchcraft
 * 24) No soothsayers
 * 25) No conjurers
 * 26) No sorcerers
 * 27) No ghost meeting
 * 28) No consulting devil-spirits
 * 29) No wizardry
 * 30) No consulting the dead

Also, I think a lot of the additions/deletions from this area may be coming from its perception as a general dumping ground rather than referring to specifically to Shmuel ben Hophni Gaon's subdivisions. Id like to resolve this by putting them all under a single subcategory of their own. Black Platypus (talk) 10:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just found http://www.noachide.org.uk/html/30_noahide_laws.html This one has references and looks more reliable, Im going to update the main page based on the 30 it lists and try to find a copy of its sources. Black Platypus (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding a good source! This should hopefully clear up any discussion about the list of 30. I am not actually sure how much weight is given to this list as opposed to shorter collections of laws for Noahides. This is of practical relevance: of someone violated a law listed by Shmuel ben Hophni but not in other sources, would a Noahide court still need to take action? JFW | T@lk  05:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Cruely to Animals...?! Are you serious?!
It's a dietary law, it has nothing to do with whether it's okay to harm animals or not, as that is irrelevant to the context. It's a dietary law and nothing more. Seems some ASPCA or PETA fanatic got a hold of this. I'm not saying I advocate cruelty to animals (quite the opposite) but I mean really, it doesn't belong here. I advocate removing the definition altogether. Jersey John (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are you so antagonistic? If you want to improve the article, please go ahead an improve it. If you think your edit requires some explanation, then please, explain.  But there is no need to use anything other than a polite tone. Jon513 (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Mistaken interpretation of Christ
1. one should love God, who is One, with all one's heart 2. one should love one's neighbor as oneself

Jesus Christ is summarizing the ten commandments. The first three - Worship only God, do not worship idols, keep holy the sabbath, is found in the 1. Love your God.

The next seven - honor your parents, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not covet another man's possesions and so on refer to loving one's neighbor. Of course Christianity is a law based religion.  Gabr-  el  22:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not the place of wikipedia to decide whether or not notable Jewish views about Christianity are "mistaken", but only to present relevant views on the topic objectively and allow the reader to decide. I do agree with you that the section "Christian observance of Noahide Laws" is in a dismal state and requires cleanup. It could greatly use more secondary Jewish sources. Jon513 (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We've got time... I think we've had a few thousand years of lead time... so some slow editing should be okay...


 * As for Christianity, both Judaism and Christianity generally regard Christianity as NOT being law based. Yes, some hard core Presbyterians will disagree, but with a nuance.  Melancthon gave a good approximation: "it is grace, alone, that saves; but the grace that saves is not alone."  It is not "law based" but rather instead "lawful."  The idea is that the spirit causes a person to be naturally lawful in ways which require no further external constraints.  A wild beast needs a cage.  A tame one does not.Tim (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm no Presbyterian, but thanks for the bias anyways. In any case, there is no citation for this; the burden of proof falls on those who wish to defend uncited material. It will be removed if no one can defend it with citations of some reasonable scholar of some sort.  Gabr-  el  04:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Jon513, what part of my thread used the words "Jewish views on Christianity"? I am addressing the content, which you have pointed out is in a dismal state, and as a Catholic (and yes I know not all Christians are Catholics) I understand from my local priest that Jesus' two laws are a summary of the ten commandments. They're not principles, Jesus never used such words and he was answering the question, "what is the greatest commandment of them all" from a young man.  Gabr-  el  04:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh and congratulations on the Jewish-Babylonian Aramaic level 3 - I myself am trying to learn Classical Aramaic. Anyways, back to our points  Gabr-  el  04:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the whole section should be removed. All of it is poorly sourced original research.  Besides the first sentence ("...Jacob Emden proposed that Jesus, and Paul after him, intended to convert the gentiles to the Noahide laws ...") which has it own problems, the section deals with to what extent Christians follow noahide laws.  The problem is that it is not according to anyone.  The sub section "The Christian Trinity and the prohibition against idolatry" deals with how halacha views it, so who is the earlier section according to? It doesn't seem to be following any view, and is just a hodpodge of comparing Christian practices with Noahide laws. I suggest the section be removed; if there are no objections I'll do it myself in the coming days.  Jon513 (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Gab -- not sure what bias you were referring to. I've been Anglican, Reformed Baptist, Methodist, Prebyterian, Jewish, and spent a good deal of time in a CYO.  Quite frankly, I have good respect for them all, including Roman Catholics.  In any case, I've read through the section, and I agree that it needs to be radically rewritten.  There are only two questions, and neither is properly addressed:
 * Is there evidence for Christian awareness of the Noachide laws?
 * Is there Jewish opinion that Christians do or do not observe those laws?
 * As for the first, the similarities of the Jerusalem Council ruling in Acts 15 would apply, as least for the movement headed by James. As for the second, I'm sure there are different opinions -- but one should be more mainstream (my guess is that Judaism would more likely accept that Christians are okay by Noachide laws, with the negative being in the minority... but that's only a guess and I would have to research it).
 * The section shouldn't be eliminated -- but everything currently in it probably should.Tim (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Christian Trinity and the prohibition against idolatry
This entire section needs to be removed.

Leaving aside the fact that it is inappropriate to polemecize the views of one religion in an article about a concept belonging to another, this entire section is original research. Furthermore, it cites Rabbi Joseph Telushkin in a way that misrepresents what he wrote. I've corresponded with Rabbi Telushkin about this, and he was appalled at the fact that his statement would be taken out of context in this way.

I felt it would be appropriate to discuss this on the talk page first, but it's pretty clear that the section has to go. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As for Telushkin -- that's been beaten to death. No one tried to falsify what he wrote.  He simply wrote something that did not mean to all audiences what he meant as a Jew.  Again, we've discussed this ad infinitum.  However, I agree that the section is unnecessary.  The question is one of Christians and Noachide Laws.  That entails two aspects: 1) are Christians even aware of the Noachide Laws (and if so, do they even care), and 2) what do Jews think about Christianity in respect to the Noachide Laws.  Other than the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, Christianity does not seem to have even been historically concerned with the Noachide Laws as they were codified centuries later in Talmudic literature.  Also, the question of whether Christianity actually is shituf is irrelevant to the fact that Jews do apply shituf to Christianity in making their considerations of it.  So, then, the only question that remains is... does Judaism in the main consider Christianity to be in violation of those laws?  Lisa, I don't have those sources available right now, but if you agree to my two points, could you write the answer to the 2nd question, and I'll write a brief blurb (sourced) regarding the 1st?Tim (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it matters whether Christians are aware of them or not. If they are, and if they have a response that we can produce a verifiable source about, that response probably belongs in this article.  If there are a lot of such responses, they might be better put into an article like Christianity and the Noachide Laws, but I doubt there are that many.  If any.


 * If there aren't any, then there's really no reason to discuss the issue in this article, right? I'll remove the section pending someone coming up with a citation about Christians relating in some way or other directly to the Noachide laws. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll research it. Offhand I can almost guarantee that they don't care more than on a historical level.  The only sources I remember in passing simply discussed whether or not the Jerusalem Council decision in Acts 15 was related to a proto-formulation of the Noachide Laws.  As for what Jews currently think about Christians, it's a non-issue since Jews don't try to convert Christians.Tim (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Lisa, the existing section is a complete hodgepodge. If you rewrite it and leave some small reference to Acts 15 (there's one there already), that should be sufficient.  If I find a small tidbit to add I might later, but this needs a fresh rewrite from someone familiar with the Jewish sources and who can write well.  I'd nominate you if you don't mind.  I think you could do better on it than I could.Tim (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Before this gets any further out of hand, could we please remember that this article is about an aspect of Judaism. Can we just merge very truncated version of the christianity section (ie probably only Emenden) in with the stuff about congress & rename that. Obviously we don't need any of the christian theology as it's WP:OR, unless you can find sources explicitly discussiing the alleged connections, or lack of, with christianity. Thanx--Bsnowball (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There are some sources that connect this with Christianity, but normally in the inverse. It's not Christianity responding to the Rabbinic concept, but rather Acts 15 giving an indication that some idea of this predated the later Rabbinic formulations.  I don't know all of the history of this, but it seems that Judaism may not be able to trace this back as far as the first century, and Acts 15 is an indication that it could go back that far, or even further.  In Acts 15 it wasn't Christians saying "we're okay because Jews say so" (what religion DOES this anyway?).  Instead it's "what about Gentile Christians?  Are they okay like we Jewish Messianists are?  And do they need to become full blown Jews?"  But putting this in there with the present condition of the article is premature.  Lisa knows Jewish sources better than I do.  If she can clean up the Jewish aspect, I can put a little comment with a source or two about Acts 15 and then we can all move along.Tim (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There's certainly scope for a section on the history of the concept, but it shouldn't be original research, that is it needs secondary sources explicitly linking the rabinic usage to christian doctrines. But the point I was trying to make is that there is no need for the entire section on christian ethics as it simply isn't relevant to the noachide laws. Some comparison could be relevant, but again it would have to be based on secondary sources that themselves compare these. I may have missed something but none of the refs in that section, apart frm on Emenden, do so. Hence I think that we should remove almost the entire section & rearrange as above.--Bsnowball (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I can't see how to integrate the Emden quote into another section. So I've left it in its own section.  It appears to be the only sourced material that explicitly links anything about Christianity with the Noachide laws.  If more material of that sort is found, we can add it to this section; i.e., Christian responses (specifically) to the Noachide laws or Noachide groups, other Jewish sources that mention Christianity and Noachidism together, etc.  But you're right.  There's really no reason for a section on Christian theology in this article. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed that there's no need for a separate section. As I mentioned before, the only purpose of Acts 15 is to demonstrate that this concept could have origins that far back, since it predates the rabbinic material.  If there is something older, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, then Acts 15 would no longer serve any purpose.  Lisa, I just saw that you removed the Acts 15 reference.  Looking through the article, I don't see anything about the history of the concept itself.  Do you HAVE any material on this?  Right now there's no place to put Acts 15, but it's certainly a well noted parallel.  If you can create a paragraph on the origins and historicity of the concept, we can see how far back the idea goes.  Also, there's no listing of religions which Jews regard to be in compliance with the Noachide laws.  IS there such a list?  We have some big holes here.Tim (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Origins and Early Parallels
I threw a couple of things in there to show how far back these concepts could go. I put it right after a note someone else left in the article that we needed more on the history and origins of the concept -- but that may not be the best spot. I don't like having two full quotes for Acts 15, because it gives it too much space. But I put them both in there so someone else can pick and choose which one to prune. If there are other ancient parallels I'll try to find them.Tim (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Enochian ?
Are the seven laws received or given by Enoch ? Is there any relationship between the Noachide laws and the so-called teachings of Enoch ? 69.157.233.40 (talk)


 * Do you have a Wikipedia:Reliable source that makes a connection? 75.15.202.170 (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

the 29 enumerations
Looking back on the edit history the listed enumerations seem to be a continuing bone of contention, at the moment including the confusing proscription: "God saw the lawlessness, so He flooded the earth. (Genesis 6:11-13)." The current list is based on one I dredged up over a year ago from http://www.noachide.org.uk/html/30_noahide_laws.html that lists 30 according to Rabbi Shmuel ben Hofni. I think the current format makes it somewhat ambiguous whether the list is simply a catchall or exclusive to Shmuel ben Hofni (in which case there should probably actually be 30, as opposed to 29). Personally, Im not sure we should give preference to Shmuel ben Hofni, and think the article would be best served by doing away with the list all together, instead simply disusing notable features of Rabbinical interpretation (as is the case now anyway). If there is objection to deleting the list as an item please let me know what you think the list should, in fact, refer to so that a header of some type can be put up. Black Platypus (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Relationships
One user put in a text saying that the institute of the Noah laws says that a relationship between a jew and a gentile is part of the 'sexual immorality' and another user removed it and said it is not in the source. I read the source and it IS there. So I put it back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.107.225 (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not mentioned in any of the classical listings of the 7 Noahide Laws. Of course this institute may have decided that the Jewish law on relationships between Jews and non-Jews should apply to its policies and participants, but it is not part of the 7 Noahide Laws, and as such should certainly not be mentioned in the listing in the introduction. Whether it should be mentioned elsewhere in the article body is open for debate. JFW &#124; T@lk  14:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a tricky issue. JFW is correct, it is not mentioned in the seven Noahide laws. Neither is, I think, "anal sex between men", is it? Perhaps the introduction should just mention the seven laws and then we could talk more in detail about individual laws and their interpretation in the text.


 * It is, however, a matter of fact that the Institute of Noahide code includes a relationship between a Jew and a non-Jew under their definition of the law concerning sexual immorality. I wish it weren't so, particularly given the grim echoes of the Nuremberg laws that defined similar relationships in similar words, but that's the definition they use. The article gives the Institute of Noahide Code as the very first external link and the Institute seems to be a rather influential Noahide group. According to its website "The Institute of Noahide Code is an educational and research division of Hafatzah/outreach. The Institute was established in April 1989 and is a direct result of the Lubavitcher Rebbe', Rabbi M. M. Schneerson's teachings, which encourage the practice of The Seven Laws of Noah.".
 * I think it is clear that we should not put this in the introduction, and we should remove other interpretations not explicitly mentioned in the seven laws from the introduction as well, but that we need to address it in the article.Jeppiz (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Gilui arayot is one of the Noachide prohibitions, and there's no single term in English that reflects that. It includes bestiality, adultery, incest, and male-male intercourse.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

OR / POV quote
"Traditionally, Judaism regards the determination of the details of the Noahide Law as something to be left to Jewish rabbis. This, in addition to the teaching of the Jewish law that punishment for violating one of the seven Noahide Laws includes a theoretical death penalty (Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 57a), is a factor in modern opposition to the notion of a Noahide legal system. Jewish scholars respond by noting that Jews today no longer carry out the death penalty, even within the Jewish community. Jewish law, in contemporary practice, sees the death penalty as an indicator of the seriousness of an offense; violators are not actually put to death."

This quote is, for starters, pure OR. The strictures on capital punishment in Jewish law largely do not apply to Gentiles, I know Rabbi Weinberg of Ner Yisroel felt that Gentiles were violating the noachide law if they did not vote to uphold it. I bring this piece of my own OR just an example of why this is POV. I will tell you that I recieved a halachic ruling that I could apply the death penalty to a Jew or Gentile as a member of a jury.Mzk1 (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sodomy
according to the definition of this word in the link, it seems a little misleading, because only homosexual sodomy between males is prohibited, so I insist that homosexual intercourse between males is better --Ha-y Gavra (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You should stick to the exact wording and stop trying to insert what is not there. Also as I keep saying, STOP quoting what rabbis interpret for HaLakhah because it is not applicable to Gentiles. Something more polite would be good, there are lots of religious gay people out there, eh? Otherwise you are treading far into conflict of interest territory.75.21.119.97 (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sodomy is a colloquial term for homosexuality. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * All sorts of homosexual acts - not only anal or oral intercourse - are forbidden for Noachides. I inserted this into the article, and you can read it here: http://www.noahide.org/article.asp?Level=520&Parent=90 -- Alexey Topol (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sodomy is not a colloquial term for homosexuality. It is a wide and vague term which can be used for homosexuality, but doesn't equate to it.  The only prohibition in this area for Noachides is anal sex between men.  Your source does not say otherwise, no matter how many times you claim it does.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Lisa, you reverted the article more than three times already, without ever backing up your ridiculous claims, whereas I did provide a reliable source to prove my point, namely that all male homosexual acts are forbidden to Noachides, not only "anal sex", as you claim. Wikipedia is not about personal opinions, but needs verifiable information. Back up your claims or refrain from editing this page. I gave you lots of prior warnings, I will have to report you for vandalism. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You have not provided a source for that, Alexey. You provided a source that mentions male homosexuality, which is the common term used by most English language sources for משכב זכור, which is limited, halakhically, to anal sex between men.  Furthermore, you listed male homosexuality and sodomy as two different things.  Sodomy, according to the article you linked to, can mean heterosexual oral sex.  And since Noachides are clearly not forbidden to engage in that act, you need to stop using the term in this article.


 * I need to stop using the term sodomy ? I did not introduce it into the article, it was there before I edited anything. Just check the older versions. And oral sex is not forbidden to anybody, be it Jews or gentiles. You're raising another straw man here. But you may keep messing up wikipedia, I'm tired of edit wars. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I reverted 3 times. Not more than 3 times.  As did you.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we just leave this until someone's found a reliable source? Note www.noahide.org as some random website doesn't meet WP:RS, so this is pretty much edit warring over opinions. On another note, it certainly doesn't need mediation yet. Perhaps just rving to what ever it was before this flared up again would be appropriate, until someone finds an RS.--Misarxist 13:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Maimonides in Mishnah Torah Laws of Kings 9:6 says that Noachides are חייב על הזכור. Rabbi Yosef Karo (author of the Shulchan Aruch), in his Kesef Mishnah commentary on Maimonides, notes that this is based on the Talmud in Tractate Sanhedrin 54b (making Maimonides a secondary source).  Do you also want a source for the fact that זכור refers solely to anal sex between men?


 * It's true that more than this is forbidden for Jewish men. But not as part of the arayot.  Additional physical intimacy is forbidden as part of the kirva extensions, which apply solely to Jews.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please state a source for this statement, as least according to those opinions that the secondary prohibitions are Biblical. I don't think anything is obvious regarding Hilchot B'nei Noach.Mzk1 (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Prohibition to eat flesh from a living animal
Dietary Law: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive. The Genesis text says only "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." This seems to means the same as Leviticus 7:26 "You are not to eat any blood", Deuteronomy 12:23 "Only be sure not to eat the blood", Deuteronomy 12:16 "Only you shall not eat the blood; you are to pour it out on the ground like water." etc., namely a prohibition to consume blood (cf. kosher methods of slaughter and meat preparation). http://bible.cc/genesis/9-4.htm.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I find that this interpretation is in fact found in the Talmud (Sanhedrin), and it is one of the least far-fetched interpretations of the Tanakh that I saw in it (check out the "proof" that Adam and Eve were given 6 commandments!). So I'm removing my objections, but in both of these cases I'm adding the Talmudic reference as a source and clarify that these are the Talmud's interpretations. Providing just the Biblical reference, as the previous editors had done, is very confusing, because no reader would see such content in these quotes, and it is, hmm, not uncontroversial that the content is inherently present in them.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to explain, the quotes aren't necessarily "proofs"; the Talmud will often bring a Biblical quote (called an asmachta) as a sort of way to connect to the Bible something whose source is actually a tradition. One cannot always tell.Mzk1 (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

They're the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.188.76 (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Only seven?
One should start with the Talmud, the source for all of this. There should be a statement in the header that these laws are not exclusive, as this is explicitly stated there. Similarly, the concept of 30 laws (the Encyclopedia Tulmidit gives a number of lists) is right out of the Talmud, albeit in Agaddah. The whole section on subdivision is confusing, because it makes it sound like these are later opinions. Also, the header is wrong; there are clearly laws outside the seven.Mzk1 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What laws? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.188.76 (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Not keeping the Sabbath, for starters. However, in deference to lecturer Aaron Lichtenstein's opinion in Seven Laws of Noah, I will admit that one should not make a categorical statement.Mzk1 (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Mention of specific sexual acts
I undid the specification of a specific sexual act for homosexuality. Another editor undid that, poining out that "kurvah" appears only to apply to Jews. (I do not believe that is clear, either, in the absence of good sources.) My point was that if you stated it there, you should also state it for all other sexual acts, such as incest and adultery, although the definition of shelo k'darka is not clear. (That is, as to whether "sodomy" is included in it.) And this gets into a grey area. Would Judaism condone, say, oral sex between a man and his mother? There should be no difference. I think it should be left general, since there are no clear sources (are there?). At any rate, I did not undo, to avoid edit-warring.Mzk1 (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The difference is that incest is never misunderstood as meaning desire between forbidden relatives. It means an actual act, and everyone knows that.  Because of the common blurring between homosexuality, gay sex, and mishkav zachor, it is appropriate for the act to be specified in this case.  And yes, there are sources.  בני נח מוזהרים על הזכור.  You'd need an explicit source saying that this means more than just mishkav zachor proper.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Forgive me, but I don't see where your source proves anything at all, except that men are prohibited to each other. I was thinking of the statement in the Talmud that Abizraihu is prohibited. Aharon Lichenstein(*) in his academic work "Seven Laws of Noah" gets into this, but I haven't seen my copy lately - perhaps you have one? Even regarding other relations we kind of fudge in the arayot article, as it is difficult to determine if, for example, a man would violate a prohibition by giving his sister a ring without any sexual act, as the marriage is invalid.
 * How about just "sex" as a compromise? Wouldn't it make your basic point?Mzk1 (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (*)For those wondering, it is not the head (one of them) of Yeshivat Har Etzion, but his cousin.Mzk1 (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I've never seen a source suggesting that non-Jews are forbidden to engage in non-biah sexual acts of any kind. That would be a pretty major chiddush, in my opinion, and "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" would apply.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See above.Mzk1 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Can we just go with the Rambam and R. Karo u mentioned above? Then we can just have an end to the intermittent arguments about that law until one of us finds an academic source. (Somehow I can't quite bring myself to claim they're good enough on a wikitechnicality;) Regarding sodomy, no source so it's out and anyway it's a vague and archaic term which won't really help.--Misarxist 14:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Those two are fine, as long as you aren't trying to prove something by omission and you inspect the commentaries on the page. (That's my general method; I consider the commentaries a kind of "peer review".) The Shulchan Aruch in particular does not tell you everything.Mzk1 (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is another point I did not mention above - in the "thirty commandments" passage in the Talmud, one of the three commandments not broken by the pagans of the time is that they do not practice "gay marriage" (or possibly, not write a pre-nuptual), more specifically, "they do not write a Ketubah for a male". Now the paasage is not necessarily halachic and it may be that the term "commandments" there is not meant literally - but it is indicative that this claim is not so extraordinary. My point is that if we are unclear, we should fudge, otherwise we are making an unsupported claim to the contrary.Mzk1 (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is probably the sort of thing we need secondary sources for, rather than our own reasoning from primary sources.--Misarxist 10:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not making a claim; I am saying we should remove a claim. I am saying we can't prove it one way or another, and so the qualification should be removed. I am also saying that it is not an extraordinary thing to say.
 * Also, I have a secondary / tertiary source that takes this literally, more or less - the Encyclopedia Talmudit entry Bnai Noach.Mzk1 (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've found a source that does claim that the secondary sexual prohbitions (kirvah, chibuk v'nishuk (hugging and kissing) popularly referred to as negiah) do apply to B'nei Noach. This is Aaron Lichtenstein (the academic, not the Seminary head); this is his opinion, based on the Minchat Chinuch's extension of the Sefer haChinuch, quoted from positive commandment 188. I have not checked the Minchat Chinuch itself.Mzk1 (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And I'd be happy to look at that source. But first you need to post it.  Saying that this man says it is anecdotal.  A source is something else.  I can't comment on whether what he says is his own opinion without seeing what he actually says.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It's from Seven Laws of Noah, pages 50-51, the last item in a list of 10 commandments from the Rambam that correspond to B'nei Noah Illicit Relations. It will take a bit more than this to show that it his opinion, so I will put the quotes together at a future date when I have more time. The footnote (93 in the book) is his reference to the Minchat Chinuch. Take this as a preliminary.Mzk1 (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, here's the precise reference, at Lisa's request. Seven Laws of Naoh, Page 50 states, The following among the 613 commands corresponds to Maimonides' version of Illict Intercourse in Noahism:. On the next page, he gives the last of the commandments, number 10, and ends with [That is, petting by persons whose marriage would be illicit.] " Negative 353.. The footnote at the end (93) cites Minchat Chinuch II:93 (positive 188) regarding coveting, stating that he believed the Chinuch's reasoning there would extend negative 353 to Noahites. (As I have said, I have not checked the Minchat Chinuch itself.) Finally, on page 89, at the start of the chapter named Conclusions he gives a summary by law, of sixty-six Imperatives that apply to the Naoahide system as well. Line 4 of the seven-line list:


 * Illicit Intercourse (several spaces) ten


 * I included the latter to confirm that this is not just a suggestion.


 * I hope I have quoted enough of the material. This list is one of the book's main theses. Again, I am not stating that kirvah definitely applies to Gentiles, only that one cannot state categorically that it does not.Mzk1 (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Bring post-Tanakh, pre-Mishnah material up between the two
I have moved Dead Sea Scrolls and Acts 15 up between Hebrew Bible and Talmud. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move Mike Cline (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Seven Laws of Noah → Seven laws of Noah –

WP does not generally upcase laws, theorems, or rules; so the seven laws of Noah mid-sentence. Per WP:CAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony  (talk)  12:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hesitate Tony, agree with WP:CAPS, but some Google Books sources seem to indicate that it is a title of a list, title of a section in a larger list/section?] would this make a difference? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: In ictu is right; this means a specific set of laws; one should no more have this lower case than one would lc the Twelve Tables; a copy-edit to deal with the genuinely superfluous "Noachide Laws" would remove more unnecessary capitalization. (Noachic would be clearer; the point of Noachide - that the laws are binding by descent - will be lost on most readers; since the point is made expressly, we don't have to hint at it.) JCScaliger (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

First usage?
JdWolff, No problem, perhaps the article could state clearly both references where the term first occurs and give dates for both of them? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * seems to think that we should mention the exact place in the Talmud in the opening sentence. Apart from horribly distorting the normal flow of the sentence, it is wrong. The first historical mention of the 7NC is in Tosefta Avodah Zarah 9:4. This is the purpose of footnotes. I have no problem with a small discussion further down in the article to the effect that the Tosefta (redacted in such and such a year) is the first source, followed by the Talmud Sanhedrin etc. Ideally such a discussion should be supported by a secondary source. I suggest ISBN 0940118491, page 39. JFW &#124; T@lk  21:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * please do not remove the reference until you have made the change, this is useful information and it should not be removed, until you have placed it elsewhere. I see no consensus for its complete removalDalai lama ding dong (talk) 09:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, the edit is wrong and the source is already provided in the references. To wit, in footnote number 7 of the current version. It is of very limited relevance to the general reader where exactly in the Talmud these laws are listed. It would not have mattered an iota if they'd been found in the last chapter of Nedarim or tucked away somewhere halfway the second chapter of Tamid.
 * On a separate note, please have a look at WP:BRD. This is a guideline that states that if your edit is removed, it is your job to take it to the talk page and work out consensus, not mine. JFW &#124; T@lk  00:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The original edit was not made by me, so the reference to WP:BRD applies to the editor who made the original change which was I believe you. It is not up to a single editor to decide what is of interest to the general reader.  As far as I can see it was not until 00:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC) that you stated that the information that you removed was in footnote 7.  I have been asking that the info not be removed until it was in the footnotes.  I suggest that the lede contain an unambiguous note as to which footnote the source of the NL can be found in.  Can you please do this?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)