Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

History section

I don't know who moved the History section over the Identity section. I don't recall there being a consensus on the move, or even a discussion about it. Currently the History section needs help. Some facts need to be cited, and it's presentation is rather ... clunky. The Identity section was designed to be the first section a reader sees because Identity is often the reason why people pull up Messianic Judaism as an article - they want to know WHO we are. That is why the Identity section is one of our best sections. Currently the History section needs help. It doesn't have the chutzpah to be the first section listed at this point. I'll keep editing it, hoping my changes can add enough info for someone to redraft the whole thing and make it more presentable. I think the subsections "Messianic Judaism and..." are fine for now. Discussion on moving the History section or keeping it where it is is also appreciated here. Thoughts? inigmatus 08:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it certainly helps to know WHO is being discussed before we find out what. As far as who moved it does the History page show anything? I saw that Noahlaws was adding links and then a few admins did some reverts, but I am not sure who moved the sections around. Jamie Guinn 13:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I put the history section first because it makes for a more encyclopedic presentation, and is more consistant with other religious articles within Wikipedia. Also the history contextualizes the issues brouught up in the "identity" section. (Personally I find the Identity section to be confusing at best, and misleading at worst, for those who have prior exposure to Messianic judaism, and were I the sole editor, I would delete it entirely). Style, as well as content, are important to maintaining a well written article, and I feel putting histoy first serves that purpose. Lorem 00:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Unity in diversity.

Unless anyone objects, I removed this section entirely from History and from the article altogether. It just didn't seem to fit anywhere, was not referenced, and to be honest, I'm not to sure what its purpose was. If the author or its supporters comment what they think about this, please let me know below. I know I violated my own rule not to do major changes without consulting here first, but I related this decision to the History discussion above in an effort to "clean up" the article. This article has reached a limit of usability where new information needs to be sourced as quickly as possible. inigmatus 05:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge Messianic Halakha to here

See Talk:Messianic Halakha#Merge to Messianic Judaism. IZAK 03:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism is already too (78kb) long. Messianic Halakha was created to MOVE halakhic information away from the article into a seperate article Messianic Halakha. See the Wikiproject Messianic Judaism task list for more information. I am removing merger proposal per previous Talk (which has been archived) which supports the existence of Messianic Halakha as seperate from Messianic Judaism. inigmatus 03:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Halakha is a disingenuous and improper term to use. "religious practice" is much better, and less POV, in light of the many Christian elements. -- Avi 04:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's move this discussion to Talk:Messianic Halakha and let's discuss it there to keep it focused. Once we resolve the article name dispute, fixing links on Messianic Judaism will then be easy and undisputed. inigmatus 04:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oy Veh! Edit Wars! Let's keep a cool head.

Recently we've had quite the rollercoaster ride. I just want everyone to be aware that Messianic Judaism and related articles have had a history of edit wars, a past history I might add, because up until this last week it's been relatively quiet except for obvious vandalism from users that have been known to be disruptive.

Most of the editors on all sides of the article debates have worked hard to get them to the NPOV place they are at. As an editing team we all have concluded that in light of the passions that can be aroused between editors of all sides, is that what is best is for the article and for everyone is that we ALL propose major changes and insertions in the discussion pages, and wait for a response or consensus FIRST before adding them into the article. Doing so slows down the number of reverts, and actually helps rather than hinders the development of the articles. If you feel an issue is disputed, please let us know in the talk pages rather than arbitrarily change significant work that we have all worked hard to achieve kind of a peaceful "status quo." We all want to assume good faith, but edit wars destroy that trust. Please, I ask personally as a fellow editor, that if you value true NPOV, that you post in talk pages first and wait for a consensus on anything changes you think the opposition might feel would provoke an edit war: this includes what others might think are disruptive as POV changes, article renames, section edits, link name edits, etc. We should all be somewhat versed Wikipolicy, so I shouldn't have to go into detail in how to make editing a constructive enterprise in articles that have a known history of edit wars. I just ask that you remember what you read in those policies, and consider also what I've said here. We really want to work with you to achieve NPOV. Will you work with us? For the sake of the peace, let's focus more on being constructive rather than disruptive. Think about how the opposition would feel what you are putting in an article, and if you think it will cause a problem, please post your proposed change in Talk and wait for a response from the opposition. If your change gets reverted by the established opposition, then folks, come on - that should be our criteria to realize that what we just posted IS a problem, and NEEDS to be discussed. Most of us know pretty much where we all stand on the issues. So therefore, I ask everyone to be PATIENT within the established guidelines, and consider also what I've written here. I think it will help everyone in the end. Does anyone else agree with me? inigmatus 05:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Jamie Guinn 14:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Messianic Gerim (Righteous Non-Jews)

In the article (p. Messianic Jews and Gentiles) there is a scentence: Messianic Gerim (Righteous Non-Jews). Gerim are not Righteous Non-Jews. Tb3 18:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

From a theological perspective, the issue is debatable with the qualifier "Messianic."

Talmud

There is no direct mention of Jesus in the Talmud. There are some commentaries who believe that mention of some "idolworshippers" actually referes to Jesus, but that must be quoted in their name, not the Talmuds name, as the Talmud itself is mute on that point. Please check your sources, AbA. -- Avi 13:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... there is no mention of Jesus in the Talmud. Wow. I wonder if that actually helps the Messianic case or somehow doesn't help it. Hmmm, Judaism has been defined as "not Christianity" but when the Talmud "says nothing of Jesus" then on what basis then is Jesus rejected? According to what polemic? What judgement? What tradition? What ruling? Certainly not according to the Torah, and well as we can both agree here, not according to the Talmud either! Please enlighten me and deliver me from my ignorance. I am quite curious as to what you mean that Jesus isn't mentioned in the Talmud. inigmatus 22:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ask Avraham ben Avraham, he seems to know more than he is letting on . Also, there exists tradition and normative texts from the post-Talmudic era. -- Avi 12:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Inigmatus, on what do you base your assertion that "Judaism has been defined as 'not Christianity'"? [To be clear, Judaism is not Christianity, but that statement is not a definition, any moreso than saying "Islam is not Buddhism" can be characterized as a "definition of Islam". Or, saying that "Trees are not rocks" is a definition of "tree".] To speak to the questions that follow that statement, Talmudh is a redaction of Torah, not a running historical commentary. Talmudh is best understood as an extension or "fleshing out" of Tanakh, not as a "continuation" thereof. Your 2nd question, however, leads me to wonder if you have anything even remotely approaching an open mind on the subject...if rejection of Jesus (I assume you really did mean to say "rejection of Jesus as the Messiah", but I can't be certain) is only possible in your eyes by means of a "polemic", rational discussion with you is utterly pointless. If you compare what Avi said to your response, you come off sounding like a flailing lunatic. To quote him, he said "[t]here is no direct mention of Jesus in the Talmud.", which you incorrectly paraphrase as "no mention of Jesus in the Talmud". Avi chose his words very carefully when he included "direct" in his comments. He then says there are commentaries [he means "commentators"] who believe that some references to idolaters are referring to Jesus, and says simply that instead of saying "the Talmud says...", you have to say "Plony says that when the Talmud says ... it is referring to Jesus". Your response to this simple statement, a specific application of Wikipedia policy, is to go bonkers and start talking about delivering you from your ignorance. How about, instead, you deliver us from frivolous affectations, and deliver us some decent editing? Thanks, Tomer^talk 05:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro changes

I had to do something to clean up the intro. Something was wrong with the reference codes used, so to clean up the article temporarily, I deleted the references. If someone wouldn't mind putting the references back in a more orderly code, that would be appreciated. inigmatus 22:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks avi for taking care of this. I couldn't quite figure out what went wrong with the cite code. inigmatus 04:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

AbA -- You are either misled or being disingenuous

Have you learned Gemara at ALL? R' Eliezer was placed in Cherem for Tanur D'bei Achnai. Washing hands has nothing to do with Jesus. That entire section is POV Original research and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Secondly, you cannot continue placing unverified statements in the "issues" section. Anyone who knows Shas (talmud) knows that your sources do NOT confirm your statements. Give me a page from Stensaltz where he SAYS what you are bringing. The Talmud does NOT say so, and the sources you bring are insufficient.

Continuing to place unsourced, unverified, original research without suitable backing documentation IS vandalism, will be reverted, cdoes not count towards 3RR (as this is NOT a content dispute but your placing WP:OR on article pages), and will result in your being sanctioned if you continue to violate policy.

Thank you. -- Avi 15:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Moshiach?

Regular, mainstream Judaism believes in a Messiah. We do not believe that Jesus was or is that Messiah, but we believe in a Messiah. Thus, all mainstream Judaism is Messianic Judaism, and this group, as described and named here, is a misnomer. It implies (a) that this is a sect of Judaism, which it is not, as clearly described above in the "What MJ is not" section, and that (b) since this is Messianic Judaism, this is what separates it from the mainstream, i.e. implying that regular Judaism is not messianic in its beliefs. LordAmeth 19:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

LordAmeth -- ...and yet that is what the group calls itself.

Changing the description of the group in this article doesn't change what it calls itself. So since that is what the group calls itself I believe it should stay.

But I can see your point. When they (or we, since I am "MJ" too) have a more "on" title for themselves, then it should be changed. Rivka 18:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Judging by your comments, LordAmeth, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about, considering that "Messianic Judaism" is almost universally used (and in the U.S. where the movement is concentrated), recognized as the name of this movement. I have no problem with people attempting to challenge our scholarship within the bounds of reason, but I prefer that such people at least know the basic facts before they attempt to do so.

Even your comment about "all mainstream Judaism" is false; Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism's official position is that there is no Messiah at all (or at least, that he will not be personal). Noogster 00:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Too Much Junk in this Article!

Alright, it's quite apparent now. This article has become way too long, with way too much contradictory information that is either redundant, highly questionable, or even downright false. It has become messy from top to bottom. And this criticism is coming from a devout, Torah-observant Messianic. Expect within the next couple weeks to see a major clean-up and re-NPOV of the whole article, that will cut some of the chaff and make the article very factual and organized. I may also add a couple of new pictures. If you have questions, comments, or criticisms related to the matter, feel free to address them here or to PM me. Regards. Noogster 00:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The best idea, in my opinion, is to clean up this article, although it will get very long, and then spin off entire sections per WP:SUMMARY. -- Avi 19:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

Per WP:WEASEL:

The emergence of weasel-worded statements often has its roots in biased or normative statements, e.g. "Montreal is the best city in the world". Often, people who are convinced that some statement or other is true naturally want to see it mentioned in the articles where it is relevant; however, statements such as these tend to jump out at the reader as obvious opinion-stated-as-fact and quickly get rooted out. The problem of the weasel words starts when an editor realises this and attempts to remedy the situation by modifying the statement to at least admit that it is not necessarily factual, e.g. "Some people say Montreal is the best city in the world." At first glance, this rephrasing appears to have solved the problem - clearly "some people say" does not equate "it is a fact that". Yet it remains uninformative in a very fundamental sense, as the context of this statement is crucial to comprehending its significance, and none is provided. A few simple questions you could ask this editor strongly illustrate what the problem with that is: Who says that? You? When did they say it? Now? How many people think that? How many is some? What kind of people think that? Where are they? What kind of bias might they have? Why is this of any significance?

— WP:WEASEL

“Many Messianic Jews are more traditionally observant than liberal Jews,” seems to violate a number of the bolded issues. Can you answer those questions? -- Avi 02:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations need a lot of work

The citation structure here is somewhat of a mess. Some sources are quoted multiple times, in full, in different citations, others are using improper sources, and many statements have no sources at all. I will try and slowly go through each of the sources, confirm them, place them into cite templates, and then have them listed in one of the larger list ones, or split them out individually, if they will be referenced more than once in the text. -- Avi 18:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I finally completed updating the citation at the beginning of the article. But the rest of it needs serious work. -- Avi 21:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Messianic Jewish theology

There already exists the article Messianic Jewish theology. The Theology section in this article should have anything extra merged into that article, and then be chopped down into a summary. -- Avi 19:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Avi, I applaud you for your speedy updates. I was just about to start updating things myself (took me a while to even get a chance to read the updated article I'd "saved" for myself LAST WEEK). You're the best, dude. Rivka 15:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you -- Avi 18:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes we do appreciate your speediness. I wish you were MJ so you could actually contribute rather than delete. Thanks! inigmatus 22:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll ignore your insults and personal attacks, and point out I try and both edit and delete in accordance with wiki standards. I hope you do the same. -- Avi 01:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Messianic Orthodox Jews

This section has been without verified and reliable sources, and tagged as such, since January 29, 2006, or about three weeks now (a veritable eternity here in wikipedia :) ). Can anyone find anything to substantiate it, or need it be removed as WP:OR? -- Avi 18:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Avi, you and others have chased off the vast majority of MJ editors. Currently our time is spent defending other areas against you guys. You can't expect a turn around time to requests like this. If you delete it, you will removing something that can be sourced, but I DONT HAVE THE FREAKIN TIME TO DO IT BECAUSE YOU GUYS KEEP VFDING MJ STUFF ALL OVER THE PLACE CAUSING ME and whatever hapless MJ soul that gets smacked down, TO SPEND COUNTLESS HOURS IN UNPRODUCTIVE DEBATES. Now show us a bit of grace. Like 2 months; or else cease and desist the VfDs for a couple weeks. K?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Inigmatus (talk • contribs)

Funny, in all of my time "chasing" you around, I managed to put more work and update this article better in one day than you have in three weeks. Quod erat demonstratum. Please try and work with people in wikipedia instead of attacking them. You will find you will accomplish much more that way. Also, please stop with the personal attacks on myself, my religion, and your miscasting my intentions. -- Avi 02:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism and the Early Church

Do any editor have any WP:RS's to back up any of this? -- Kendrick7^talk 18:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no. OK, section gone bye-bye. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It was just restored today. Perhaps Noogster has sources for it. With the {{unsourcedsect}} tag, I would give it around a week before cutting it out, myself. Do you have an issue keeping it untit the 24th of February?-- Avi 18:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, alright. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Waited long enough. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced tag

Since most of the article is now sourced, and the sections with problems are clearly labeled in their sections, would anyone mind if I took off the unreferenced tag at the top? JoshuaZ 00:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the article top can have the tage removed but there are some sections that are completely unsourced that should get {{unsourcedsect}} instead. -- Avi 01:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I put it back. Too much of the second half of the article is unsourced. -- Avi 07:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

More citations

I took what you did afterwards, Noogster, and found quotes/links to a number of points. Also, I brought the "rabbiyeshua" sources that vehemently deny Jesus was a Pharisee and call the Talmud a "danger". Everything has a link and a quote, and the sources must be reliable, because they have been used in this article for months. -- Avi 07:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I made comments in the edit summaries for every edit, which will explain what I did step-by-step. -- Avi 07:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The movement's name in common use

This article claims quite a few times that "Messianic Judaism" refers only to "observant" Jews who believe in the Christian messiah. Accordingly, it also states that the use of the same term for Jews for Jesus and similar groups is a result of "confusion" (which the article attempts to dispel).

My question: Is this truly a result of "confusion"? "Messianic Judaism" has been used to describe communities of ethnic Jews with evangelical beliefs for quite a long time (over a century). And the use remains very common; it is still perhaps even the major use of the phrase today. Here is a link to an evangelical missionary who uses it in the wider sense: [1]. So is the distinction in the use of the term a real one, or is it a distinction that the more "observant" groups want to create or highten, using Wikipedia as one of their tools? Dovi 21:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what we're doing tonight? (No I don't. What are we doing tonight?) The same thing we do every night; TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD! It's a conspiracy, alright alright, I confess. I admit, we've been pushing our POV to force everyone to think as an orthodox Messianic CHRISTIAN and so get Wikipedia to be our platform for one world domination! MUHAHAHA. Ok no really I'm serious now: we're just a bunch of guys who sit behind closed doors planning a definition takeover of the word "Messianic Judaism."

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist the temptation to engage in a bit of sarcasm :) So for now, I will answer the question with a resolute no. "Messianic Judaism" is defined by David Stern, the writer of the Complete Jewish Bible, as including Torah observant Messianics. There is confusion however outside of the Messianic movement when they wish to associate Jews for Jesus with Messianic Jews. The primary issue being that Torah observant Messianics emphatically deny they are "Jews for Jesus" who they see as a Christian evangelical movement of Jews. Jews for Jesus would not say they are Messianic Jews (they emphatically emphasize that they are not part of the "Torah observant 'Messianic Judaism'"). And Messianic Jews would say that Jews for Jesus are Christian by practice, not Messianic Jews by practice. MJs seek to live out their faith in Messiah through a completely Jewish context. J4Js seek to turn non Messianic Jews into evangelical Christians. This definition is really an obvious differentiation that sets the two groups apart. I hope that helps. inigmatus 22:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Everything you write is correct from your perspective and Stern's. My question is whether most people accept your narrow definition of the term.

From what I have seen, they don't. Plenty of evangelic-type JFJ call themselves "messianics" and you (and Stern) claim that they are mistaken or confused. However, do they think they are mistaken or confused? Maybe they really identify with the term their way, not your way. Dovi 06:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Mose Messianics I know, including myself, claim to be "Jewish" but just because we refers to ourselves as Jews, do you think Jews should include a disambig or a section about us Messianic Jews? I'm in favor of creating a subsection on Messianic Judaism under the Identity subsection, qualifying other uses of the term Messianic Jew, provided a source is given. inigmatus 16:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

God and Jesus?

Whatever source says we worship God AND Jesus is wrong, and I don't know where they were getting their info from. We don't separate Jesus from God and worship two beings. We believe Yeshua is HaShem. We believe HaShem is Yeshua. Just like the earthly Temple made with hands is the extension of the Heavenly Temple made without hands, so too is Yeshua the earthly extension of the heavenly Spirit-only God. In otherwords, the Spirit of Yeshua is the Spirit of God. One and the same. Echad. Javy, I think you need to check the sources' source. Even I can discredit it. See other sources like the CTOMC.org statement of faith. inigmatus 17:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not have access to Steiner, but then again I do not have access to Harris either. In general, the editor posting a book is usually trusted. However, a request can be made for verification by using a {{check}} by the source, and requesting on the talk page, if I recall correctly. -- Avi 18:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me of the riddle: I have two coins that add up to 30 cents and one of them isn't a nickel; what are they? If you can find a RS that your beliefs are Trinitarian (or.. um Binitarian (sp.?)) you could add this, but I think it could muddle an otherwise clear statement to try to lay this all out in the lead. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I added the chapter heading for page 129 (by using Google books). The page itself is not scanned, so I cannot be 100% certain, but that is the policy I have followed with the other books added by Inigmatus, Jay, or whomever. I will trust the citation and add the pertinent info from Amazon, GoogleBooks, and the US Library of Congress. -- Avi 18:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Search inside the book for "messianic"; google should let you see this page, if it is in a good mood. All the pages are scanned, but google uses some strange accounting to determine which are permissible to see. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Good call, Kendrick. The quote is verified and the link added. -- Avi 18:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I guess I'll have to put up a source that disputes the other source's claim. inigmatus 21:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Even amongst Messianic Jews there is a difference of opinion as to how to worship God and/or Jesus. This is the type of information, specific to Messianic Judaism, that will flesh out and enrich the article -- If properly cited of course :) . -- Avi 21:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)