504:
publishing house of good repute. It is in the nature of the material that they publish that your problem lies. This kind of material is always going to have a high freak out factor. But saying they are a doubtful publisher because they publish things you don't grok is the first step on the road that leads to book burning. Tell me, would you suspect a publisher who only publishes in one field to be suspect if that field was anything other than religion? Somehow its ok if the major strands of major religions self publish their material but once a member of a minority group does so they are vanity publishing! As the wise Mr. Bob Dylan once wrote, "The times they are a'changin'" The existence of so called vanity publishers like Lulu perform a valuable service in allowing people who have written worthwhile books that wouldn't get picked up by a publishing house because their market is so specialised to publish them themselves. This is not vanity. This is accepting the realities of the market and finding your own solution. We are too accustomed to a world in which media of all kinds have a higher acceptance factor if they come from a 'reputable' source. This is prejudicing knowledge and as long as one does this one is a slave to media barons and publishing houses. I find it ironic that this kind of thing goes on on wikipedia! The whole point of wikipedia is to alleviate that slavery. To open people's eyes to the fact that everyone has knowledge and we can help them share it. As soon as you start to try to prejudice some knowledge over some other you are on the road to oppression.
261:
rare experts of these both fields, understand importance and rising trend of this interesting, delicate and difficult topic. This is not my personal opinion, but clear fact of long years of research and this topic will become widely known and encyclopedic without my participation. If someone knows this topic better - please contribute, my task was to initiate topic of what others saw as separate particles (a lot of sources and studies published), but I already see as whole mosaic. Maybe some terms will be corrected, but the idea is already clear to many students who know both sides. The problem is that there are rare ones who know BOTH SOURCES GOOD ENOUGH, SYMMETRICALLY. Most of students know good enough only one side of question, or even confuse Jewish
Kabbalah with some "general kabbalah" or "hermetic kabbalah"; know subject of Christian Jesus, but don't know Jewish concept of Yeshua or Gnostic logia, Gospels of Thomas and Philip etc., what is much different from general Christianity. There are a lot of near or similar studies on this field, but exact focal point is discussed only last 5-10 years. So citations, materials, references and publications will follow soon. To IMHO decisions about this topic can be made only by experts of Jewish-Torah-Hebrew Kabbalah (at least ashlagian or lurian, but there are more and deeper materials). And experts of (mainly non-christian concept of) Yeshua: at least Gospel of Thomas of Nag Hammadi Library in coptic, greek-koine New Testament or Brit Hadasha in hebrew. Please immerse into material deeper! --
718:
I do not. Do you know of any
Christian work that refers to Jesus in this way? I do not. Do you know of any of the scholarship on Kabbalah that says anything about Kabbalah and Jesus? I do not. Do you know of any documentation that supports claims that the Kabbalah, as we know it, existed during Jesus'life time? To my knowledge, all kabbalistic texts appear after the destruction of the Temple (and thus after Jesus) and I do notknow of any reputable scholar who has claimed that Jesus had any influence on the kabbalah. Do you? Your vote suggests that you think this is a real, valid, encyclopedic topic. I really just want to know why you think this.
787:
is really working against him here. I have spoken to the author at some length regarding this article and I believe it can be brought into line with wikipedia's policy regarding original research. He does have the sources to cite to demonstrate that this is not original research. I will help him to render this article into
English more accurately. Please don't rush to vote to delete this article as it is an area of research which has few exponents in English and it is worth taking some effort to help get this article to meet wikipedia's policy.
428:. Given this a delete is unavoidable. Knowledge exists only for topics that be verified by nonexperts, an article that cannot be so verified is by definition not encyclopedic. An article on historical or contemporary Christian Kabbalah appears sourcable and might be of interest, but this article, which claims that Jesus practiced a form of Kabbalah as it existed 2000 years ago, is about something else entirely. Delete. --
277:. And it doesn't require an expert in the field to ascertain whether you are working from sources or not, and thus whether this is original research or not. If you are working from sources, they will be easy to cite. If you are condensing and summarizing the existing literature in a field, you will easily be able to say, right now, what literature you are condensing and summarising. So please cite your sources.
206:"serious books on the topic" turn up in any searches for such books. I cited some books about Christian Kabbalah. I suggest that if you wish to make an argument that this isn't original research, you do the same for what you claim the subject of this article to be and show that there really are books on this subject. So far, it seems that there are not.
786:
I have some expertise in this subject area. This article has great potential. I have had correspondence with the author when editing other
Kabbalah articles and he does know what he is talking about. imho this work is not original research, but the fact that the author's first language is not English
717:
It seems to me that all parts are beyond repair in that the entire articlesimply expresses the author'sown point of view. What parts do you think can be "repaired?" What does "Yeshua" refer to? Jesus? Do you know of any
Kabbalistic work or scholarship on Kabbalah that refers to Jesus in this way?
178:
Reread the first sentence. It is about "Jewish
Kabbalah" which isnt the same thing as "Christian Kabbalah", and it says the article is only related to Christian Kabbalah "in some part". The article is about Jewish Kabbalah. In editing the article, the reference to Christian Kabbalah should be removed
756:
policy. This is overkill as this article will obviously be deleted. "After lurian
Kabbalah affirmed, that Yeshua was an expert in Kabbalah..." ... This kind of reminded me of the editor a couple years back who kept insisting on adding to the Jesus article that Jesus' teaching methods took the form
141:
written in this article. For starters, this article is discussing completely the wrong century. The aforementioned book tells us that
Christian Kabbalah has its origins in the 15th century. Both the chapter on non-Jewish Kabbalah in ISBN 1580910491 and the chapter on Caballism in ISBN 0521361915
656:
cry. I'm not totally ignorant of this subject myself, since I'm involved in
Messanic Judaism, and this article is ... just painful to read. There are references being added, but only ones that support the stuff on the page. That is not encyclopedic. Start over, from scratch, on the userpage of the
260:
I am an expert of the focal point of this topic (subject of kavim in both systems), but not of english writing or wikipedia styling. Wikieditors know this and always help to correct my editing or english errors. I started many religious wikitopics - participating here is too serious to me. So only
286:
What is most significant is not that
Fivetrees claims to be an expert, but rather that he is the author of the article. Is he an expert? Where did he receive smicha? Or where did he get his postgraduate training? More important, expert or not, he cannot violate NOR. Where are the articles in
197:
The first sentence has now been altered. But that only makes your argument for keeping less tenable, not more. Instead of an article about something that we have some books about, that simply isn't in agreement with the books, we now have an article for which you haven't actually put forward
155:
The article has nothing to do with Christian Cabala. Christian Cabala is a Renaissance Period attempt to synchretize Jewish Kabbalah, Christian Theology, and Greek-via-Islamic Philosophy. The article is different. The article discusses if the historical Jesus himself is using an early form of
128:
Comparing the article with serious books on the topic doesn't yield the result that you are hoping for. The article claims to be about something that also goes by the name of Christian Kabbalah. Books on such a thing exist. ISBN 0691005400 has a whole chapter, chapter 2, on the subject of
503:
You have to be careful with this kind of remark. As soon as you try to decide which publishers are 'real' publishers and which are not you are creating a lens through which you filter reality, usually ending up seeing what you set out to see in the first place. Llewellyn are a long standing
118:
Few scholars are experts in both (Jewish) Kabbalah and (Christian) Jesus. I know serious books on the topic exist but they are difficult to get a hold of. Is there anyone here who can compile a bibliography? It's a worthwhile topic for an article.
424:, specifically promoted as such. The author goes so far as to acknowledge in this very discussion that the field is so new sources aren't currently available and will be 'forthcoming', hence the topic is
558:
per above, plus I have to say that when I read an article about a subject I know nothing about, and at the end of it I do not know any more than when I started, that is a very bad sign.
494:, nonetheless the requirement of multiple reliable sources is not met. (Note that Knowledge's article on Gonzalez-Wippler appears to have been copied verbatim from Llewellyn's web site). --
829:
It is widely known, that teaching of Yeshua was based on Torah and on no other source, as he himself states being fulfillment of the law (Torah) and he recites Torah numerous times.
832:
It's widely known, that Jewish mysticism is based on Torah too and main sources of Jewish Kabbalah (Zoar etc.) are mystical commentaries of nothing except Torah or related sources.
846:
I hear arguments in the voting, that Yeshua's teaching is rooted in some other source except Torah/TANAKH. And that Jewish Kabbalah is based on every source except Torah/TANAKH.
588:
362:
271:
So citations, materials, references and publications will follow soon and decisions about this topic can be made ONLY BY EXPERTS OF BOTH FIELDS
156:
Kabbalah during the Roman Period. Christian Cabala and Jesus's Proto-Rabbinic Kabbalah arent the same and are not even related. --
547:
737:
17:
818:
795:
776:
744:
726:
712:
693:
681:
661:
644:
626:
606:
574:
562:
550:
532:
510:
498:
457:
432:
396:
378:
352:
327:
315:
295:
281:
265:
252:
236:
210:
192:
183:
173:
160:
150:
123:
110:
94:
90:
policies, so I'll go have a chat with him. In the mean time, however, this article consists entirely of original research.
73:
57:
232:
sources from which to draw information. Until that is possible, the article is inappropriate for the encyclopaedia. --
761:(and I'm comparing the OR content, not the editors, fivetrees seems to be a polite editor who edits in good faith). --
674:
146:) tell us that Christian Kabbalah lasted from the 15th century until the end of the 18th century, when it faded out.
858:
670:
228:
per concerns regarding original research. While it's certainly an interesting topic, there need to be reliable,
36:
63:
857:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
634:
elete as per others. Any page referring to Jesus as Yeshua is treated (by me) with a very large grain of salt.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
813:
483:
441:
and these parallels were found a lot of times earlier. I will rework an article completely keeping in mind
723:
487:
470:
by Jake Ashcroft is a self-published work. Lulu.com is a vanity (self) publisher, as it explicitly states
324:
292:
249:
53:
130:
544:
374:
348:
621:
596:
179:
from the opening paragraph. Christian Cabala has few if any references to the historical Jesus. --
806:
708:
639:
604:
571:
413:
391:
107:
805:
Only "experts in both fields" can make decisions on this topic? Absolutely not. Delete it now.
792:
741:
719:
507:
495:
429:
409:
288:
245:
91:
70:
49:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
541:
462:
A quick look at the two sources listed in the reference section: One clearly violates the
437:
If you know exact subject of the article and both materials, but not one side - there are
369:
343:
658:
615:
454:
262:
233:
189:
83:
589:
Knowledge:Examples of rank speculation and poor scholarship/Yeshua and Jewish Kabbalah
703:
635:
601:
593:
387:
308:
103:
87:
753:
653:
525:
491:
463:
442:
421:
405:
278:
207:
180:
170:
157:
147:
120:
102:
Use of the phrase "brand new" in the first sentence is a pretty good indication of
762:
690:
529:
446:
425:
229:
169:
about Christian Kabbalah. Please read the very first sentence of the article.
835:
So it's clear, that both Yeshua and Jewish mysticism come from the same root.
417:
312:
678:
559:
335:
86:, a very personable individual, but quite new to Knowledge) is aware of the
838:
Could such obvious correlations altered by something other more important?
471:
758:
851:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
451:
Knowledge exists only for topics that be verified by nonexperts
202:
of these purported "serious books on the topic", and for which
657:
author, and get help from others and source your article. --
82:
I have grave doubts that the originator of the article (
244:
It is pure self promotion, concerning a made-up field.
165:
The very first sentence of the article claims that it
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
453:. Thanx for all training and critics sincerely! --
129:Christian Kabbalah, which mentions people such as
861:). No further edits should be made to this page.
486:, despite its publication by New Age publisher
439:too much of sources to cite all of them at once
8:
689:This has absolutely no place on wikipedia.
188:Thanks, that's good suggestion. Changing. --
311:and self-promotion about a made-up field.
738:User:Fivetrees/Yeshua_and_Jewish_Kabbalah
361:: This debate has been included in the
273:— Wrong. Citations should be given
7:
420:, and others that this is explicit
449:and all written above, especially
24:
842:Are there any doubts about this ?
363:list of Judaism-related deletions
736:: The page has been userfied to
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
701:and have an expert repair it--
1:
69:Explicitly Original research
819:23:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
796:23:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
777:21:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
745:00:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
727:17:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
713:13:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
694:14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
682:21:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
662:16:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
659:In ur base, killing ur dorfs
645:12:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
627:08:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
607:07:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
575:03:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
563:03:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
551:01:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
533:01:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
511:23:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
499:03:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
474:"Lulu's not the publisher -
458:01:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
433:00:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
397:00:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
379:00:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
353:00:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
328:00:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
316:00:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
296:10:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
282:21:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
266:11:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
253:09:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
237:22:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
211:21:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
193:21:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
184:12:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
174:11:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
161:10:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
151:01:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
124:21:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
111:19:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
95:19:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
74:19:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
58:11:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
675:Knowledge:Complete bollocks
478:are." Assuming the other,
878:
64:Yeshua_and_Jewish_Kabbalah
671:Knowledge:Patent nonsense
524:Prime Facie violation of
854:Please do not modify it.
287:peer-reviewed journals?
32:Please do not modify it.
614:per Jayg and others. --
484:Migene Gonzalez-Wippler
669:because this violates
488:Llewellyn Publications
464:reliable source policy
332:Our father in heaven!
144:Encyclopaedia Judaica
131:Martines de Pasqually
570:- per nom and all. ←
480:Keys to the Kingdom
393:£€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€
116:Keep (if possible)
642:
625:
443:original research
422:original research
410:User:Justin Eiler
394:
377:
366:
351:
309:original research
869:
856:
816:
811:
774:
771:
768:
765:
640:
619:
599:
592:. Post haste.
392:
373:
357:
347:
34:
877:
876:
872:
871:
870:
868:
867:
866:
865:
859:deletion review
852:
827:
814:
807:
772:
769:
766:
763:
711:
597:
540:per Jay et al.
492:reliable source
468:Yeshua as He is
325:Evolver of Borg
67:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
875:
873:
864:
863:
826:
823:
822:
821:
799:
798:
789:
788:
780:
779:
747:
731:
730:
729:
707:
696:
684:
664:
652:You're making
647:
629:
609:
577:
565:
553:
535:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
505:
399:
381:
355:
330:
323:as per Jayjg.
318:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
255:
239:
223:
222:
221:
220:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
214:
213:
195:
113:
106:violations. --
97:
84:User:Fivetrees
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
874:
862:
860:
855:
849:
848:
847:
844:
843:
839:
836:
833:
830:
824:
820:
817:
812:
810:
804:
803:Strong Delete
801:
800:
797:
794:
791:
790:
785:
782:
781:
778:
775:
760:
755:
751:
748:
746:
743:
739:
735:
732:
728:
725:
721:
716:
715:
714:
710:
706:
705:
700:
697:
695:
692:
688:
687:Strong Delete
685:
683:
680:
676:
673:. (See also:
672:
668:
665:
663:
660:
655:
651:
648:
646:
643:
637:
633:
630:
628:
624:
623:
617:
613:
610:
608:
605:
603:
600:
595:
591:
590:
585:
581:
578:
576:
573:
572:Humus sapiens
569:
566:
564:
561:
557:
554:
552:
549:
546:
543:
539:
536:
534:
531:
527:
523:
520:
512:
509:
506:
502:
501:
500:
497:
493:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
460:
459:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
435:
434:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
408:. Agree with
407:
403:
400:
398:
395:
389:
386:per above. --
385:
382:
380:
376:
372:
371:
364:
360:
356:
354:
350:
346:
345:
340:
339:
337:
331:
329:
326:
322:
319:
317:
314:
310:
306:
303:
297:
294:
290:
285:
284:
283:
280:
276:
272:
269:
268:
267:
264:
259:
256:
254:
251:
247:
243:
242:Speedy Delete
240:
238:
235:
231:
227:
224:
212:
209:
205:
201:
196:
194:
191:
187:
186:
185:
182:
177:
176:
175:
172:
168:
164:
163:
162:
159:
154:
153:
152:
149:
145:
140:
136:
132:
127:
126:
125:
122:
117:
114:
112:
109:
105:
101:
98:
96:
93:
89:
85:
81:
78:
77:
76:
75:
72:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
853:
850:
845:
841:
840:
837:
834:
831:
828:
808:
802:
793:Morgan Leigh
783:
749:
742:Justin Eiler
733:
720:Slrubenstein
702:
698:
686:
666:
649:
631:
620:
611:
587:
583:
579:
567:
555:
537:
521:
508:Morgan Leigh
496:Shirahadasha
479:
475:
467:
450:
447:unverifiable
438:
430:Shirahadasha
426:unverifiable
401:
383:
368:
358:
342:
334:
333:
320:
304:
289:Slrubenstein
274:
270:
257:
246:Slrubenstein
241:
225:
203:
199:
166:
143:
142:(citing the
138:
137:relation to
134:
133:. It bears
115:
99:
92:Justin Eiler
79:
71:Justin Eiler
68:
50:Jitse Niesen
45:
43:
31:
28:
752:, violates
414:User:Keeves
542:Briangotts
418:User:Jayjg
230:verifiable
825:Fivetrees
616:Daniel575
548:(Contrib)
455:fivetrees
336:Burninate
263:fivetrees
234:NMChico24
190:fivetrees
809:Krakatoa
704:Nielswik
388:PinchasC
139:anything
734:Comment
650:Delete!
490:, is a
375:crztalk
349:crztalk
307:. Pure
279:Uncle G
208:Uncle G
181:Haldrik
171:Uncle G
158:Haldrik
148:Uncle G
121:Haldrik
750:Delete
709:(talk)
691:Jon513
667:Delete
622:(talk)
612:Delete
580:Delete
568:Delete
556:Delete
545:(Talk)
538:Delete
530:Chabuk
522:Delete
402:Delete
384:Delete
321:Delete
313:Jayjg
305:Delete
226:Delete
108:Keeves
104:WP:NOR
100:Delete
88:WP:NOR
80:Delete
46:delete
815:Katie
759:koans
654:WP:OR
526:WP:OR
406:WP:OR
48:. --
16:<
784:Keep
724:Talk
699:Keep
679:IZAK
641:T@lk
584:Move
560:6SJ7
472:here
445:and
404:per
359:Note
293:Talk
258:Keep
250:Talk
135:zero
54:talk
773:el
757:of
722:|
677:.)
636:JFW
594:Tom
586:to
582:or
528:--
482:by
476:you
370:crz
365:.
344:crz
291:|
275:now
248:|
200:any
770:er
754:OR
740:.
638:|
618:|
466:.
416:,
412:,
390:|
367:-
341:-
204:no
167:is
119:--
56:)
767:P
764:M
632:D
602:r
598:e
338:!
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.