Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Material that could be used

This book contains quite extensive material about the subject. An excerpt below (pages 270-3) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yaakov, Ariel, Evangelizing the Chosen People: Missions to the Jews in America, 1880-2000 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2000) pp.270-3, ISBN 0-807-84880-8

The rise of Jews for Jesus and Messianic Judaism has strongly affected the missionary movement and reshaped much of its character. Jews for Jesus and the Messianic Jewish congregations replaced the American Board of Missions to the Jews as the avant-garde of the era and introduced new methods of evangelism. They became so predominant and captured so much attention that the existence of other missionary organizations often went unnoticed. But the older missions, such as the American Board of Missions to the Jews, did not die out. On the contrary, they continued carrying out their work with great vigor. The older missions were now reacting to innovations brought about by the new, more dynamic groups. Yet they remained on the scene and altered their character in line with the spirit of the age, which was determined mostly by the new Messianic Jewish congregations. Missions did not change their basic theological creeds or evangelistic messages, but the language they were now using and the means they employed to propagate the faith changed and shifted in the direction of Messianic Judaism.Influenced by the new trend, missions have adopted a new vocabulary that has come to describe evangelism, conversion, and converts in a manner devoid of their historical meaning and connotations. In this new language, converts are not depicted as persons becoming Christians and moving from one religious community to another but as persons who have become "believers” or "Jewish believers, ” "were saved, ” and have found the true meaning of their identities as Jews. For many, such terminology was not euphemism. They internalized the language, which became part of their new selves. But some also adopted it for its utilitarian value, as a more effective tool of evangelism. Like the Baptist missions in Israel in the 1940s and 1950s, missions in America in the 1970s and 1980s discovered that the use of a more neutral language untainted by the long and bitter history of Christian-Jewish relations has helped them approach Jews more successfully.

The terms "mission” and "missionaries” were voluntary casualties of the new era and disappeared from the missionary scene. During the 1970s and 1980s, the term "missions” became more and more discredited by postcolonial intellectual trends that viewed missionaries as no more than an arm of the colonial nations, coming to strip indigenous populations of their cultural heritage and political power. But in no other missionary field did the terms "missions” and "missionaries” so completely disappear. The new missionary terminology wished, first and foremost, to overcome the instant reluctance of Jews to listen to missionaries and to take their message seriously. The adoption of new terminology to describe their work to potential converts became a matter of survival. If they wished to succeed and preach their messages effectively, they had to adapt and accept the Messianic terminology. Missions changed their names, mottoes, and symbols, in accordance with the new language. Ironically, Jews for Jesus, the innovative new organization that became identified with the spirit of the age, was one organization that continued to insist on its missionaries presenting themselves openly, publicly, and proudly for what they were. Although they avoided mentioning the terms "mission” or "missionaries, ” the evangelists wore T-shirts, sweatshirts, or sport jackets with the organization's name.

Giving up on their old principles and becoming more pragmatic, missionaries concentrated on their goal, and their tactics changed dramatically. In the previous era, the missionary movement was tuned on middle-class propriety and made every effort to persuade the conservative Protestant community that its methods of operation and evangelization were beyond reproach. Missionary leaders took pride in being able to account for every penny they received, for every hour of a missionary's activities, and for truth and accuracy in presenting themselves to potential converts. Now missions were willing to disguise or conceal their missionary intentions and to use language that did not overtly present their goal of Christianizing the Jews.

To imply that every single Messianic Jew, or even the majority of Messianic Jews who join the Messianic movement are doing so to become missionaries to Jews, is an unsubstantiated, if not insulting, charge and belittles the central message of the Messianic Movement (as opposed to the Jews for Jesus movement). That'd be like someone from a Christian or Jewish background becomming a Bhuddist just so they can witness to Hindus or Muslims. inigmatus 23:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that these pages are designed to discuss the subject, but rather, to discuss the article. How do we discuss the article? By researching sources and by describing these sources' viewpoints. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We provide the viewpoints of reliable and verifiable sources. This source can be used to describe an opinion of Messianics, the same way that Carol Harris's book can. Do you see a difference between the two, other than that one makes you, inigmatus, personally uncomfortable? -- Avi 01:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Objections to lead

1. We wear tefillin and kippas too and run services according to a siddur. You either mention most/all of it (too long for an intro) or you leave it out. 2. Most of us don't believe in the Trinity. We do not promote and are actively against the "trinity" and the "worship" (G-d forbid it) of Jesus (anglicized from Greek Iesous, translation of Aramaic Yeshua, Aramaic of Hebrew Yehoshua). The single source cited may not know what it's talking about and only be guessing things. Noogster 23:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

1. The items listed are actually cited, and are used as examples of Jewish customs that are followed. A comprehensive list would obviously be impossible.

2. Again, the claim is cited, and, in fact, many other sources support that view. Just because your particular congregation doesn't worship Jesus, it doesn't mean that others don't either. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, I could get a source that shows some Messianics believe in Pink Elephants too, but whether its claims are credible, or that the Pink Elephant believers are really messianic, is something that is an issue that needs to be addressed, and not stated matter-of-factly one way or the other in the intro. I think if you are to add this quote that to be fair you must add additional sourcing and expression of opposing viewpoints from other Messianics such as myself and Noogster and others. Such an action would be necessary to maintaining NPOV in the article, and would achieve consensus as a valid NPOV contribution. If 100% of Messianic editors are saying that they don't believe in the Trinity, don't worship Jesus as a separate god from the God of Moses, then if you want to put in a statement that flatly contradicts what 100% of the Messianics on this encyclopedia (and the sources THEY bring to the table) say, then you are only asking for a NPOV dispute and forcing your source onto the scene to be taken as fact over the sheer facts that known Messianic editors have presented. Such behavior if ignoring this, is not consensus-building, nor is it helpful for the reader. If you want to present Messianic Judaism as a religion that worships Jesus as a separate god than the God of Moses, then fine, do it in the Judaism objection section because such a charge is baseless, and is not what I or the majority of Messianics I know, believe. As you are familiar with the statement we hear all the time: just because someone says their Jewish, doesn't mean their Jewish. Likewise, just because someone says they are Messianic doesn't mean they are Messianic. Any contribution that contradicts the majority opinion of Messianics (in our case it's a unanimous opinion) should be cited as a contribution that "some" adhere to, and such a contribution doesn't deserve a direct quote if its placement is seen to be setting the standard of truth for the rest of the article. In other words, if you want to directly quote a source that contradicts our beliefs, don't do it in the intro please. Such an act only seeks to confuse the reader, and sparks unnecessary POV disputes. inigmatus 06:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: Messianics do not believe that Jesus is God, correct? This seems like a serious enough mark of distinction between Messianics and Christians that it would have to be in a ref somewhere. I'll poke around. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi inigmatus,

I'd be really interested in seeing a link explaining this as well - I've searched myself, and all I've found are Messianic statements of faith that tend to veil Jesus's deity a bit, but still clearly state that he is Lord. If this isn't the case it would be quite a radical departure from everything I've learned about MJ, and would be worth having a serious discussion about. Daniel^C/_T+ 09:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Every one of the MJ sites that I found as well refer to Jesus as either "Lord" or "Savior". Inigmatus, firstly, you must remember that your, I, Jay's, Noogster's, Kendrick's or anyone's personal opinion matters not. What matters is the sources, their reliability, and their verifiability. Secondly, it is a tad disingenuous to bring "pink elephants" as I doubt you will find any reliable site saying that Messianics worship pink elephants. We habve found plenty that refer to their worship of Jesus. Again, you, just like the rest of us, must be careful not to let your preconceptions skew the article. -- Avi 14:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see how you guys are blind to this. Messianics worship the God of Moses, who IS Jesus. There is no separation. We don't worship the God of Moses AND also Jesus. We don't worship two gods. The source quoted makes it out that we are, and thus it contradicts what the unanimous belief of God that Messianics have. Such a contradictory statement does not belong as quoted "fact" in the article. Instead, it would be more appropriate to source the author of the statement directly into the text, rather than indirectly as an after-thought, for the current arragement makes it look as if the quote is speaking on behalf of all Messianics, and it certainly is not. Such a claim belongs elsewhere in this article and NOT in the introduction. Yes Avi, there ARE other Messianics, but there are none that believe in two gods. Find me any source that such is even a major minority opinion of those who call themselves Messianic, and I think you will have won your case. In the meantime, a direct quote from a non Messianic source that contradicts the very foundation of Messianic Judaism does not belong as an indirect matter-of-fact quote in the introduction. I would ask that you consider either moving the quote to lower in the article, such as in the Judaism objections section (for the source is more appropriate there anyways) and/or re-presenting the quote in a more obvious format that this is an OPINION of someone who ISN'T Messianic of those who are Messianic. But as such, you guys outnumber us Messianic editors at least 5 to 1, so no matter what, you're going to do what you want anyways. Go ahead and push your POV. It's stuff like this that we wonder if anyone on here really cares about true consensus. Notice, I'm not even suggesting getting rid of the quote. But if the quote has to be in the introduction, I would in fact suggest getting rid of the quote. Come on, let's work together. I redesigned this article to provide sections for readers to see the different opinions about Messianic Judaism so that such POV issues like this could be avoided. I dispute that the intro as is is not NPOV until this concern about sourcing the fact in the article itself that the quote is an opinion of someone who isn't Messianic,is dealt with. This isn't an unreasonable request. inigmatus 15:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi inigmatus,

Indeed it's not an unreasonable request, but in the absence of any other quote that defines both the similarities and differences between Judaism and MJ, it's all we've got. If you know of a verifiable quote that is as concise and describes how MJ teaches that Jesus was not just the Messiah, but also G-d and should be worshiped as such, please bring it to everyone's attention. I'm not any more tied to this quote than I am to any other, but it should be clear in the intro that Messianics worship Jesus as G-d. Daniel^C/_T+ 15:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Such a source would be a useful and enlightening addition to the article. For now, that source is all we have. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. Inigmatus now writes Messianics worship ... Jesus. Is this settled now? -- Kendrick7^talk 20:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

From what inigmatus writes, it sounds like the true conflict between basic Jewish belief and the kind of "Messianism" he represents is not whether God is one, but whether a man (Jesus) is God: "Messianics worship the God of Moses, who IS Jesus." That gap cannot ever be bridged. Dovi 18:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place to debate theology. We fully see the Messiah as being God himself in the Torah. For an apologetic on this, feel free to check out many of the One Torah law links provided in the Messianic Judaism article. We can't help it if modern rabbinic Judaism ignores the divine nature of the Messiah who reigns forever, and overemphasizes his humanity. Furthermore we can't help it if the modern Church overemphazises the Messiah's divinity, and ignores or puts aside his humanity. Please post on my talk page if you want to discuss this with me. inigmatus 20:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a fundamental disagreement on a central pillar of faith that must be clearly stated and emphasized in the article, especially for a group that often stresses its claim to being Jewish. That either the Jewish or Christian traditions have "overemphasized" anything is POV of your own theology. Dovi 21:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Dovi and Inig, please keep your theology outside the article. What matters is what reliable sources say, if we can find reliable sources that say something else then we will include it. Until then, this should stay. JoshuaZ 21:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I never thought otherwise. For something this contentious, nothing at all can be added without stable sources. Nevertheless, there is no harm trying to understand the claims being made, which are certainly relevant (or likely to become so). Dovi 22:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I will work on sourcing a balanced statement in the future. inigmatus 22:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I respect all peoples right to freedom of religion, but I must say that Messianic Judaism isnt Judaism and they are not jewish! I am a reform jew, and we believe that if you believe in christ as the messiah then you are a christian! Plain And Simple. However, I do protect their right believe what they want. But Israels barring them from coming into israel as jews says enough. May Hashem have mercy on all and may peace reign in his world that he created according to his will. Nimrauko 06:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Berkley quote

The quote is the quote, you can even see it on Google books. I am uncertain as to the conerted effort to change/modify/re-state a direct quote, other than a desire to mitigate the quote for some reason. Unfortunately, that is not allowed in wikipedia. -- Avi 22:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the quote as a quote per say, except that the quote is not accurate in its fact, as clearly I hope to show with other sources, that the clarification should be that we worship Jesus as God - not "and". The quote is a secondary source and not a primary source, thus it can be forgiven, but as stated currently in the article, it would seem better if it was a direct quote from a primary source (say a Messianic book or site). inigmatus 22:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to review Wikipedia:Attribution#Primary and secondary sources and WP:RS#Types of source material. Wikipeia prefers secondary sources. -- Avi 22:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Darn it, Avi, you edit conflicted with me to say that. JoshuaZ 22:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead, Berkeley source

Ok, there should be a better way of incorporating this source in given that Christians and MJs see Jesus and God as the same entity. Proposed change, use the end of the quote but they worship Jesus whom they call Yeshua and identify as God. JoshuaZ 22:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I will help to do. I'll search for an additional source to include as part of a more revised statement, after I get off work today. inigmatus 22:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it EXTREMELY troubling that direct quotes are being changed because of peoples POV. That is a direct violation of WP:NPOV. Berkley is a reliable source, and cannot be played with. The ONLY option is to bring suitable counter-sources. -- Avi 22:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Avi, I'm pretty sure my phrasing fits in with the sourcing we have fine. If you disagree, please explain why. JoshuaZ 22:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of arguing about quotations and POV, let's just use some common sense, please. It really is silly to suggest that the belief of Messianic Jews is anything less than a standard trinitarian effort to worship one God in three persons. (I say this as a mainstream Jew who has no sympathy for messianic Jews religiously.) Just quoting one odd description, without any qualification, is strange and misleading. User:P.D.

Last time I was in a synagogue, there was a room with enough books to make a law clerk blush. I'd be surprised if the Messianics are so far removed from the traditions of Judaic scholarship. Surely, the Messianics have gotten around to writing their beliefs down somewhere and haven't just been "winging it" all this time.... -- Kendrick7^talk 22:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

PD, yes but you seem to be missing the point that to many Jews, the notion of worshiping a human or a n-tity for any n>1 is about the same category. I think my wording above however conveys the concerns based on the source as well as meeting NPOV. Input about that wourding would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 22:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

But I think you're missing my point. The MJ folks are not any less conventionally trinitarian than other Christians. The quotation falsely implies that, unlike other Christians, who at least purport to worship one God (whether or not we Jews would agree with them), messianic Jews worship God AND Jesus in a more blatantly polytheistic way. P.D. 22:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

PD, then bring a countersource. Removing a verified and reliable source because you think it is "silly" is a violation of WP:NPOV. -- Avi 22:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I still think people are simply reading way to much into that quote by turning "and" into "AND"; it's a tempest in a teapot and I don't see the average reader being confused into thinking MJs are polytheists. In regards to Trinitarianism, I have yet to see any source mention their beliefs in regards to the Holy Spirit so I don't know how we can come to that conclusion per se. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

PD, I also have to say I don't see the source as saying that, the source simply is someone who (like most Jews) distinguishes between Jesus and God. In any event, if no one objects to my proposed wording change, I'm going to implement it. JoshuaZ 22:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your wording change, if I read it correctly, seems fine. I tried to do something similar, though, but was shot down. P.D. 23:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of your proposed wording change too. And with the three of us, I would call that a consensus between Jews and the Messianics in this matter. inigmatus 20:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless, of course, other people show up and disagree . Three people only make a consensus when there is pretty much unanimity. 'Tis a bit egoistical to think otherwise . Further, there can be no consensus that goes against wiki policy. I, for one, strongly disagree with ANY attempt to "water down" a direct source because it makes people uncomfortable. Inigmatus, should there be qualifiers on every use of the word "Torah" in this article because MOST people who follow the Torah believe that what Messianics follow is most definitely NOT Torah (like believing in Jesus, for example)? The source is reliable and verified, and you can even SEE the sentence in Google books. Any adulteration is just a way for some people to push a particular POV in the article. We have Berkley, we have his quote, we bring it and let the reader make his or her own decision, not Inigmatus and Noogster's decision. -- Avi 20:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm probably acerbating the issue by not posting a counter source to disprove this quote's claim. I'll work on getting one now. inigmatus 22:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ok new source: And it's secondary... and even from a Jewish source! By The Jewish Daily Forward: [1] "Other Jews argue that messianics have ceased to be Jews because they revere Jesus as God incarnate, or because they worship a triune Deity." inigmatus 22:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've looked into this Berkley book, and it seems to me that it should be treated as entirely unreliable on the issue at hand. To begin with, the discussion of Messianic Jews is entirely tangential to the main topics of the book, and is based on no particular expertise. More important, the book itself is not a scholarly source, but an off-the-wall polemic. Here's how Publisher's Weekly described it: "Berkley, who is Jewish, a member of B'nai B'rith and author of Vienna and Its Jews, has written a freewheeling, brashly opinionated, anecdote-filled, sometimes entertaining cultural history of the Jews that is certain to irk and provoke. In his opinion, Jews tend to be assertive and prickly; they have an often desperate need for recognition and respect; a fractious people, driven by disunity, they give generously, but rarely anonymously, and have a "near-obsession with food." The typical Jewish family, he says, features a dominant mother, a relatively weak father and a high degree of solicitude for its children. These and other uneasy generalizations border on stereotypes." Similarly, the Library Journal writes: "His book suffers from several problems. On some issues, such as civil rights and homosexuality, Berkley constructs straw men that he easily demolishes. He often fails to do justice to the complex issues and gives little attention to how modern arguments relate to Jewish history and tradition." In other words, unless we would be willing to take this author as a "reliable source" for all the other bizarre things he says, we should not take him as a "reliable source" for an off-hand comment about Messianic Judaism. Again, I need to emphasize that I am not saying this as a "defender" of Messianic Judaism. Quite the contrary. But the first duty of Wikipedia should be accuracy. To my mind, this strange quotation should be deleted as soon as possible and replaced with a blander, but more accurate, statement that, although some Messianic Jews follow certain Jewish ritual practices, they, like other Christians, worship God through Jesus. P.D. 13:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a broader question. What makes a source "reliable"? The mere fact that it's published? The mere fact that it appears on Google Books? I'm a professor at a major American university. If I wrote a scholarly article in which my only standard for whether a source was "reliable" was whether that source was published somewhere, I'd be laughed out of the profession. P.D. 13:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK, this is my screw up. I didn't have a reason to think that source was dubious. I suppose we should chuck it? -- Kendrick7^talk 23:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

PD, in general, we assume good faith as to when people bring citations into articles. Also, what one has to keep in mind is that anything that an EDITOR uncovers cannot be brought into the article as it is a violation of original synthesis or research. Now, you bring good points about Berkely. If there is an outside-of-wikipedia source that brings these complaints as to Berkely's bona-fides, than that should be brought in the article. However, for you to bring those issues, on your own, into the article would be tantamount to my bringing reliability issues about the "rabbiyeshua" and "messianic-life" websites, which are not scholarly works at all, but advocacy websites. What you may wish to do is have a discussion on WP Talk:ATT. But as of now, while Berkely may be opinionated, he is no more or less opinionated than any other source.

Personally, I would prefer to see an entire subsection about Messianic understanding and relationship to the worship of Jesus vis a vis God in this article, as I think that it is not only central to Messianism, but also a matter ofintense debate among the many branches of Messianism, that nees elucidation. In this section, we can list the sources that argue one with the other. -- Avi 14:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Avi writes: "while Berkely may be opinionated, he is no more or less opinionated than any other source." But Berkely is more opinionated, and less reliable, than most scholarly sources. If Wikipedia's standards require treating all sources as equally reliable, without any judgment or common sense, then Wikipedia is useless. Avi, you're treating Wikipedia as a game, like high school debating. You're citing rules without any attention to the point of the rules, which is to produce a reference source based on the best available objective information. (By the way, the use of Messianic advocacy sources raises a somewhat more complicated question. I would not necessarily trust such sources, without further confirmation, for factual issues such as the history of the movement, its size, etc. But I might well look to such sources for information on what Messianic Jews believe. This would the equivalent of the so-called "state of mind exception to the hearsay rule" in the law of evidence. That is to say, there is a difference between trusting a source regarding the source's claims that certain facts are true and trusting a source regarding the source's claims about its own beliefs and attitudes.) P.D. 14:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, with Wikipedia open to editing BY everyone in the world, for the most part, we must stick to literal interpretations of accepted policies and guidelines, otherwise there would be even less reliability as each article would be subject to individual interpretation of each editor. Wikipedia has its drawbacks (see Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia ), and keeping literally to these rules helps cut down on major issues at the expense of others. Be that as it may, part of the privilege of editing wiki is the agreement to do so in strict accordance with its policies and guidelines, whether we like it or not. There are many articles which I too would like to remove stuff that I feel is inappropriate for schlarly or other reasons, but I am bound by the same rules you, inigmatus, Noogster, Jayjg, Joshua, and Jimmy Wales himself is. Our job is to build the best article within those bounds, whether we like certain elements about it or not.

Back to article content, what do you feel about my idea of creating a "Jesus" section in which all of these sides are discussed (by sources)? -- Avi 14:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Avi writes: "in general, we assume good faith as to when people bring citations into articles." But the issue here is not good faith, it is the search for truth. Again, we're not playing a high school game here, we're trying to write an encyclopedia. P.D. 15:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is accuracy and not truth (supersedes Verifiability, not truth) that wikipedia needs. See Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth. -- Avi 16:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's my basic question: Are Messianic Jews more like standard Christians, who have a trinitarian belief that there is one God consisting, in some mysterious fashion, of several "persons"? Or are they more like Mormons, who really do go beyond standard Christian theology and assume that God and Jesus are separate divine beings? If Messianic Jews are more like standard Christians, then their beliefs should not be described in a way that obscures that basic resemblance. Now, to be sure, there might be some variety among Messianic Jews,and there might be some subgroups that really do worship Jesus as a distinct, separate God. But the quotation in question did not appear in a discussion of variations among Messianic Jews, or anywhere further down into the article. It appeared in the lead. And that is inexcusable. And, again, I need to emphasize that I have no personal stake in this whatsoever. But I see that actual Messianic Jews are challenging the quotation as well, and I don't blame them. P.D. 15:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It is inexcusable to remove cited data to fit preconceptions. The proper way to address this is to bring all acceptable sources and let the reader follow up and decide. -- Avi 16:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

While I'm at it, let me quote from WP:ATT: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

-surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known; -surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media; -reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended; -claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people.

This is not a mechanical rule, but a common sense policy meant to help promote accuracy.P.D. 15:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

But Berkley does not violate any of those. The fact that the two prominent Messianic editors on wikipedia have strong PERSONAL opinions on the matter is no more excuse for modifying direct quotes than Christian editors' opinions or Jewish editors' opinions. Remember, for you or I to CLAIM something is not widely known is not enough; you need to bring SOURCES, preferably secondary, to that effect. Just because something "rubs you the wrong way" (not you in particular, PD), does not mean that the article needs to be "tweaked". Our job is to bring sources, and let the reader decide. By all means, let us create a subsection and bring sources for the opinions, and let the interested reader follow them up and make their OWN decision about RabbiYeshua vs. Berkley (for example), NOT Avi's or PD's decision as to those two. -- Avi 16:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree with your approach and your interpretation of the Wikipedia rules and methodology. But if that's how you feel, then please take this quotation out of the lede ASAP. P.D. 16:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Jesus in lead and own subsection

I have re-written the opening and moved Berkley to a new subsection called Jesus. I think that that the lead as it stands, while a bit weak on the relationship between Messianics and Jesus, is passable with the sentence "Jesus of Nazareth, whom they call Yeshua, is both their savior and the resurrected Jewish Messiah." Comments by all are both solicited and appreciated. -- Avi 16:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Much better, IMHO. Now the new "Jesus" section can be expanded with contrasting views, without disturbing the integrity of the lede. P.D. 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise Source

• Avi, I have a more accurate, and still secondary... and even from a Jewish POV, source that we can quote that would resolve the issue, and I want your thoughts on using this over and against the Berkley source: By The Jewish Daily Forward: [2] "Other Jews argue that messianics have ceased to be Jews because they revere Jesus as God incarnate, or because they worship a triune Deity." I can agree with this Jewish secondary source's comment about us, and it practically does the same thing as the comment you want to see posted from Berkley, except there is no controversy over Jesus "and" God. I am willing to compromise on using this source instead if you feel it absolutely necessary to still have some sort of Jewish disclaimer in the intro of the Messianic Judaism article to warn unsuspecting Jews that Messianic Judaism is not really Judaism. inigmatus 14:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Avi, in regards to the latest sourcing, please reference your quote "made up of apostates and heretics denying Judaism" in the references section and feel free to include it in the introduction, but do so without removing the original reference that also says that this is also "sect of Judaism." That is the point of the original reference. You may feel free to add a second sentence after the fact, or add a clarifying "but," but to remove the "sect of Judaism" reference is to destroy the intent of the original references as provided. inigmatus 14:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • But the original references do not support the claim. So while I understand your intent, it is unsupported by your sources. -- Avi 14:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for understanding, however the sources are quite clear that "sect of Judaism" applies, no matter how "heretical." If you want to resolve this, we can just insert the entire direct quote so there is no ambiguity. inigmatus 14:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Artscroll doesn't talk about Messianic Judaism, which is a 20th century movement; rather, it talks about the early Christians. Please stop pretending that the two are the same, or that Artscroll talks about the former; you are abusing your sources. Please do not persist with this farfetched original research. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Sources 2 and 3 link "early Christianity" to modern Messianic Judaism. It is not anachronistic. I think it a compromise to state "Messianic Judaism is a heretical Jewish sect" since that would be closer to quoting the actual reference in the Artscoll Siddur, and would nullify the anachronistic challenge with the 2nd and 3rd references that were provided. And since "heretical" is NPOV, then "Jewish sect" is what remains, irregardless of how "heretical" it is.inigmatus 14:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Source 2 states the beliefs of the Messianic movement; just that, beliefs. Source 3 is not reliable (see below). Mixing various different sources together to draw novel conclusions not found in any one of them is original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are the references: tell me which ones are not valid for inclusion as sources to the statement "Messianic Judaism is a sect of Judaism."

| last = Scherman | first = Rabbi Nosson | title = The Complete Artscroll Siddur | year = 1985 | publisher = Mesorah Publications | location = Brooklyn, NY | isbn = 0-89906-659-3 | pages = pg.112 | chapter = Shacharis/Weekday Morning Service | quote = Against the Heretics: And for slanderers. Chronologically, this is the ninetheeth blessing of the Shimonei Esrei; it was instituted in Yavneh, during the tenure of Rabban Gamliel II as Nassi of Israel, some time after the destruction of the Second Temple. The blessing was composed in response to the threats of such heretical Jewish sects as the Sadducees, Boethusians, Essense, and the early Christians.

| url = http://www.religioustolerance.org/mess_jud.htm | title = Messianic Judaism | accessdate = 2007-04-24 | year = 2007 | work = ReligiousTolerance.org | publisher = ReligiousTolerance.org | quote = Messianic Judaism is a religious movement, composed of faith groups of persons who: Believe that they are following the practices and beliefs of the very early Christian movement.

| url = http://www.unityinchrist.com/history/revivals.htm | title = Unity in the Body of Christ: Introduction | accessdate = 2007-04-24 | year = 2007 | work = Unity in the Body of Christ | publisher = UnityInChrist.com | quote = The early Christian Church of God, up until about 150 AD was about 73 percent ethnic Jewish, and about 27 percent Gentile. So this early Christian church was basically Messianic Jewish.

inigmatus 14:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The first source doesn't talk about Messianic Judaism at all, much less conclude that it is a sect of Judaism. The second source says that the Messianic movement believes it is following the practices of the very early Christian movement; it's fine for a section about the beliefs of the Messianic movement. The last source isn't a reliable source, it's the personal website of "Pete Benson". Please review the WP:NOR and WP:V policies carefully. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

yikes!

This article is literally half footnotes/bibliography/links. Whoa... ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The footnotes are critical to ensure NPOV and proper sourcing. The bibliography can be pruned, but I agree that the external Link(farm) element really, really needs to be severely cut down to scale. -- Avi 14:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I completely understand. I've just never seen an article of this size with so much attribution before! Amazing. ... If MJ had a decent portal, most of the See Also and External Links could go there, and other MJ articles could just point to it. At least, I think that's the purpose of portals. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

identity

I'd love to see the Identity section expanded, and probably split out into Messianic identity. I think this would be a good place to expound on the conflict with mainstream Judaism (especially the typical answer to "Who is a Jew?" being "that can vary but a Jew definitely doesn't believe in Jesus"), the variance in styles of observance (a la Jewish denominations), and explain how the modern usage differs from the historical (early believers, Nazarenes, etc). The section currently has all this, but I think it is very brief and the flow of reading isn't the best. I'd do it if I were more knowledgable. ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like some help with the term "scripture" in this section--for the moment, I'm going to change it either to "judeo-christian scripture" or just "the Bible"--but please whoever has a more accurate term insert it! Just plain "scripture" seems inadequate since it refers to holy text in general.Cyrusc 19:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I went with "Scriptures." Cyrusc 20:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's voice

I think some of the religious claims being made in this article are being made in wikipedia's voice. The voice needs to shift on some of these claims which are heavily disputed. jbolden1517^Talk 10:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus

The Some Messianic believers[34] do not view a relationship with Jews for Jesussimply because Jews for Jesus seeks to turn Jews into traditional evangelical Christians isn't a sentence. Could someone indicate what was meant? jbolden1517^Talk 11:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Jews?

How can the first sentence of this article read, "Messianic Judaism is a religious movement or sect whose congregants comprise both ethnic Jews and Gentiles ..."? That is the height of gibberish.

In point of fact "Messianic Jews" are Christians. If they are "ethnically Jewish," then they are Jewish. Can these folks editing (writing) these articles stop contradicting themselves?

Of course the same editors foisting this on an article such as this are foisting on articles about Jews that Judaism is an ethnicity. All that they are accomplishing is blurring real distinctions. Is that encyclopedic? Does that serve the interests of readers?

It is basically gibberish that a sizable number of editors are succeeding in getting across using Wikipedia as their medium. Unfortunately there are even administrators at Wikipedia complicit in pushing this nonsense. It is really time that some admin step in and set this straight.

"Ethnicity" has become the middle ground that they think straddles Christianity and Judaism, and by which they hope to blur the distinction between the two. That constitutes the pushing of a point of view that has little to no applicability. Most Jews do not consider themselves Christian. (And probably most Christians do not consider themselves Jews.)

Editors at Wikipedia should be using language to accurately portray what exists in the world. They shouldn't be misconstruing all information they can get their hands on to plaster Wikipedia with billboards to announce that Judaism and Christianity are no longer two different religions. Bus stop 19:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have been the last person to reinstate the term "ethnic". I certainly prefer it to the "apostate" that I replaced as the allegation of apostasy is one of the main bones of contention between "Messianic Judaism" and "mainstream Judaism". A NPOV involves explaining the point of disagreement not taking a side.

Rather than "both ethnic Jews and gentiles" being gibberish, I think it perfectly clearly states that M Jews include both people who had no recent Jewish family background (the gentiles) and many people (the ethnic Jews) all or most of whose great-grandparents, or whatever, were conventionally Jewish (as opposed to being MJs) but at some point in the family tree there was a shift to M Judaism. As far as the MJs are concerned this latter group are still practicing Jews. As far as most of Jewry is concerned, they are not. But stating they are ethnic Jews makes it clear that their or their relatively recent ancestors' background is Jewish.

As for the business about Judaism and Christianity being two different religions, I may think that, you may think that, but MJs disagree with us and it is Wikipedia's reponsibility to report the claims of both sides with references to published sources, not to censor one side of the argument and pretend it does not exist.--Peter cohen 22:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all "ethnic Jew" is a term of questionable use, and of limited use, if of any use at all. There are terms that describe with greater precision what one wants to say better than the term "ethnic Jew." But the primary problem in this application is that it conflicts with the actual identity of the individual. An "ethnic Jew" is a Jew. "Messianic Jews" are Christians. It is a fundamental contradiction.

The way that editors have been using (misusing) "ethnic Jews" is as a substitute for non-religious Jew. It has been a misuse because the term ethnic includes more than religion, yet it is used to refer to a condition that includes only religion. "Ethnic" happens to include additionally such factors as language and culture. "Ethnic Jew" is a pathetic substitute for "non-religious" Jew because because it is needlessly nonspecific.

In this instance, there is an outright contradiction. Please stop calling a Jew a Christian. Bus stop 23:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Black never means white. Not in an encyclopedia. The word Jew has meaning, and an article on a segment of Christianity, can never blithely refer to a Christian as a Jew. That is nonsense. And that is contradiction. We don't (we should not) make a mockery of the encyclopedia and of Jews. Bus stop 23:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"Christian" is a religious designation. "Jew" is an ethnic designation. They are not mutually exclusive. For more information, see Ezra Mendelsohn, Jews and Other Ethnic Groups in a Multi-Ethnic World, Oxford University Press, 1987. ISBN 0195048962 Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite. And in English-speaking countries it is largely the Ashkhenazi ethnic sub-group we are talking about when we mention Jews. As one of that subgroup I eat beigels (bagels to you Americans and gentiles) and matzo, miss chopped liver, chicken soup and gefilte fish (I'm vegetarian) and think of MJs as meshugge (Yiddish for bonkers). I'm also aware that neo-Nazis represent a danger to me because of my racial background. Apart from the matzo, those are all non-religious ethnic characteristics. I expect that the ethnic Jews among the MJs share similar features, (except they probably don't think of themselves as meshugge). --Peter cohen 12:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want, the article could be amended to say "members of the Jewish race or ethnic group", which would clarify things. John Carter 00:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As a Messianic, biblically I see all those who share Israel's God, engages in Israel's system of worship of that God, is Israelite. Whether Jew means Israelite, or Israelite means Judah and Israel, or whatever - the point I am making is that to be a Jew is to be part of a people group. And it's common sense that one can be part of a people group, but hold to different a different religion than others in that same people group. The phrase "ethnic" I think, should stay for now until a better case can be made - and certainly not under the debate over whether Christianity is Judaism, for religion and people groups are two separate categories. inigmatus 02:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The system of worship is an intersting point. When we (or at least I and most of the people I know personally) think of Christians we don't think of people keeping the Jewish Sabbath and observing Yom Kippur. So your faith contains characteristics of "mainstream" Judaism and of Christianity which are otherwise exclusive to one of those faiths. An either/or mindset doe snot acknowledge that. --Peter cohen 12:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Parties involved in the above discussion may be interested in this conversation: Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#Full Judaism community topic ban for Bus stop. Thank you. John Carter 15:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I note that Bus stop went ahead with an edit which none of the other four contributors to this thread have show any sign of supporting. I have floated a different rewording to see what people think.--Peter cohen 16:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)