Talk:Chabad/Archive 6

Removal of parargraph of Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers

This subject of the chabad viewpoint and other Jewish viewpoint regarding this matter has been the subject of alot of discuusion on this talk page.

It has been proven that historically we find the same concepts and statements made by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, by other Chasidic leaders and non Chasidic sources as well. Furthermore, to quote RK, "Jewish theology of today is based on Jewish theology of past generations; this is especially true of Hasidim, who base their theology not just on the Mishna (1,800 years old) but on the writings of Hasidic masters (250 - 100 years ago)." Furthermore we find no reason to say that these viewpoints were changed or understood differently than the way chabad understands the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Therefore if there is a controversy it is only between all the above mentioned chasidic and non chasidic sources and others of which there is no reason to believe that they exist or between some people on some online message boards. Therefore if the is a controversy it isn't between chabad and others rather it is between chabad and others against I don't know who, which this controversy doesn't belong on the chabad page.

Regarding claims that there is a fraction of a percent of chabad that takes these statements literally and that they believe that the Rebbe is G-d, this is already covered under the next section of the contervosy section.

Therefore I propose removing the paragraph discussing "Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers" since it doesn't belong there and the part that may belong there is already discussed in the next section of the controversy.--PinchasC 02:08, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I propose that we leave it, since you have provided no non-Lubavitch sources that dispute it, only Lubavitch sources interpreting older sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have provided MANY non-lubavitch sources saying the same words of chabad and some even stronger than chabad, and no evidence has been provided that they believe this in a lesser fashion than chabad, and perhaps they even meant it in a stronger way.--PinchasC 00:21, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have provided a number of writers from cenuturies ago as interpreted by Lubavitch; you have provided nothing showing how modern Hassidim understand these concepts. There is a huge difference. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and JayJG makes a key point. No one now disputes that many Hasidim have made similar statements. But Hasidic theology is not based on single sentences! How do they understamd these claims? How do such claims function within their theology? These are crucial to understanding this issue. Pinchas, you are pointing out that Chabad Hasidim and non-Chabad Hasidim use similar (and sometimes the same) statements in constructing their theology. But Jews and Christian also use some of the same sources...but they interpret them in very different ways. RK

Jewish theology of today is based on Jewish theology of past generations; this is especially true of Hasidim, who base their theology not just on the Mishna (1,800 years old) but on the writings of Hasidic masters (250 - 100 years ago). and no evidence has been provided that they believe this in a lesser fashion than chabad, and perhaps they even meant it in a stonger way--PinchasC 00:27, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You keep making suppositions and claims; instead bring modern evidence. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Evidence doesn't need to be modern to lead to a NPOV. Come on already. Truthaboutreform 18:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What part of

Jewish theology of today is based on Jewish theology of past generations; this is especially true of Hasidim, who base their theology not just on the Mishna (1,800 years old) but on the writings of Hasidic masters (250 - 100 years ago).

don't you understand?--PinchasC 00:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I understand it all. But your saying it doesn't make it true. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is true, but it doesn't prove Pinchas's point. RK

First of all I'm quoting RK, who said it above, so you have me and RK saying it, second of all, that is what Judaism is about, you have a Mishna, and the Mishna doesn't get disregarded, you have a BACH and a RAMA and a YERUSHALMI, and a ZOHAR, and a MESILAS YESHARIM, and they don't get disregarded either and they among MANY OTHERS all say the same thing in similar words of chabad. as written above.--PinchasC 00:42, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What part of "You have provided a number of writers from centuries ago as interpreted by Lubavitch; you have provided nothing showing how modern Hassidim understand these concepts. There is a huge difference." don't you understand? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with JayJG. Other Hasidim have similar teachings, but how do they understand them? See my comments below. RK 18:58, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Lubavitch hasn't interpreted any of these writers, read them yourself, (I have provided the exact quotes and source of the quotes) and tell me where it says that modern Hassidim understand these quotes differently than it was written.--PinchasC 00:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You claim they understand these sources the way Lubavitch does. The onus of proof is on you. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, when it has been shown that they already meant it in the same way as chabad means it because why would one say that they didn't mean it the way they said it without offering explanations, than if you want to say that they changed than you have to prove that they changed from their previously held positions.--PinchasC 00:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are just repeating yourself. Bring current sources proving your claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg: Providing one Mishna, one Yerushalmi, one Bach, one Rema, one Zohar and one Mesilat Yesharim as viewed by one particular writer within Chabad (have I gotten this right? I am to tired of this discussion to be able to care as much as I should) doesn't tell us anything but how that particular writer views those particular passages. As we all know, reading sources is a lot about interpretation. The peshat isn't necessarily the correct way to read what was meant as a mashal, for instance. So bring a different (non-Chabad, at least) modern interpretation, and we can start talking... :) -- Olve 03:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have from Rabbi Dressler, and even though he may have learned Tanya he was still the mashgiach in Ponivitch which he was only able to be if he wasn't chabad.--PinchasC 03:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

JayJG offers many important points that I agree with. No one now disputes that many Hasidim have statements about the relationship between a tzaddik and God; no disputes that many Chabad Hasidic statements appear similar. But Hasidic theology (of any Hasidic group) is not based on single sentences! How do they understamd these claims? How do such claims function within their theology? These issues are crucial to understanding this issue. Pinchas, you are pointing out that Chabad Hasidim and non-Chabad Hasidim use similar (and sometimes the same) statements in constructing their theology. But Orthodox Jews and Reform Jews often use the same sources to come to radically different positions! Does the mere fact that they use the same books and sentences prove that they are the same? Of course not. How they interpret such statements, and how they reconcile real or apparent differences is important. Differences in their methodologies leads to huge differences in the resulting theology and practice. So much so that, according to some people, Orthodoxy and Reform are virtually separate faiths. That is the key point here. Wikipedia articles do not attack Reform and Orthodoxy, but they are pretty blunt in how members of these groups see each other. These articles, in fact, state that Orthodox Jews do not recognize the validity of any Reform prayerbooks or conversions. But these views are explained within their historical context, without anger, and in accord with our NPOV policy. The same can and should be done here. I believe that much of the information you removed needs to be restored. RK 18:58, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

What we can do is spend more time, perhaps in the article on Tzaddikim, explaining the various Jewish views on the doctrine of the Tzaddik. It can cover pre-Hasidic and post-Hasidic views, and in more detail we can explain how different groups can use the same sources to come to differerent conclusions. RK 18:58, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

It isn't just Chasidic texts that say these there are many non chasidic texts as well as quoted above, furthermore these non chasidic texts have commentaries written on them which explain anything out of ordinary or anything which can be misinterpreted. On the statements quoted above we don't find any commentaries which explain it in a different way than what chabad understands it as.

How would you interpret these numerous statements?--PinchasC 04:55, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pinchas, your claims are factually incorrect. I am simply astonished that you are still claiming that all other Hasidic Orthodox Jews agree with you. They do not. There is no way you can imagine this, as they clearly believe that Chabad beliefs are close to heresy (or in some views, already past the boundaries of heresy.) You may wish that other Hasidic groups agree with most Chabad Jews but they don't. The only way that I can understand your denial of this point is to conclude that you are not a mainstream representative of Chabad Judaism; you may represent a small faction that other Hasidic Jews agree with. RK 23:38, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

You are making claims without backing them up with sources, I have shown that historically over the past 2,000 years similiar statements to what the Rebbe said were said, I have shown that there aren't any commentaries which explain it differently than their literal interpratation, Furthermore Jews today base their beliefs on the teachings of the Rabbis of the past 2,000 years including those books which I wuoted above. The Rebbe 50 years ago said a similiar statement and said that this is similiar to the Zohar and the Yerushalmi. Now you are coming to me and telling me that Jews never believed that a Tzaddik can become completely nulified to G-d? Now I understand if you are telling me why you can't but a Tzaddik is on a higher spiritual level than you and he can. There is no reason to say that Jews have changed their viewpoints or held any differently than what chabad believes in. There happen to be some apologetic Rabbis like shach and keller that may think that what chabad believes in isn't what Judaism believes in however they are a minority and a fraction of a percent of the viepoints about this.

Not all Jews agree with the Rabbis, but Jews generally do study their writings. Truthaboutreform 18:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And once again I ask you what did those above mentioned sources mean if not for what chabad explains it as? --PinchasC 00:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pinchas, the onus of proof is on you. You are claiming that other Hasidic Jews agree with Chabad, despite the fact that it appears as if everyone disagrees with Chabad on this issue. Chabad Jews can argue why their interpretation is correct, but they cannot state that all other Hasidic Jews agree with them, when they plainly do not. I agree that you are using many of the same quotes, but given the vast disagreement between other Hasidic groups and much of Chabad, obviously much of Chabad is interpreting these verses in ways that differ from the standard Hasidic understanding. That is not meant as a judgement. I am merely accepting as a fact that a disgareement exists. RK 20:19, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

There is such a thing as a standard Hasidic understanding? Should there be? Rickyrab 22:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) (proud sockpuppetteer of User:Truthaboutreform)

RK, you keep on saying that others understand these sources differently than chabad, so I ask you, How do you believe other Chasidic Groups understand these statements, and how do you understand these statements?--PinchasC 00:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rooster613 06:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)No, all Hasidism do not understand the nature of a Rebbe in the same way as Chabad. It is my understanding that the Tanya teaches that a Zaddik is born in a class by himself, that he is born a perfect Tzaddik, while the rest of us are born on a lower rung (benoni) and BY NATURE can never become a Rebbe. However, Rebbe Nachman of Breslov (who was a contemporary of Schneur Zalman of Liady) clearly spoke out against the idea that the soul of a Tzaddik was somehow innately different from that of an ordinary Jew. Nathan of Nemirov (his personal secretary) wrote in Rabbi Nachman's Wisdom: "The Rebbe (i.e., Nachman) spoke out very strongly against those who thought that the main reason for a Tzaddik's great attainments was the high level of his soul. He insisted that this was not true, maintaining that it depends completely on good deeds (mitzvot)and effort. He was very specific in emphasizing this. He said, "Every person can attain the highest level. It depends on nothing but your own free choice... For everything depends upon a multitude of deeds." (page 29) And now that I've tracked down this source here, I'm going to go add the reference to the Breslov page.

What are you talking about? See the first chapter of Tanya that says that King David killed his Yetzar Hara thru fasting (which is the view of the Tanya of a Tzadik that he has no Yetzar Hara) thereby making King David not being born a Tzadik but becoming a Tzadik.--PinchasC 07:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pinchas, the purpose of Talk: pages is not to argue theology, but to argue article content. You have yet to produce a quote from a Hassidic group that proves they view this issue as Lubavitch does, and now you have another editor stating specifically that at least one Hassidic group understands this matter quite differently. Please devote your efforts to finding modern Hassidic groups who explicitly agree with the Lubavitch position, rather than continually arguing that they should agree based on the sources you use. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, the quote brought was from a source 200 years old!!! Furthermore the quote doesn't contradict what I said above, all it said was that anybody can become a Tzaddik, which I never said that, that couldn't happen.

Jayjg, How do you believe other Chasidic Groups understand these statements, and how do you understand these statements?--PinchasC 01:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right, the quote was 200 years old. Please bring a recent quote from a Chassidic group on the matter. And you keep misunderstanding the purpose of this page, which is not for you or I to debate what the correct understanding of these matters is. Bring a citation from Satmar, Ger, Bobov, whoever, agreeing with your interpretation, and then you'll have something. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand these calls for citations. Anybody who has any real familiarity with Chasidic groups knows that you are asking for the impossible. Name a single publication that anybody could possibly point to regarding anything! Name a single public statement by any Chasidic Rebbe, even someone like the Bostoner, on any issue. The only thing I have seen is condemnations and kol koreh's, none of which had anything to do with Lubavich or anything the Rebbe said. Your assumption is that Chasidim act like the MO and print a "Journal of Contemporary Chasidic Issues." Even Satmar, the most vocal critics of Lubavich, do not take issue with the concept of tsaddik. And, the claim that the sources are 200 years old only weakens your argument when discussing Chasidim. Take two seconds and consider what the age of a sefer means to a Haredi Jew.User:PhatJew

Hasidic groups publish all the time; Wikipedia demands relevant citations. If you can't provide citations regarding the beliefs of these modern groups, then you can't put the claims in Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Once again, you resort to blind assertion when I asked for even one reference. "Name a single publication that anybody could possibly point to regarding anything!" User:PhatJew

You keep trying to reverse the burden of proof. If you think Satmar or Bobov or Ger or whoever believe something, produce a citation which proves they do. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was about to post about this. You are completely right, this is a question of burden of proof. And I am absolutely adament that if you are going to accuse Chabad of being outside of the mainstream, the burden of proof is on you. This is the very essence of the disagreement. You guys seem to think that anything which doesn't agree with you is automatically out of the bounds of Judaism. That is not so. Chabad, the Alter Rebbe and the Tanya have been accepted into mainstream Judaism. If you disagree, please state so right now, but I would be shocked. If you are going to say that something happened to change that, then you need to prove it. The burden of proof is always on the accuser. You are the ones who want to assert in this article that Chabad has somehow gone off the deep end. Once again, this is why I think it is so evident that this is just a continuation of the fight between the Chasidim and misnagdim, not anything new. The people who are against Chabad are the people who have a presumption of guilt against Chabad and require Chabad to prove its innocence. User:PhatJew

Nullifying one's own soul

I Don't understand why you insist that Jews don't believe that somone can reach a level of only doing what G-d wants thereby nulifying himself comeletly to G-d.

Even R. Eliyahu Dessler zt”l(author of Michtav Me’Eliyahu, the most influential and widely disseminated work of hashkafa of the last century)wrote “ki tzuras hatzaddikim hu Hashem yisbarech, v’heinu hach” (brought down in “marbitzei torah u’musar beginning of vol. 3 page 10).

Pinchas, you are still confused on this entire issue. No one claimed that Jews do not or cannot believe this. In fact, we agree with you that many Hasidic Jews believe this. But that is not the point. The idea you mention above is not the total sum of all Chabad religious philosophy. There is a lot more to Chabad, and it is the way that they teach and understand such things that has caused other Orthodox Jews to view them as moving beyond the boundaries of any form of Jewish faith. You are merely offering religious prooftexts for your own religious beliefs, and you are totally missing the point of the discussion. RK 13:33, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

And see the Bach to the Tur on Oirach Chaim Siman 47, "The purpose of this world is that one should be involved in Torah Study, So our souls should be connected in its essence with the spirituality and holiness of the giver of the Torah...And if one is learning Torah with this intention They are a Markavah (chariot [meaning completely nulified, and like one]) to the Shechina may he be blessed. That the Shechinah is actually within them because they are the room of G-d and in them in actuality is the Shechina establishing its dwelling place.

and see what the Ramchal wrote in Mesilas Yesharim chapter 26, "One that is holy and constantaly cleaves constantly to G-d, and his soul is fired up with a true understanding, with love for his creator and fear...A person like this is himself considered to me a Mishkan, and like a temple, and Mizbeiach...Therefore it is said that Tzadikim are a Markava, because the Shechina dwells upon them like it used to dwell in the holy temple.--Truthaboutchabad 08:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

After looking up the above non hasidic quotes, how can you say that anybody, chasidim or non chasidim understand them differently, how much clearer can they get??? If you want to say that they don't mean exactly what they say, what do they mean, find me one source that says they they don't mean what chabad says that they mean.--PinchasC 02:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, an encyclopedia does not care if your own personal analysis "proves" that all Hasidic agree with Chabad. In the real world, other Hasidic and non-Hasidic Orthodox Jews do not agree with Chabad. Obviously, your proof is wrong; there are genuine reasons that such significant differences exist. Why do you keep ignoring this point? We are here to describe these differences, but not to present original arguments to prove that they don't exist! They simply do exist, even if it makes us uncomfortable to note this. RK 13:33, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

RK, Since you have agreed that others believe this that chabad believes in, why is a difference of belief in the controversy section? If you want to put something in the controversy section, put how they are different o why others don't like chabad, don't put that there is a specific disagreement if you say that, that disagreement doesn't exist. If you want to say that they son't agree with chabad, say about what don't say they don't agree about this when it's really something else.--PinchasC 00:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of Hasidic origins in opening section

The article needs improvement. As it stands it omits important reference to Hasidut throughout the ages. For example Hasidei Ashkenaz. Such an oversight needs objective correction please.Halakhic-Jews-Only 23:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think you are confused. (A) This article is only about Chabad Hasidic Judaism. We have a totally separate article on Hasidic Judaism in general. (B) The Hasidei Ashkenaz are a separate group from the later Hasidic Judaism. RK 02:06, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

RE: Not all "lies"! What Chabad actually says about its Rebbe

To the writer of commentary nr. 2. You are quoting things written by a "Rabbi" who doesn't tell us what is name is, from who he received semichah, what movement he is affiliated with. How can you take him serious?

Can someone explain to me where is the documentation of actual people who "worship the Rebbe"? Is this all Berger's book. I have met a lot of crazies in the world, but I haven't met anybody who claims that the Rebbe is actually the Abishter. And, I daresay that I have hung around more Lubies than anybody else who frequents this site.

Additional Links:

Find links to Google group: Lubavitch and more here:

http://www.770easternparkway.com

Reality vs. Theory

Despite the clamor for "modern sources", Halacha and Jewish religious philosophy are trees which draws on their trunk and branches. That case has been made repeatedly and conclusively here. So we must ask why some are so vehemently opposed to Chabad Chassidus to the point of violent acts that violate even their own Rebbe's tenets. Past history, as recently as 20th Century Williamsburg provides ample examples. Some insistent writers here seem to fall into a related category: "A man, convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."

To find one answer we must look beyond Chassidus to human nature, and in particular the phenomenon of pseudospeciation--treating those who are different as if they were another species, and then feeling justified in behaving toward them in a most un-humane way. Similar issues arise in the history of science, as documented by, among others, Thomas Kuhns.

The sequelae of such pseudospeciation have no place, in my view, in an article about the development or philosophy of Chabad Chassidus itself. They might properly belong in a separate article about the history of certain inter-group relationships, or of "modern" Jewish History, or even in an article about psychology. The basic materials have been well documented in a Harvard University Press book (reference?) about the Jews of Williamsburg/Crown Heights. But an article about the philosophy of Chabad Lubavitch should probably be free of such materials, just as an article about (L'Havdil) Heidegger's philosophy should be separate from one about his biography or relations with (pace Hannah Arendt) the Nazis. Unsigned by 67.151.53.195.

NPOV

There is an NPOV tag at the top. I would like to have this removed. Could all the disputants please enumerate their concerns, and we'll try to settle. JFW | T@lk 07:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and if no responses are offered, I will remove the tag on 10 May. JFW | T@lk 21:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The dispute is discussed at length on this discussion page. However to repeat what is written above, this article has th following paragraph

"Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers

Before Schneerson's death, the beliefs of Chabad Hasidim had become extremely controversial among other Orthodox Jews. All Hasidic Jews are adherents of Kabbalah, esoteric Jewish mysticism. Among Kabbalists the role of the tzadik ("righteous" or "saintly" person) is stressed more than among non-Kabbalists. A tzadik is believed to have close connection with God, acting as a "chariot for the Divine" (מרכבה לשכנה), both in life and after death. ( Tanya Epistle 27 (http://www.chabad.org/library/archive/LibraryArchive2.asp?AID=7972))

Many Jewish sources stress prayer directly to God, and not through an intermediary. However, Hasidism has stressed the ability of tzadik to act as an intermediary with God on their behalf. Hasidim continue to ask for such intervention even after the death of their Rebbe and often visit their burial places to pray for blessings. The stipulation in such prayer is that one must recognize that the tzadik is not God. Among Hasidim all rebbes are held to be tzadikim and revelation of God.

Schneerson's teachings developed this theology into a new direction, holding that "It is not possible to ask a question about a [Rebbe being a] go-between, since this is the essence of God Himself, as He has clothed Himself in a human body" (Likutei Sichos II:510-511). Schneerson holds that a tzadik, who does whatever God wants, effectively nullifies their own soul as his soul joins with the will of God. In this view the words of the tzadik are the words of God (Pavzener, based on Tanya Chapter 2 (http://www.chabad.org/library/archive/LibraryArchive2.asp?AID=7881)).

Schneerson makes this explicit "Just as 'God and the Torah and the Jews are One', means not just that the Jews are connected to the Torah and to God, but literally they are all one, so too is the connection of Chassidim and their Rebbe, they are not like two things that become united but rather they become literally one. Therefore, to a Chosid, him and the Rebbe and God are one entity." This view has been rejected as heretical by some non-Hasidic Orthodox groups since the beginnings of Hasidism.

Few, if any, Chabad Hasidim disagree with this, since the statements of a Rebbe define the Hasidic group. Critics have claimed that such views contradict the Jewish principles of faith since the publication of the first Hasidic book, Toldot Yaakov Yosef in 1780.

As discussed above, this part should be removed because it is not a chabad only viewpoint, in fact as shown above all Chassidim believe this, and all Chassidim base their beliefs on previous teachings (The fact that the teaching was 200 years ago, make it more important), in fact even non chasidim like R. Eliyahu Dessler zt”l (http://www.famousrabbis.com/dessler.htm)(author of Michtav Me’Eliyahu, the most influential and widely disseminated work of hashkafa of the last century)wrote “ki tzuras hatzaddikim hu Hashem yisbarech, v’heinu hach” (brought down in “marbitzei torah u’musar beginning of vol. 3 page 10). and I have brought quotes from the gemara, rama, and classicla mussar works that everyone believes the same. (And when I'm told bo some posters here that these statements by all these books don't mean that, they can't say what it does mean.)

Therefore, It has been proven that historically we find the same concepts and statements made by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, by other Chasidic leaders and non Chasidic sources as well. Furthermore, to quote RK, "Jewish theology of today is based on Jewish theology of past generations; this is especially true of Hasidim, who base their theology not just on the Mishna (1,800 years old) but on the writings of Hasidic masters (250 - 100 years ago)." Furthermore we find no reason to say that these viewpoints were changed or understood differently than the way chabad understands the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Therefore if there is a controversy it is only between all the above mentioned chasidic and non chasidic sources and others of which there is no reason to believe that they exist or between some people on some online message boards. Therefore if the is a controversy it isn't between chabad and others rather it is between chabad and others against I don't know who, which this controversy doesn't belong on the chabad page.

Regarding claims that there is a fraction of a percent of chabad that takes these statements literally and that they believe that the Rebbe is G-d, this is already covered under the next section of the contervosy section.

Therefore I propose removing the paragraph discussing "Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers" since it doesn't belong there and the part that may belong there is already discussed in the next section of the controversy--PinchasC 04:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

A tiny attempt at a bridge...

Might a new observer that stumbled upon this offer a small, tiny attempt at a bridge?

The way I see it, the argument here is not about the Chabad theology so much as how the theology is understood. In parts, this does remind me of obscure Catholic and generally Christian doctrinal controversies, as what is being argued over is based upon text that can be really, really misunderstood without trying very hard. :-) Now, it links fairly quickly into a critical question of what such an article on WP hopes to achieve. IMHO, it would be helpful to put it forth as such:

"Chabad theology states X."

Then, we say, "This is what Chabadniks say that means."

Next, we say, "But, this is what other people say."

Personally, in an article that should be an overview of Chabad Lubavitch, it would seem profitable to judiciously leave aside such knotty theological controversies. It deserves a separate article, IMHO. --Penta 16:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

This is a fine suggestion, but it seems to me that the article already does this. A problem is that Pinchas and PhatJew seem absolutely convinced that other Jews agree with what Chabadniks say (even though this is just not so). They seem totally sure that their interpretations of Hasidic texts about rebbes and tzaddiks are mainstream. The problem, however, is that their view is rejected by other Orthodox Jews, including other Hasidic Jews. So we are obligated to report on the fact that the rest of Orthodoxy finds these Chabad ideas incorrect. RK 17:33, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

I believe that Penta is correct, this entire part should eb in an article entitled Judaism's view of a Tzadik, and then you can quote all those sources and how everyone interprets them (if they do actually interpet them differently than chabad, which has not been shown at all)--PinchasC 22:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

This article is about Lubavitch's views, not about Judaism's views. They are not synonymous. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

That's right jayjg, this article should onlt mention things which have to do with Lubavitch, not with something which chassidim and all other Jews believe as well. Therefore this part belongs in its own article as discussed above.--PinchasC 01:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The contrasts and divisions between Lubavitch and other Jewish groups are relevant here. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, they are relevant here if they exist, however it has not been proven that they exist, in fact the opposits has been shown. If you feel that there is something that is differnt between only chabad and others show me the others however until then don't say that such a diffrence exists.--PinchasC 04:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Claims on the talk: page that all Hasidim believe as Lubavitch do have not been backed up by any sources stating the same. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

They have been backed up by their words which were quoted, and hassidim believe in what their previous teachers have stated as do most other Jews.--PinchasC 23:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like the cooperation of everybody here to resolve this.--PinchasC 02:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Co-operation will be easy to obtain; just find some other modern-day Chassidic groups which espouse the same beliefs. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As there has been no movement in this discussion, I have now removed the silly {{Totallydisputed}} tag. I don't think factual accuracy is an issue here, it's the interpretation of the facts. I will not support a new tag; just use the {{SectNPOV}} on the contentious section. JFW | T@lk 22:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There has not been movement because you have stuck with your unproven statements, and that tag isn't silly, if you don't like it you can vote that it should be deleted.--PinchasC 09:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neither have you shown any attempt to provide evidence that Jayjg requested. You can have your {{SectNPOV}} tag on the section that is disputed. By the way, I am not otherwise a participant in this discussion, so don't use "you".

Now we're having this discussion, can you explain why Chabad feels it necessary to colonise the term "chassidus" to refer strictly to its own philosophy? According to Chabad, chassidus seems to have started with the Alter Rebbe. Never have I heard a Chabad talk quoting the Kedushas Levi or the Noam Elimelech directly.

All this confirms my niggling suspicion that Jayjg is right, and that Chabad tries to force its innovations into the perception of mainstream Chassidus. That is POV, and that is a misrepresentation. I know the Rebbes of other Chassidus'n (apart from Satmar) are quiet about the contrasts between Chabad and "normal" Chassidus, but Chabad is just obviously innovative in a large number of matters, however much you distort mainstream Chassidic views. JFW | T@lk 10:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New article on Judaisms view of holy people

I would like to propose based on some previous comments that a new article be started explaining Judaisms view of Holiness or start a new section in Holiness in which it will discuss in detail this entire controversy of what chabad and other Jews do or don't believe about them. And to link from chabad and Hasidic Judaism Breslov etc. to there if a difference is shown. Please add your thoughts. Thanks. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

How about Tzadik? JFW | T@lk 14:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Tzadik is a disambiguation page, but maybe Tzaddik --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I have created the article and hope to fill it over the next week. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV editing

By the grace of G-d
Greetings and blessings. I have edited the links section to add few Mashichist sites to give a greater range of Chabad views on the issue of identity of Moshiach and the proccess of redemption. While I realize Wikipedia is not a link list I feel that all those sites should be included. I have also moved the "Breif history of Chabad Messianism" to the historical sites section from it's original location in the Chabad Messianic sites section since it's not a Mashichist propaganda, but the author of the article simply presents an overview of the development of the Moshiach identification campaign within Chabad and further states elsewhere on his site that he doesn't believe the Rebbe is Moshiach therefore it obviously doesn't belong in the Chabad Messianic sites section. I have also added the http://www.YudelKrinsky.com as satire is just another way to convey information and studying it creates a clearer picture about the issue in the mind of a serious Wikipedia reader. With respect and blessing. Ariel Sokolovsky 13:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC) PS.Please see my talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ariel_Sokolovsky for copies of the emails between me and Pinchas to understand why he is so determined to keep these links deleted.