![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the High Council of B'nei Noah page were merged into Noahidism on November 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The content of this article needs severe tidying-up. Not until section 3 ('The Great Renewal') it is revealed that B'nei Noah is a movement, but not very accurately defined. Is it a congregation of faith or more of a moral association? Still worse, the whole wording is unfocused and utterly subjective, like college students giving a street sermon for a yet undefined religion (maybe that is just what it is?). Please enlighten me. -- Sasper 09:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I've just done a clean up. Robert Brockway 06:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The section 'High Council of B'nei Noach contained the following statement: A High Council of B’nei Noah was endorsed on January 10, 2006 by the newly formed Sanhedrin in Israel and was set up to represent B'nei Noah communities around the world.', with a source in the footnote. However, this 'Sanhedrin' is by no means widely accepted or recognized, and the source cited is a right-wing religious radio station (Arutz Sheva) which is not exactly the most unbiased or mainstream organization. The new 'Sanhedrin' was set up in October 2004 in Tiberias, Israel, but as an Orthodox Jew I have to say that I don't think it has had much impact or is even known to many Jews, let alone having any authority. I have modified the text to reflect this. Liskeardziz ( talk) 23:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC) User: Liskeardziz, 29 November 2007
This is an extremely poorly written article. Honestly. It lacks even basic criteria for understanding the Talmudic understanding of what these people really are. Anuchild ( talk) 05:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed that there is a discrepancy between this article and Seven Laws of Noah on the exact wording of the laws, especially laws 4 and 7. For example, this article defines Law 4 on "Sexual Promiscuity" in more concrete and wider terms than the main article, which only has "Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: You shall not commit adultery". I'm by no means an expert on Jewish law, so I'm in no position to make amendments. Hope someone else can. Klehti ( talk) 12:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody have any idea of the numbers of people involved? I have noticed that Noahides (and the Christian 'backlash') are very 'noisy' on the internet, but I have never met a 'visible' Noahide yet (I am Jewish, by the way, with the emphasis on the 'ish':-). Perhaps it's because I am in the UK, where religion tends to be more of a quiet, internal thing. Is it just yet another American cult with a few hundred vociferous members, or should we Jews all get ready to hide Christians in our attics?. 160.84.253.241 ( talk) 10:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Where does the commentary paragraph placed beneath each law come from? It doesn't appear to be referenced, and presents contentious viewpoints and value judgements as facts. Even if referenced, I'm not sure it belongs here, as it appears as a list of personal thoughts and meditations. FrFintonStack ( talk) 02:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I have taken out the few lines at the very end of this entry, referencing conspiracy theories. They do not meet any kind of encyclopedic standard unless there is a reference to an actual conspiracy theory/theories publicized about Noahidism. Anyone reverting the lines will be reported as per regulations of this website. My properly cited addition to that section, for balance, was unjustly removed, therefore I propose that having no documentation at all of any conspiracy theories against the Bene Noach moevement, there should be no such ridiculous section. 75.21.116.175 ( talk) 04:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
OH someone tried to have some dreck conspiracy in the first paragraph! Decapitating people, really. Please. Anuchild ( talk) 05:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The Lubavicher Rebbe's 89th birthday was March 26, 1991, it was this day in 1991 that was designated as "Education Day" (See source for H.J.Res.104 [1]) not in 1989. User:jcksnmrvn 10-05-2009 —Preceding undated comment added 00:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC).
Added Category:Jews and Judaism-related controversies because this is a controversial topic among Jews and Judaism. Only the 7th and last Lubavitcher Rebbe pushed this "campaign" and it's still not carried out really even by Chabad who give it lip service. All other groups are against a public push for this, certainly the non-Orthodox sector does not want it. The discussions on this talk page itself proves the scope and directions of the various controversies surrounding this subject. IZAK ( talk) 14:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
You know, this article could do with a little toning-down of all the Chabad Lubavitchers stuff. They have nothing to do with Noachidism or the modern Ben Noach. They like to say they have a sort of authority over the Noachides, but they do NOT. Also, we need to be more pluralistic about Torah authority, such as the above post questioning Noachide Law interpretation/death sentencing. This article has been VASTLY imporved now, but it still leans too much toward the Talmud--which has nothing to do with Gentiles--and too much of the Lubavitcher Sauce for anyone's taste.
I myself got my head snapped off by a Lubavitcher rabbi because I emailed him and said the rabbis' interference was wrong. I mentioned the death sentences they can "theoretically" impose on Bene Noach. He told me I did not know what I was talking about...but I DID know. This article is sort of offensive from the viewpoint that the Jewish faith, not Noachidism, is the only faith that matters or can make decisions. The Laws themselves enourage Gentiles to set up their own laws and enforcement! Why do we need Jewish sources to be cited at all for this sort of information? 75.21.119.97 ( talk) 17:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
This article is too heavily biased towards Chabad/Lubavitch and doesn't acknowledge other Jewish perspectives or activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.5.184 ( talk) 21:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
This is more than a controversial topic, AND really it meets the criteria for speedy deletion A10, as it is just a repeat in most parts of the Noahide Law page, which is heavily referenced and pretty well written. This page is poorly referenced dreck. There have been attempts to make it into an anti-Semetic rant, and it borders on the absurd as far as any encyclopedic reference. If you want to discuss the modern movements, then discuss the modern movements, but cease and desist with the really poorly written history lesson based not on Talmudic sources, but personal opinion. IZAK is completely correct. Mzkl is also correct in that this is not the basis of a political movement,nor is it representative of any truthful standard.
Anuchild (
talk)
05:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Circumcision as a Divine commandment was given by G-d specifically to the descendents of Abraham. It is a sign of G-d's covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17). It is also one of the 613 Jewish mitzvot that G-d commanded through Moses at Mount Sinai (Leviticus 12:3).
One should bear in mind that Noahides are not allowed to create additional religious obligations for themselves in the name of Divine commandments beyond their own 7 mitzvot and their details, nor to do additional acts with the intention that they are fulfilling additional Divine commandments.
But a faithful Noahide who desires to perform one the Jewish mitzvot may do so voluntarily for the sake of the benefits it will bring to him, with a few exceptions noted elsewhere: http://www.asknoah.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=15
With this understanding, a Noahide man may voluntarily have himself circumcised, or Noahide parents may voluntarily have a baby son circumcised. They may request this either of an Orthodox Jewish "mohel" (who is certified to perform traditional Jewish circumcisions), or of a trained medical doctor. Once a Noahide makes the decision to do this, he should follow through without delay.
Noahides may also choose male circumcision for the sake of either the benefits which circumcision can bring for a male's physical health, or refinement of personal character. (The extent of the health benefits of male circumcision have become better understood in the past few years: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8473838/ ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.175.38 ( talk) 17:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The fact that male Gentiles are allowed have themselves circumcised as a spiritual observance, even though it is meant to be a sign in the flesh of a Jew, is not problematic, since many Gentiles practice circumcision for medical purposes, and not in order to add a commandment or a new religion. Furthermore, the Gentile descendants of Keturah [from her sons who were fatherd by Abraham] were commanded to observe circumcision, from which we can conclude that this commandment is not exclusively for the Jews.
Therefore, any Gentile male, who wishes to be circumcised in order to refine himself is permitted to do so. But if he is not [assumed within Torah Law to be] descended from a son of Abraham and Keturah, he should be informed that he has no obligation or commandment to do this, and that he should not do so for the sake of a commandment, but rather only to refine his personality and his body and its desires. [Turkish men are obligated by Torah to be circumcised, since the children of Ishmael were intermingled with the children of Keturah during the time of the Babylonian Empire.])
The above-mentioned rule applies only to Jewish commandments that are not duty-bound by logic (even if they have a logical reason) such as circumcision, or tithes [by which a person limits himself to give specifically 10% of his income to charity]. However, those that are duty-bound by logic, such as honoring one’s parents, and kindness and charity [in general], are obligated to be kept, because such is the correct way for a person to act, as befitting the “image of G-d” in which he was created. However, a Gentile may not keep them because it is a commandment from G-d, but rather because one is obligated to be a good, moral person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.175.38 ( talk) 17:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Noah isn't mentioned, but the statement of the Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts in the New Testament is somewhat parallel... AnonMoos ( talk) 15:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone here taken issue with the fact that the title is so blatantly misleading? The title should be simply: Noahides. And the rainbow the common symbol of the Noahides. This is not an "ism" nor will it ever be. I, along with every observant non-Jew I know, goes out of the way to direct people to any article other than this one due to its scathing errors. Can we, at the very least, agree the title needs an update. I pray those who are editing actually are Noahides and not hateful defamers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.5.77.198 ( talk) 14:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
No, at least one of the editors, GenoV84, is not a Noahide but a self proclaimed Pagan. The handle speaks about the push by the Lubavitch movement for Noahidism which maybe could have a separate Wikipedia page...because they really are pushing the idea of "Noahidism" as a new form of worship - a little bit in addition to the idea of just creating "Noahides" (I understand the distinction made previously in this talk section and it is legit - not that i am against either one. I like Noahides and people that want to participate in the Lubavith's disseminated version of "Noahidism" for unaffiliated people is fine by me). However, GenoV84 calls their whole operation racist and supremacist based on his false interpretations of sources...really more likely pre-conceived opinions using deontological reasoning to come to the conclusion that the The Rebbe's followers are racist. It can be found in the "Modern Noahide Movement" section of this page and should be removed.
And just so we are clear, the Lubavitcher movement is the movement that recently, in 2020, was a strong proponent and reason that the United State's Congress, in a rare showing of bipartisan fashion, passed the "1st step" bill, which was a way of the government apologizing for over sentencing for practically the last 30 years with respect to drug crimes. It allowed scores of black and brown (but also non-minority) people to commute their sentences. This was an extremely difficult feat. The power of the state IS AWESOME. The idea that anyone, under any circumstances, can get THE STATE TO ADMIT IT WAS WRONG ON ANY LEVEL IS AMAZING. Both liberals (Van Jones) and conservatives alike engaged in pushing the bill, and the Lubavitcher movement was so heavily involved that some of its attorneys were given awards for helping to make it happen - so the idea that it is a group of "racist Jews" is laughable.
Further, when GenoV84 was camping on the site and I tried to edit the racist post made by the handle, the handle immediately created a reprimand on my IP because I wasn't signed in due to traveling and work. The result was a block on the Air BNB's location to edit Wikipedia at all as a reaction to protect the racist/anti-Semitic interpretation of sources. It was desperate. When I called the handle out and said he/she was acting like an "imbecile", he/she went immediately to a dispute/resolution committee that essentially told him off but still asked me to use nicer language...which I refuted kindly.
GenoV84 smear campaigned a 3,000 year old tribe on a website meant to be read by people interested in the subject and he did it less than 100 years after almost 1/3 of The Tribe's members were culled in Europe. Importantly, they were culled after the people of the proto-Francish kingdom decided to engage in a dehumanization campaign, humiliate the tribe intentionally by cutting specific portions of their hair in public, and then walked the members into what were called showers but knowing they were gas chambers. That was before the bodies were burned, which would potentially mean the tribal members did not have the same place they could have had in their version of the afterlife. GenoV84 is upset about being called an "imbecile" while engaging in the same dehumanization campaign style behavior that led to the catastrophe just previously mentioned and known as The Holocaust or The Shoa.
please edit out this handle's contribution, GenoV84's, unless they have extreme reason for being legitimate without ulterior motive. Thank you. Bless The Name.
BeyondTheGreenLine, Greetings from Area A. 18:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't get why this is dependent on judaism, as noahidists could say that the only sacred text is the Primeval history, thus rejecting other either judaist or christian teachings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.0.186 ( talk) 15:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Exactly! I am a Noahide and I can tell you that most Noahides reject everything post Noah, including the story of Abraham. None of the Jewish teachings are relevant to Noahidism. Rubix619 ( talk) 14:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
The article says "Noahides (/ˈnoʊ.ə.haɪdɪs/), or Noahites (/ˈnoʊ.ə.haɪtɪs/)", but shouldn't it be (/ˈnoʊ.ə.haɪdɪz/) in the first case and (/ˈnoʊ.ə.haɪtɪz/) in the second?
Or do they even end with -ɪz in the first place? If not, then they should be (/ˈnoʊ.ə.haɪdz/) and (/ˈnoʊ.ə.haɪts/).--
Adûnâi (
talk)
19:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Onetwothreeip: You deleted a reference to a person who is mentioned in a reliable 3rd-party source as having been instrumental in organizing one of the first Noahide conferences in the 1980s. Why is that fact not relevant to an article on Noahidism? And what does being a far-right or far-left wing politician or an ultra-Orthodox or Modern Orthodox (more accurate in this case) rabbi or priest or imam have to do with being an early supporter of Noahidism? Why do you assert that a source that is talking about Sons of Noah and Noahides doesn't pertain to Noahidism? Havradim ( talk) 10:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Under this heading, the article contains a paragraph beginning with "In one place in his books...," which goes on to say that concept #2 is based on an interpretation that there is a "contradiction" between two statements by Maimonides in "one place" and "another place," "in his books." Those places have not been cited in the article. In fact, the two places are two exactly adjacent paragraphs in the same chapter: Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings 10:9 and 10:10. The article then states, "Many people quote the first of his statements, not knowing about the existence of the second one." The fact that there are two different concepts of Noahidism "in Judaism" did not arise because there are people who read one paragraph of a chapter in Mishneh Torah, and are oblivious to the fact that there is another paragraph that immediately follows it -- which is what that sentence has been inserted to imply. That sentence is irrelevant to the two different scholarly opinions in Torah Law that the article is presenting, and it needs to be removed. Rather, the two different concepts of Noahidism arose because the Torah scholars all held that Maimonides did not contradict himself, and it was only left for them to explain why his Torah laws stated in ibid. 10:9-10 only appear to be a contraction at first glance, and that there are two possibilities for how the apparent contraction can be resolved. Therefore, to be accurate for the statement of either of the two concepts, the article should be changed to say that there is an "apparent contradiction" in Maimonides' words, instead of a "contradiction". Beyond this, the article presently only goes on to explain how rabbis who rule according to concept #2 reconcile the two paragraphs by Maimonides. The article neglects to explain how rabbis who rule according to concept #1 reconcile the two paragraphs. This omission needs to be corrected in a factual manner, with the main citations, in order not to be one-sided. Divine Code ( talk) 04:58, 28 October 2019 Divine Code ( talk) 19:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I've removed Jewish from "monotheistic Jewish religious movement" on the basis of "The term “Noahide” refers specifically to a non-Jew" in Feldman, Rachel Z. (8 October 2017). "The Bnei Noah (Children of Noah)" [1] under FOUNDER/GROUP HISTORY listed in the External links. Mcljlm ( talk) 11:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to also add that Noahidism existed before Judaism. Abraham came later, so there is no need to list this as a Jewish religion. Rubix619 ( talk) 23:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
References
Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of this encyclopedia;
GenoV84 ( talk) 12:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)"Today, nearly 2,000 Filipinos consider themselves members of the ‘‘Children of Noah,’’ a new Judaic faith that is growing into the tens of thousands worldwide as ex-Christians encounter forms of Jewish learning online.
Under the tutelage of Orthodox Jewish rabbis, Filipino ‘‘Noahides,’’ as they call themselves, study Torah, observe the Sabbath, and passionately support a form of messianic Zionism.Filipino Noahidesbelieve that Jews are a racially superior people, with an innate ability to access divinity.According to their rabbi mentors, they are forbidden from performing Jewish rituals and even reading certain Jewish texts.These restrictions have necessitated the creation of new, distinctly Noahide ritual practices and prayers modeled after Jewish ones. Filipino Noahidesare practicing a new faith that also affirms the superiority of Judaism and Jewish biblical right to the Land of Israel, in line with the aims of the growing messianic Third Temple Movement in Jerusalem."[3]
References
Trying to WP:PRESERVE what we can, after the content below was removed on account of lacking citations. It is permissible to use sectarian and WP:PRIMARY source citations for these, provided they are attributed as such and not put into wikivoice, and it is necessary to use primary sources in this case. the first two had been longstanding on the article. when I added the third explication (which is, I am aware, the main orthodox opinion following Maimonides, Melachim u milchamotehim), all three were removed. not remembering the exact reference off the top of my head, I will get to this later.
Jaredscribe ( talk) 00:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
1860s: The idea of Noahidism as a Judaic religion for non-Jews was developed by Rabbi Elijah Benamozegh. 1920-1930s: Aime Palliere became a Noahide and spread the teachings of Elijah Benamozegh in Europe. [1] Two direct quotes from an allegedly "Reliable, academic source" (at the very top of the web page) There is no justification for removing these important and relevant historical facts from the article. Jaredscribe ( talk) 07:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the High Council of B'nei Noah page were merged into Noahidism on November 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The content of this article needs severe tidying-up. Not until section 3 ('The Great Renewal') it is revealed that B'nei Noah is a movement, but not very accurately defined. Is it a congregation of faith or more of a moral association? Still worse, the whole wording is unfocused and utterly subjective, like college students giving a street sermon for a yet undefined religion (maybe that is just what it is?). Please enlighten me. -- Sasper 09:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I've just done a clean up. Robert Brockway 06:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The section 'High Council of B'nei Noach contained the following statement: A High Council of B’nei Noah was endorsed on January 10, 2006 by the newly formed Sanhedrin in Israel and was set up to represent B'nei Noah communities around the world.', with a source in the footnote. However, this 'Sanhedrin' is by no means widely accepted or recognized, and the source cited is a right-wing religious radio station (Arutz Sheva) which is not exactly the most unbiased or mainstream organization. The new 'Sanhedrin' was set up in October 2004 in Tiberias, Israel, but as an Orthodox Jew I have to say that I don't think it has had much impact or is even known to many Jews, let alone having any authority. I have modified the text to reflect this. Liskeardziz ( talk) 23:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC) User: Liskeardziz, 29 November 2007
This is an extremely poorly written article. Honestly. It lacks even basic criteria for understanding the Talmudic understanding of what these people really are. Anuchild ( talk) 05:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed that there is a discrepancy between this article and Seven Laws of Noah on the exact wording of the laws, especially laws 4 and 7. For example, this article defines Law 4 on "Sexual Promiscuity" in more concrete and wider terms than the main article, which only has "Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: You shall not commit adultery". I'm by no means an expert on Jewish law, so I'm in no position to make amendments. Hope someone else can. Klehti ( talk) 12:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody have any idea of the numbers of people involved? I have noticed that Noahides (and the Christian 'backlash') are very 'noisy' on the internet, but I have never met a 'visible' Noahide yet (I am Jewish, by the way, with the emphasis on the 'ish':-). Perhaps it's because I am in the UK, where religion tends to be more of a quiet, internal thing. Is it just yet another American cult with a few hundred vociferous members, or should we Jews all get ready to hide Christians in our attics?. 160.84.253.241 ( talk) 10:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Where does the commentary paragraph placed beneath each law come from? It doesn't appear to be referenced, and presents contentious viewpoints and value judgements as facts. Even if referenced, I'm not sure it belongs here, as it appears as a list of personal thoughts and meditations. FrFintonStack ( talk) 02:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I have taken out the few lines at the very end of this entry, referencing conspiracy theories. They do not meet any kind of encyclopedic standard unless there is a reference to an actual conspiracy theory/theories publicized about Noahidism. Anyone reverting the lines will be reported as per regulations of this website. My properly cited addition to that section, for balance, was unjustly removed, therefore I propose that having no documentation at all of any conspiracy theories against the Bene Noach moevement, there should be no such ridiculous section. 75.21.116.175 ( talk) 04:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
OH someone tried to have some dreck conspiracy in the first paragraph! Decapitating people, really. Please. Anuchild ( talk) 05:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The Lubavicher Rebbe's 89th birthday was March 26, 1991, it was this day in 1991 that was designated as "Education Day" (See source for H.J.Res.104 [1]) not in 1989. User:jcksnmrvn 10-05-2009 —Preceding undated comment added 00:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC).
Added Category:Jews and Judaism-related controversies because this is a controversial topic among Jews and Judaism. Only the 7th and last Lubavitcher Rebbe pushed this "campaign" and it's still not carried out really even by Chabad who give it lip service. All other groups are against a public push for this, certainly the non-Orthodox sector does not want it. The discussions on this talk page itself proves the scope and directions of the various controversies surrounding this subject. IZAK ( talk) 14:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
You know, this article could do with a little toning-down of all the Chabad Lubavitchers stuff. They have nothing to do with Noachidism or the modern Ben Noach. They like to say they have a sort of authority over the Noachides, but they do NOT. Also, we need to be more pluralistic about Torah authority, such as the above post questioning Noachide Law interpretation/death sentencing. This article has been VASTLY imporved now, but it still leans too much toward the Talmud--which has nothing to do with Gentiles--and too much of the Lubavitcher Sauce for anyone's taste.
I myself got my head snapped off by a Lubavitcher rabbi because I emailed him and said the rabbis' interference was wrong. I mentioned the death sentences they can "theoretically" impose on Bene Noach. He told me I did not know what I was talking about...but I DID know. This article is sort of offensive from the viewpoint that the Jewish faith, not Noachidism, is the only faith that matters or can make decisions. The Laws themselves enourage Gentiles to set up their own laws and enforcement! Why do we need Jewish sources to be cited at all for this sort of information? 75.21.119.97 ( talk) 17:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
This article is too heavily biased towards Chabad/Lubavitch and doesn't acknowledge other Jewish perspectives or activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.5.184 ( talk) 21:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
This is more than a controversial topic, AND really it meets the criteria for speedy deletion A10, as it is just a repeat in most parts of the Noahide Law page, which is heavily referenced and pretty well written. This page is poorly referenced dreck. There have been attempts to make it into an anti-Semetic rant, and it borders on the absurd as far as any encyclopedic reference. If you want to discuss the modern movements, then discuss the modern movements, but cease and desist with the really poorly written history lesson based not on Talmudic sources, but personal opinion. IZAK is completely correct. Mzkl is also correct in that this is not the basis of a political movement,nor is it representative of any truthful standard.
Anuchild (
talk)
05:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Circumcision as a Divine commandment was given by G-d specifically to the descendents of Abraham. It is a sign of G-d's covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17). It is also one of the 613 Jewish mitzvot that G-d commanded through Moses at Mount Sinai (Leviticus 12:3).
One should bear in mind that Noahides are not allowed to create additional religious obligations for themselves in the name of Divine commandments beyond their own 7 mitzvot and their details, nor to do additional acts with the intention that they are fulfilling additional Divine commandments.
But a faithful Noahide who desires to perform one the Jewish mitzvot may do so voluntarily for the sake of the benefits it will bring to him, with a few exceptions noted elsewhere: http://www.asknoah.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=15
With this understanding, a Noahide man may voluntarily have himself circumcised, or Noahide parents may voluntarily have a baby son circumcised. They may request this either of an Orthodox Jewish "mohel" (who is certified to perform traditional Jewish circumcisions), or of a trained medical doctor. Once a Noahide makes the decision to do this, he should follow through without delay.
Noahides may also choose male circumcision for the sake of either the benefits which circumcision can bring for a male's physical health, or refinement of personal character. (The extent of the health benefits of male circumcision have become better understood in the past few years: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8473838/ ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.175.38 ( talk) 17:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The fact that male Gentiles are allowed have themselves circumcised as a spiritual observance, even though it is meant to be a sign in the flesh of a Jew, is not problematic, since many Gentiles practice circumcision for medical purposes, and not in order to add a commandment or a new religion. Furthermore, the Gentile descendants of Keturah [from her sons who were fatherd by Abraham] were commanded to observe circumcision, from which we can conclude that this commandment is not exclusively for the Jews.
Therefore, any Gentile male, who wishes to be circumcised in order to refine himself is permitted to do so. But if he is not [assumed within Torah Law to be] descended from a son of Abraham and Keturah, he should be informed that he has no obligation or commandment to do this, and that he should not do so for the sake of a commandment, but rather only to refine his personality and his body and its desires. [Turkish men are obligated by Torah to be circumcised, since the children of Ishmael were intermingled with the children of Keturah during the time of the Babylonian Empire.])
The above-mentioned rule applies only to Jewish commandments that are not duty-bound by logic (even if they have a logical reason) such as circumcision, or tithes [by which a person limits himself to give specifically 10% of his income to charity]. However, those that are duty-bound by logic, such as honoring one’s parents, and kindness and charity [in general], are obligated to be kept, because such is the correct way for a person to act, as befitting the “image of G-d” in which he was created. However, a Gentile may not keep them because it is a commandment from G-d, but rather because one is obligated to be a good, moral person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.175.38 ( talk) 17:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Noah isn't mentioned, but the statement of the Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts in the New Testament is somewhat parallel... AnonMoos ( talk) 15:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone here taken issue with the fact that the title is so blatantly misleading? The title should be simply: Noahides. And the rainbow the common symbol of the Noahides. This is not an "ism" nor will it ever be. I, along with every observant non-Jew I know, goes out of the way to direct people to any article other than this one due to its scathing errors. Can we, at the very least, agree the title needs an update. I pray those who are editing actually are Noahides and not hateful defamers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.5.77.198 ( talk) 14:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
No, at least one of the editors, GenoV84, is not a Noahide but a self proclaimed Pagan. The handle speaks about the push by the Lubavitch movement for Noahidism which maybe could have a separate Wikipedia page...because they really are pushing the idea of "Noahidism" as a new form of worship - a little bit in addition to the idea of just creating "Noahides" (I understand the distinction made previously in this talk section and it is legit - not that i am against either one. I like Noahides and people that want to participate in the Lubavith's disseminated version of "Noahidism" for unaffiliated people is fine by me). However, GenoV84 calls their whole operation racist and supremacist based on his false interpretations of sources...really more likely pre-conceived opinions using deontological reasoning to come to the conclusion that the The Rebbe's followers are racist. It can be found in the "Modern Noahide Movement" section of this page and should be removed.
And just so we are clear, the Lubavitcher movement is the movement that recently, in 2020, was a strong proponent and reason that the United State's Congress, in a rare showing of bipartisan fashion, passed the "1st step" bill, which was a way of the government apologizing for over sentencing for practically the last 30 years with respect to drug crimes. It allowed scores of black and brown (but also non-minority) people to commute their sentences. This was an extremely difficult feat. The power of the state IS AWESOME. The idea that anyone, under any circumstances, can get THE STATE TO ADMIT IT WAS WRONG ON ANY LEVEL IS AMAZING. Both liberals (Van Jones) and conservatives alike engaged in pushing the bill, and the Lubavitcher movement was so heavily involved that some of its attorneys were given awards for helping to make it happen - so the idea that it is a group of "racist Jews" is laughable.
Further, when GenoV84 was camping on the site and I tried to edit the racist post made by the handle, the handle immediately created a reprimand on my IP because I wasn't signed in due to traveling and work. The result was a block on the Air BNB's location to edit Wikipedia at all as a reaction to protect the racist/anti-Semitic interpretation of sources. It was desperate. When I called the handle out and said he/she was acting like an "imbecile", he/she went immediately to a dispute/resolution committee that essentially told him off but still asked me to use nicer language...which I refuted kindly.
GenoV84 smear campaigned a 3,000 year old tribe on a website meant to be read by people interested in the subject and he did it less than 100 years after almost 1/3 of The Tribe's members were culled in Europe. Importantly, they were culled after the people of the proto-Francish kingdom decided to engage in a dehumanization campaign, humiliate the tribe intentionally by cutting specific portions of their hair in public, and then walked the members into what were called showers but knowing they were gas chambers. That was before the bodies were burned, which would potentially mean the tribal members did not have the same place they could have had in their version of the afterlife. GenoV84 is upset about being called an "imbecile" while engaging in the same dehumanization campaign style behavior that led to the catastrophe just previously mentioned and known as The Holocaust or The Shoa.
please edit out this handle's contribution, GenoV84's, unless they have extreme reason for being legitimate without ulterior motive. Thank you. Bless The Name.
BeyondTheGreenLine, Greetings from Area A. 18:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't get why this is dependent on judaism, as noahidists could say that the only sacred text is the Primeval history, thus rejecting other either judaist or christian teachings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.0.186 ( talk) 15:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Exactly! I am a Noahide and I can tell you that most Noahides reject everything post Noah, including the story of Abraham. None of the Jewish teachings are relevant to Noahidism. Rubix619 ( talk) 14:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
The article says "Noahides (/ˈnoʊ.ə.haɪdɪs/), or Noahites (/ˈnoʊ.ə.haɪtɪs/)", but shouldn't it be (/ˈnoʊ.ə.haɪdɪz/) in the first case and (/ˈnoʊ.ə.haɪtɪz/) in the second?
Or do they even end with -ɪz in the first place? If not, then they should be (/ˈnoʊ.ə.haɪdz/) and (/ˈnoʊ.ə.haɪts/).--
Adûnâi (
talk)
19:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Onetwothreeip: You deleted a reference to a person who is mentioned in a reliable 3rd-party source as having been instrumental in organizing one of the first Noahide conferences in the 1980s. Why is that fact not relevant to an article on Noahidism? And what does being a far-right or far-left wing politician or an ultra-Orthodox or Modern Orthodox (more accurate in this case) rabbi or priest or imam have to do with being an early supporter of Noahidism? Why do you assert that a source that is talking about Sons of Noah and Noahides doesn't pertain to Noahidism? Havradim ( talk) 10:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Under this heading, the article contains a paragraph beginning with "In one place in his books...," which goes on to say that concept #2 is based on an interpretation that there is a "contradiction" between two statements by Maimonides in "one place" and "another place," "in his books." Those places have not been cited in the article. In fact, the two places are two exactly adjacent paragraphs in the same chapter: Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings 10:9 and 10:10. The article then states, "Many people quote the first of his statements, not knowing about the existence of the second one." The fact that there are two different concepts of Noahidism "in Judaism" did not arise because there are people who read one paragraph of a chapter in Mishneh Torah, and are oblivious to the fact that there is another paragraph that immediately follows it -- which is what that sentence has been inserted to imply. That sentence is irrelevant to the two different scholarly opinions in Torah Law that the article is presenting, and it needs to be removed. Rather, the two different concepts of Noahidism arose because the Torah scholars all held that Maimonides did not contradict himself, and it was only left for them to explain why his Torah laws stated in ibid. 10:9-10 only appear to be a contraction at first glance, and that there are two possibilities for how the apparent contraction can be resolved. Therefore, to be accurate for the statement of either of the two concepts, the article should be changed to say that there is an "apparent contradiction" in Maimonides' words, instead of a "contradiction". Beyond this, the article presently only goes on to explain how rabbis who rule according to concept #2 reconcile the two paragraphs by Maimonides. The article neglects to explain how rabbis who rule according to concept #1 reconcile the two paragraphs. This omission needs to be corrected in a factual manner, with the main citations, in order not to be one-sided. Divine Code ( talk) 04:58, 28 October 2019 Divine Code ( talk) 19:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I've removed Jewish from "monotheistic Jewish religious movement" on the basis of "The term “Noahide” refers specifically to a non-Jew" in Feldman, Rachel Z. (8 October 2017). "The Bnei Noah (Children of Noah)" [1] under FOUNDER/GROUP HISTORY listed in the External links. Mcljlm ( talk) 11:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to also add that Noahidism existed before Judaism. Abraham came later, so there is no need to list this as a Jewish religion. Rubix619 ( talk) 23:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
References
Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of this encyclopedia;
GenoV84 ( talk) 12:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)"Today, nearly 2,000 Filipinos consider themselves members of the ‘‘Children of Noah,’’ a new Judaic faith that is growing into the tens of thousands worldwide as ex-Christians encounter forms of Jewish learning online.
Under the tutelage of Orthodox Jewish rabbis, Filipino ‘‘Noahides,’’ as they call themselves, study Torah, observe the Sabbath, and passionately support a form of messianic Zionism.Filipino Noahidesbelieve that Jews are a racially superior people, with an innate ability to access divinity.According to their rabbi mentors, they are forbidden from performing Jewish rituals and even reading certain Jewish texts.These restrictions have necessitated the creation of new, distinctly Noahide ritual practices and prayers modeled after Jewish ones. Filipino Noahidesare practicing a new faith that also affirms the superiority of Judaism and Jewish biblical right to the Land of Israel, in line with the aims of the growing messianic Third Temple Movement in Jerusalem."[3]
References
Trying to WP:PRESERVE what we can, after the content below was removed on account of lacking citations. It is permissible to use sectarian and WP:PRIMARY source citations for these, provided they are attributed as such and not put into wikivoice, and it is necessary to use primary sources in this case. the first two had been longstanding on the article. when I added the third explication (which is, I am aware, the main orthodox opinion following Maimonides, Melachim u milchamotehim), all three were removed. not remembering the exact reference off the top of my head, I will get to this later.
Jaredscribe ( talk) 00:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
1860s: The idea of Noahidism as a Judaic religion for non-Jews was developed by Rabbi Elijah Benamozegh. 1920-1930s: Aime Palliere became a Noahide and spread the teachings of Elijah Benamozegh in Europe. [1] Two direct quotes from an allegedly "Reliable, academic source" (at the very top of the web page) There is no justification for removing these important and relevant historical facts from the article. Jaredscribe ( talk) 07:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)