Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions about Messianic Judaism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

→

Pittsburgh???

Just a quick question, DeknMike. A paragraph you just added tells the story of one Maurice Ruben who "became a believer in Pittsburgh". I thought your messiah's name was Jesus, not Pittsburgh. Can you clarify? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, as reliable sources have pointed out, MJ emerged in the 1960s, so what would the relevance of a 1913 Jewish convert to Christianity be? Unless DeknMike is arguing that converting to MJ is identical to converting to Christianity? Is that your point, DeknMike? I've removed the material, pending clarification. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! Thanks for the levity. Pittsburgh, you will remember, is a city in Pennsylvania.--DeknMike (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Riddle me this. When did the term 'Judaism' start being used? Rabbi Barry Dov Lerner says the term 'Judaism' was only rarely used before modern times. [1] It's not the term used when the Talmud was written. Do we disregard the actions of those who lived before the term came into fashion? --DeknMike (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is. We're talking about the religion, not its name. Maurice Ruben converted to Christianity in ~~1913~~ the early 1900s. MJ the religion arose in the 1960s. Are you equating conversion to MJ with conversion to Christianity? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you read the source. He accepted Jesus as Messiah, and joined the movement that worshiped Jesus in a Jewish way, which was at the time called Hebrew Christianity, and later changed its name to make a clearer statement of mission. It's unclear in my mind whether his branch became Messianic in the 30s, 50s or 60s. (despite your insistence MJ sprung out of thn air in the 60s with no buildup)--DeknMike (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. To begin with, the source never says Ruben was "persecuted". It says his family had him committed to an insane asylum. Perhaps at the time he was, in fact, not sane. Who knows? You certainly can't decide on your own that that was "persecution". And what exact movement did he join? Can you name what it was? Oh right, in 1913, he laid the groundwork for the foundation of the Hebrew Christian Alliance of America, which he helped actually found in 1914-1915. He was the organization's first Treasurer. The HCAA was a group of Jews who had converted to Christianity, and it was formed for the purpose of evangelizing other Jews. Your own source, Cohn-Sherbock, points out on page 31 that:

...a committee of the Alliance asserted that the HCAA is neither a church nor a denomination. There was no intention on the part of Jewish believers to rebel against the Church. Rather, the aim of the Alliance was to evangelize the Jewish nation.

Get that? It's not a denomination or a church; rather, it is just a bunch of Jews who have joined "the Church". Further, on page 34 we find that Ruben writes, regarding a resolution against halakha at the HCAA's Third National Conference in 1917:

By this overwhelming decision the HCAA has closed the doors once and for all to all Judaizing propaganda, and the organization stands squarely on the pure evangelical platform, with the avowed aim, object, and purpose to preach the Gospel ... to our Jewish people everywhere.

The HCAA was a Christian mission to Jews. Also, reliable sources (found in this very article) state that MJ emerged in the 60s, it's not simply "my insistence". Your historical revisionism, constant use of unreliable sources, and misrepresentation of reliable ones, has moved squarely into the realm of disruption. Enough is enough. From now on, edit honestly, make honest talk page statements, and abide by Wikipedia's policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. You winthis one. You snookered me into following you down the rabbit hole. --DeknMike (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was quite a devious, deceptive tactic on Jayjg's part -- actually reading and quoting what the source actually says. -- Zad68 (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Congregational websites

We seem to have been allowing congregational websites as acceptable sources for the form of Messianism that they practice. As the movement is so new and so modern, different congregations seem to have differing interpretations, and there is no overarching text (such as the Talmud) or body (such as the Vatican) that can be said to be authoritative. If that continues, then we should not be selectively removing some congregational websites (such as Kehilas Sar Shalom) and leaving others (such as the Jerusalem Council). If we accept them as reliable, so be it; if we decide no congregational website is reliable, then pretty much every Messianic website needs to go. -- Avi (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Avi here. There are quite a few differences among the various congregations, including significant theological differences. Personally, I would prefer something other than such clearly self-published sources for such information, and think there probably are some better sources out there. Also, as I have said before, there is enough material out there to create separate articles on at least some of the early congregations of the movement, and for some of the various alliances and other collective groups. While it is reasonable to include some information on the theological and perhaps other differences between the various groups in this article, I think the theology article, the articles on the collective groups, and/or articles on the individual congregations would probably be a better place for the bulk of such material. John Carter (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a question based on Avraham's revert of my edit. I question the validity of using a single MJ church's web site as representative of the majority MJ position, or even a significant minority position. DeknMike made reference to a particular MJ church's web site in an attempt to establish that 'some' MJ churches don't like the Talmud. Is that reasonable? I am not questioning the validity of using a particular MJ church's site as a source for what that MJ church stands for, but can you use one site to say "some" as if it were a significant position? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zad68 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly not the word "some", because that implies more than one. However, I do think that it could be used to indicate that there is no uniformity in the MJs regarding the matter. So, if you want to say I'm quibbling over terminology, fine, but I think it could be used to indicate that there is disagreement, although I would question the use of the word "some" when only one group is referenced. John Carter (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Avi speaks wisdom here because there clearly is no single definitive governing body. There is a growing body of shared belief by the mainstream organizations (MJAA, UMJC, AMC, CPM, IAMCS), and most of the sources used are from their leaders. When a congregational site is used, it is often because that site states a common belief with particular clarity. Note that many of the anti-missionary sources used are from single authors giving opinions about the Talmud, often removing contextual understanding. Even the 'neutral' sources reach conclusions that may look biased to some. For the present, we'll have to live with an imperfect article citing less than perfect sources. (...and I think I was misquoted.) --DeknMike (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, all the citations to individual congregation websites will have to go, as they're not reliable sources for this article. They would be considered reliable sources for articles about the specific congregations, so long as the facts themselves were uncontentious (e.g. their address, name of their pastor, etc.). The main sources for this article need to be the reliable ones; that would include Ariel, Cohn-Sherbok, Feher, Harris-Shapiro, Kaplan, Kessler, Melton. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

...Fruchtenbaum, Nadler, Brown, Stern ...--DeknMike (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Err, no, those are all MJs who write religious tracts, not academic researchers published by reliable publishers. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Jayg -- in this case "reliable" is more a matter of size and age than anything else. I think that we need to use sources that are as reliable as possible without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I've used Stern in my own research -- not as an arbiter of absolute truth (who is?) -- but as a decent representation of Messianic thought. I don't really care for Fruchtenbaum (he's too dispensational), but if he is representative of the movement, by all means use him. We are trying to represent the movement as it exists in the real world -- not as it SHOULD exist in some hypothetical academia-world. Primitive Baptists have been around for much longer, but how reliable are their sources in an academic setting? Right -- they don't CARE about our academia, and the feeling is mutual. But they do exist nonetheless and we have to describe them as they exist... not as we think they SHOULD exist. While WP:RS is a great standard, we can't use it to pretend that something doesn't exist at all. Heck -- how reliable are the sources in the Caitlin Sanchez article? It's just a bunch of websites. There's nothing academic at all, nor should we expect there to be.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hence notability. RS isn't just "nice". If there aren't any reliable sources about something, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Lisa -- perhaps you can spend your time working on articles you actually think are worthwhile...SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Tim may well have a point here. We often do use SPS sources, including websites, if they can be used in a way consistent with our policy of WP:SELFPUB. I don't see anything in this discussion which leads me to believe that any of the qualifications indicated there necessarily apply in this instance. John Carter (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

We can use these sources, with caution, in articles about the people themselves - that's what WP:SELFPUB allows for. This is not an article about Fruchtenbaum, Nadler, Brown, or Stern. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Jewish rejection of Jesus

The Aish site listed on the last bullet point supports the entire text. See Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 18#Footnote placement. -- Avi (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

HCAA?

The text refers to "HCAA" but doesn't say what this is or what the abbreviation stands for! --rossb (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"Defining distinction" sentence

I have marked this sentence as unclear:

Messianic Judaism's belief in the role and divinity of Jesus is seen by Christian denominations and Jewish religious movements as being the defining distinction between Christianity and Judaism.

Can someone help me understand exactly what this sentence intends to convey? As written it is not clear. Zad68 (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems clear to me; belief in the divinity of Jesus makes one a Christian and not a Jew. -- Avi (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I also don't understand what's unclear about it. It says that both Jews and Christians see belief in JC as being the essential dividing line between Judaism and Christianity. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, so if I am getting this right, the intent is to focus on 1) the theological idea that Messianic Judaism and Christianity (as a whole) share, and 2) how Judaism views this idea as placing MJ outside of Judaism, and into Christianity. The trouble with the sentence is that it makes it sound like it is specifically MJ's beliefs that Christianity and Judaism refer to for determining whether a religion is Christianity or Judaism. This is backwards. Christianity and Judaism both have the same basic theological ideas in mind that are the defining differences between the two religions, and these ideas long pre-dated MJism. So the mention of "Messianic Judaism's belief" muddies the sentence. Also, the Christian view of Jesus is the defining distinction between Christianity and all other religions--not just Judaism. And why can't the sentence say "Judaism" instead of "Jewish religious movements"? Can the sentence be rewritten:

The Christian view of Jesus as Messiah and divine--a view taken by Messianic Judaism--is seen by Christian denominations as being the defining distinction of a Christian religious movement. Also because of this view, Judaism categorizes Messianic Judaism as a form of Christianity, and not a form of Judaism.

I think this would be more clear, and deliver the meaning intended. Zad68 (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that would be clear at all. Or accurate. The sentence as it stands communicates the following concepts:

MJs believe JC is divine.
Christian denominations see this belief as a defining distinction between Christianity and Judaism.
Jewish religious movements see this belief as a defining distinction between Christianity and Judaism.

There is no sense whatsoever that suggests that point #3 derives from point #2, which is implied strongly by your suggested text. More to the point, you have yet to point to any reason why the current version should be changed. You have said that you found it unclear, but you've given no reasons for that. What do you see as being "unclear"? Perhaps if you were to explain that, it might be possible for others to address your concerns. But proposing a completely different text that obfuscates, rather than clarifies, doesn't strike me as particularly helpful. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd also appreciate it if you would indent properly when you comment. If you don't mind. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This might be more clear: The role of Jesus in Messianic Judaism (Savior, Messiah, Son of God etc.) is seen as the defining distinction between Christianity and Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm still lost about where the current text isn't clear. Until we know why he thinks it's unclear, there's no way to know if a change will make it more clear or less clear. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I thought I described what was unclear or inaccurate in my original note. There are three problems:

The current sentence says that Christianity and Judaism look to MJism's views about Jesus to determine what the defining difference between Christianity and Judaism is. The problem with this is that an unknowledgeable reader--our target audience--could read this and think that if MJism's stance on Jesus were to change, then so the defining difference between Christianity and Judaism would change. It reads as if MJism's beliefs DEFINE what the difference between Christianity and Judaism is.
The current sentence says that the view of Jesus in general is the defining difference between Christianity and Judaism. That's not true. A religious group's view of Jesus is the defining difference between whether or not the group is Christian or not Christian--not whether the group is Christian or Jewish. For example. Muslims don't have the same view of Jesus as MJs, but that does not make them Jewish.
The current sentence for some reason says "is seen by Christian denominations and Jewish religious movements", which seems like an unnecessary mouthful. Why can't it say "is seen by Christianity and Judaism"?

Hope that makes my concerns clearer, and we can have a productive discussion. Zad68 (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Your point #1 is valid, and I've modified the sentence to avoid that implication. Your point #2, however, is not. To say that X is the defining difference between Y and Z doesn't preclude X from also being the defining difference between A and Z. It doesn't say that it's the defining difference only between Judaism and Christianity. Point #3... you have a point, but that mouthful is the result of many compromises over a long time. To change it would result in edit warring. I think we should probably leave it alone. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed "the defining difference" to "a defining difference", which I think should help with issue 2, and is more accurate anyway. Belief that Jesus is a messiah and god is an important defining difference between Christianity and Judaism, but it's not the only one. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Zad68, do these changes satisfy your concerns? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Much better. "Distinction" was the word that was needed, good work folks, thanks. Zad68 (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Messianic Conversion

The last line of the section (No non-Messianic Jewish movement views a Messianic conversion as valid) is referenced to a source that says nothing to support the phrase, but rather cites a ruling that has since been overturned. [2] Is there a source to substantiate the claim? --DeknMike (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read the article; you have made the same mistake the Baptist Press did. As the article says (emphasis added is my own): "But, as was explained to The Jerusalem Post by a legal assistant to Myers, this is apparently a misunderstanding of the ruling, which determined that the petitioners were entitled to automatic new immigrant status and citizenship precisely because they were not Jews as defined by the Law of Return, but rather because they were the offspring of Jewish fathers." -- Avi (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Didn't read Baptist Press article you refer to. Did read all of JP report, which says that those MJs that were born Jewish did not have their request for citizenship negated simply by adopting a Messianic perspective.--DeknMike (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If you read the JP article you would see that the ruling is clear that the State of Israel views Messianism as something OTHER than Judaism. Precisely because the Messianics involved are considered not Jewish is the reason they were eligible under the law of return, like any other Christian. For were they to have been considered Jewish, they would have been refused, as the Law of Return does not apply to "…a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion." People who convert from Judaism to Messianism are expressly excluded from the Law of Return, and the ruling discussed in the JP article did not change that. -- Avi (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the title change was that the article talks about MJs who claim a conversion to Judaism. Gentiles can be converted from paganism or regular Christianity to accept MJ doctrine, so "Conversion to MJ" is an ambiguous title, and Messianic Conversion to Judaism is more accurate.--DeknMike (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, exactly the opposite; the section unambiguously discusses people who have converted to Messianic Judaism, nothing more. Please review WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I know what NPOV means. What are you talking about? --DeknMike (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Simply, you are trying to manipulate the heading to create an equivalence between Mesianism and Judaism when everyone but Messianics believe that the movement is Christian. By leaving the heading "Conversion to Messianic Judaism", Messianics can view it as they wish, and the rest of the worl can view it as they wish, and wikipedia has not in and of itself taken a stand on the issue. By saying "Messianic Conversion to Judaism" you have made wikipedia take a stand on the issue, one that is a gross violation of WP:UNDUE, since the preponderance of outside opinion is that MJ is Christianity. We should not write "Messianic Conversion to Christianity" either, as that makes wikipedia take a stand in and of itself, even though that stand is in accord with the vast majority of exogenous opinions. -- Avi (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As for Messianics own handling of how they deal with ethnic Jews vs. ethnic Gentiles in the same religion, we have the sections under Messianic Judaism#People of God where that is discussed. It is independent of any conversion issues. -- Avi (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If it's true that everyone knows that MJ = Christian, then conversion to MJ would mean conversion to Christianity, and the section would not be needed. As I read the section, it explains how those who have become Messianic have sought to be considered Jewish if not born such. --DeknMike (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Conversion to MJ is conversion to Christianity, because there is no significant difference between MJ and Christianity. The opening sentence of the article should say, "Messianic Judaism is a form of Christianity, and not Judaism." MJs are being thrown a bone here because the article DOESN'T say that. Anyway, your argument is invalid because it commits the logical fallacy of the 'excluded middle.' If it's being conceded that MJ is not exactly Christianity, that doesn't mean it must be Judaism. Zad68 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

To be precise, the fallacy is that of denying the antecedent

. -- Avi (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting! Let me research the differencee between the two. Zad68 (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we are both right! It appears, on first read, that the 'excluded middle fallacy' is a particular case of or interpretation or application of 'denying the antecedent' :) Zad68 (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Check your talk page, I was more expansive there :) -- Avi (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Avi, let me read up on it and I'll follow up there... Zad68 (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Again back to the original question: is there a source for the claim that 'no non-Messianic Jewish movement views a Messianic conversion as valid'? You cite one ruling from Israel, and extrapolate from there. --DeknMike (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There are no overt sources, as all branches of Judaism view Messianism as CHrsitianity, so there is no need to speak about the validity of conversion to Messianic Judaism in light of Judaism proper. It is functionally equivalent to needing a discussion about whether conversion to Shintoism is viewed as a valid conversion to Judaism in the eyes of Judaism. However, that last sentence really does not belong in that section. The section discusses conversion to Messianism, not the views of other religions. Just as the Episcopalian view about conversion to Islam is not relevant when discussing conversions to Islam, the Jewish view about conversion to Messianism is irrelevant vis-a-vis discussing conversions to Messianism. The Jewish view about the movement is already made clear, so I will remove that last sentence, or at least, find a better home for it, such as the citizenship section. -- Avi (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Comparisons Section

The 'Comparisons' section needs work. It is not a true comparison, but more Jewish objections outside the objections header. To be a true 'comparion' it would compare key doctrines. Perhaps the first two sections could be combined, stating the MJ and then Jewish view. --DeknMike (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Core doctrines

An edit was recently made to this sub-section. There are sourcing problems with that edit, but I won't bother to revert because the entire paragraph has the same problem. The problem is that paragraph "8. Oral law" tells us that "Virtually all Messianic congregations and synagogues ..." believe one thing, that "(m)any congregations" believe something else, that "(s)ome congregations" believe yet another thing, that "(o)ther congregations" hold yet another view, and that "(s)till others" hold to another view. The problem is that none of these statements are supported by the sources cited. There is not one word in any of these sources that confirms the claims that "virtually all", "many", "some" or any other quantifying adjective of Messianic congregations hold to these or any other doctrines. They only describe what the doctrines are, without commenting at all on how many congregations accept them.

I suppose the simplest thing to do would be to delete that graf, but I'll wait to see what other editors have to say, first. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's much the same as many of the additions here; broad claims made for large groups (or all) MJs, based on the opinions of one evangelical website. Those are the doctrines of Chosen People Ministries, nothing more. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The recent edit did not add the phrase, which has been there all along. I took it from the last line of the paragraph to the first line, and added a representative source from one of the most respected and oldest Messianic organizations. That one line has more validity than the unsourced 27Nov discussion add by Avi ("There are no overt sources, as all branches of Judaism view Messianism as CHrsitianity, so there is no need to speak about...') I left the discussion on dissent from the dominant opinion in the interest of intellectual discourse, but if you want a single authoritative source, you may delete the secondary opinions. --DeknMike (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic Jew

Can whoever keeps adding that please tell me what an "ethnic" Jew is, and when did Judaism become and ethnos?--Teacherbrock (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

First, it's inappropriate to place your comment at the top of the page. So I've moved it down here. Secondly, as I noted in the comments, "ethnically Jewish" is the common term used for people who are of Jewish birth or descent and do not necessarily practice Judaism. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, two of the sources cited in the article use forms of the word 'ethnic' to describe a Jewish background. If you don't like the term 'ethnic' you'll have to find sources that both talk about Messianic Judaism and argue against the term... and even then you'd have to add it to the article as an opposing view, as the use of 'ethnic' is supported by sources. Zad68 (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Judaism is a religion, but Jews are certainly an ethnos. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

History still does not reflect what sources say

History section still does not reflect what sources say accurately. Specifically, it seems to imply that "Messianic Judaism", with the current meaning of the term, dates to the 1800s, and that is not what the source say. And, it seems to imply that the use of the term Messianic Judaism in Israel in the 40s and 50s was applied to groups that would call themselves "Messianic Judaism" today, which isn't true. I added the citecheck tag. Please help make this section more accurately reflect what sources say. I'll give it a go when I have a little more time later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zad68 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

_____________

This is a 'history' section, and I have laid out with clarity (and not POV) where the terms and the movement came from. I have used validated historical research methodology to look to the full meaning of the sources and let the authors speak for themselves.

I've not been able to verify the reference from Shoshanah Feher (it is not an internet-based reference), except that from the table of contents, the section on 'history' is pages 43-60, and the proof-text reference is page 140, which is a summary and not presented with a context. [3]

Source Ariel, page 192 says

"Even before the rise of messianic Judaism, there were groups that promoted the creation of congregations of Jewish believers in Jesus. …In the nineteenth century many attempts were made in the United States to create Hebrew Christian Brotherhoods, designed as centers for Jews who converted to Christianity. …Jewish converts established their own organization in Great Britain as early as 1860 and in the United States in 1915."

On page 194 of the same source (which is used as reference 2 in the lead), Ariel says clearly that the term was used by Jewish people in Israel in the 1940s

When the term resurfaced in Israel in the 1940s and 1950s, it designated all Jews who accepted Christianity in its Protestant evangelical form. ... for Israeli Jews, the term nozrim, "Christians" in Hebrew, meant, almost automatically, an alien, hostile religion. Because such a term made it nearly impossible to convince Jews that Christianity was their religion, missionaries sought a more neutral term, one that did not arouse negative feelings. They chose Meshichyim, Messianic, to overcome the suspicion and antagonism of the term nozrim. Meshichyim as a term also had the advantage of emphasizing messianism as a major component of the Christian evangelical belief that the missions and communities of Jewish converts to Christianity propagated. It conveyed the sense of a new, innovative religion rather that[sic] an old, unfavorable one. The term was used in reference to those Jews who accepted Jesus as their personal savior, and did not apply to Jews accepting Roman Catholicism who in Israel have called themselves Hebrew Christians.

These are plain readings of the text, from sources that were well established when I joined this project. It is not 'made up' revisionist history to fit a preconceived notion. I have improved this section as I have because the full reading of the sources verify the conclusions presented. --DeknMike (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

What the scholars say is different from popular opinion. Dr. David Rausch, associate professor of church history and Judaic studies at Ashland, (Ohio) Theological Seminary, has noted the difficulty in establishing a true history of the movement. Writing in the noted publication Christian Century he reports: "As I interviewed (Messianic) leaders across the United States, I found a prevalent belief that they had coined the term “Messianic Judaism.” Others thought that the term had originated within the past ten or 20 years. Most of their opponents also agreed that this was so. In fact, both the term “Messianic Judaism” and the frustration with the movement go back to the 19th century. During 1895..."[4]--DeknMike (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Newly-referenced source, if used to support MJ in the 1890s, can be used to declare MJs as members of a 'Christian faith'

A reference added to the article says:

http://books.google.com/books?id=r3hCgIZB790C&printsec=frontcover&vq=advocated+offspring+rhetoric+Shalom#v=onepage&q=advocated%20offspring%20rhetoric%20Shalom&f=false In the 1890s, an unusual religious group convened on the Lower East Side of New York: immigrant Jews who had accepted the Christian faith yet contained to retain Jewish rites and customs. Established by Methodist missionaries, the “Hope of Israel” mission aimed at propagating the Christian gospel among the Jews, while promoting the idea that Jewish converts should not abandon their cultural and religious heritage.

In the article, it is used for support of Messianic Judaism appearing in NYC in the 1890s. So, this indicates that those who accept Messianic Judaism are followers of a "Christian faith", as exactly quoted by the source.

This is worthy of inclusion in the lede, to make mention that Messianic Judaism is indeed a "Christian faith", right? Thoughts? Zad68 (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the link. It is on page 9. That is an interesting point. It says that they "accepted the Christian faith". Bus stop (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The article as written - and consensus opinion on this talk page - says Messianic Judaism is considered theologically the same as Christian. What is notable in this link (to a reference has been there all along, but as a hardcopy book, not previously linked to the electronic version) is the inclusion of congregations of Jewish persons worshipping in a manner similar to modern Messianic Jewish congregations. The terms of the movement have changed in the past 100 years (as is common in most living languages), but the definitions have remained consistent. --DeknMike (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It's older than that. Bonar and M'Cheyne wrote a "Narrative of a Mission of Inquiry to the Jews" [[5]] detailing their efforts to form the first self-sustaining version of Hebrew Christianity. There had been Hebrew Christians for centuries, but only as individuals.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

True enough. Messianic congregations (Jews and Gentiles worshipping together) were overtaken in importance in the 4th Century CE with the rise of Gentile-only congregations (so-called Christ-followers, or Christians) and their Gentile leadership; Jewish followers of Jesus tended to affiliate with those congregations. (In Germany, Gentile congregation meeting houses were called Kirches, which was Anglicized to 'church.') Not until the rise in pluralism in 19th century Europe did Jewish-only and Jewish-led congregations of Jesus-followers re-emerge. Originally, these new congregations use common lexiconography (Christian, church) and over time began to use more specific terminology (Messianic, rabbi, etc.) --DeknMike (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Dr. David Rausch, associate professor of church history and Judaic studies at Ashland, (Ohio) Theological Seminary has written about the debates - especially in the early 1900s - between Messianic Judaism on the one hand and Hebrew Christians and Christian missionary societies on the other regarding the use of Jewish ritual and customs in worship. The dominant Christian view won out in 1915, to reappear in the 1940s and 50s, reaching a tipping point in the early 1970s, at which point the term Messianic was re-established.[6] --DeknMike (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Using Feher to begin the objections section

Sections should be constructed neutrally, and talking about "mobilization" and "marginalization" is engaging in the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. Furthermore, the objections themselves are listed in many sources, Feher's characterization of them is her own opinion. -- Avi (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

having been YELLED AT with capital letters supporting using her as the opening line of 'History', I have accepted her personal memior is an accepted and authoritative source. --DeknMike (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You were "YELLED AT" for misrepresenting what she said, not for using her. And she's a post-doctoral fellow in sociology, who studies, among other things, new religious movements. Her book is not a "personal memoir", it is the findings of a three-year study. Please do not misrepresent it again. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Material moved to talk: unreliable source www.petahtikvah.com

The claim that Messianic congregations were established in Europe as early as the 1860s has been cited to this source:

http://www.petahtikvah.com/Articles/MessianicForDummies.htm From that point on, Rabinowitz believed in Yeshua as the Messiah. He returned to Russia, and spread his views among the Jewish population that had grown to love him throughout the years. In the 1890s, he established what could be considered a genuine Messianic synagogue of over 100 persons. Rabbi Lichtenstein of Hungary who became believers in Yeshua. He also built up a genuine Messianic Jewish synagogue.

As should be fairly obvious, www.petahtikvah.com is the website of a small Messianic congregation, and specifically the work of "Rick & Miriam Chaimberlin". It's a fine source for things like the address of the congregation, but obviously not reliable for historical claims like this. Please do not restore this source, and please ensure in the future that only reliable sources are used. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Invented history again

User:DeknMike, the sources are all clear that while a small number of Jews who converted to Christianity organized themselves as congregations in the 1800s and 1900s, "Messianic Judaism" first emerged in the 1960s. It is quite disturbing to see you take a source that says

"This interest in developing a Jewish ethnic identity may not be surprising when we consider the 1960s, when Messianic Judaism arose..."

and paraphrase it as

A major shift in the movement began in the 1960s and 70s, when congregations began calling themselves Messianic Jewish

No, the source says that Messianic Judaism arose in the 1960s. It does not say any of that other stuff. We've been through this before; yes, Jews have been converting to Christianity for a long time, but the "major shift" in the 1906s was not in what these "congregations called themselves", but rather that the unique movement known as "Messianic Judaism" arose, one which married Christian theology with some Jewish practices and Hebrew terminology. Please do not continue to abuse sources in this way, and please provide the quotation requested for the other material, rather than simply removing the request. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The movement did not emerge ex nihilo, but emerged gradually through progressive understanding and separation from normative Christianity. The structure was in place when the Jesus Movement - especially in Southern California - added new believers to non-traditional congregations, such as Messianic congregations.--DeknMike (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

but that's not what the source says. we go by what the sources actually say.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you read that source material in context? I certainly don't have access to it, but it appears the phrase is from the summary section of a printed memoir (primary source). Instead, I cite multiple other secondary sources that say otherwise. --DeknMike (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

at the moment i don't, but i recall checking it and not seeing what you're claiming it says. you haven't added any other secondary sources for that specific claim. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I read the source material in context, and of course it's not a "summary section of a printed memoir (primary source)" - why would you invent that? I've added a link to the page now, so anyone can read it. Also, you haven't cited any other sources for that claim, much less "multiple other secondary sources that say otherwise". Can you quote them here please? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. All I had seen was it was the final chapter, titled 'Looking Toward the Future" and wondered why you didn't reference from chapter 3 "History". Again, I don't have access to the full book, only snippets. However, it remains true that the book is about a single congregation. Also when she says MJ "arose" she does so without context, such that it could mean 'became popular', gained in status or noticability. I'm still not convinced the statement was anything more than reporting common belief, without standards of verifiability. --DeknMike (talk) 05:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You first claimed that the source was a summary section of a printed memoir (primary source), and now have changed your claim to the statement was anything more than reporting common belief, without standards of verifiability. Please review moving the goalposts. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Your last comment sounds like a personal attack. I thanked you for setting me straight, and you accused me of changing my mind! What gives? --DeknMike (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

O.K., I've added a second source that says the same thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Your second source is also a book that is not available to me in this area. However, I did find an online article by the same author that contradicts your assertion. It that source, your author says "Others thought that the term had originated within the past ten or 20 years. Most of their opponents also agreed that this was so. In fact, both the term “Messianic Judaism” and the frustration with the movement go back to the 19th century." --DeknMike (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Rausch is not "the same author" as either of the sources used, and this brief paper of his is hardly as reliable as either of the sources used. Where are those "standards of verifiability" you demanded in your other comment? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Restoring 'good article' status

Once apon a time, this was judged a 'good article.' It was readable. The topic headings made sense. The sources supported the conclusion. Of late, a band of antagonists have taken over, people whose aim seems to discredit the movement, rather than provide background information. They will reproduce a single sentence from a 200 page book someone else read as an authoritative source without any attempt at scholarly research.

I have in the past suggested a new organizational plan [7] and the 'minders' didn't object. More recently, I noted the lack of consistency in the Comparisons section [8], also without objection.

My internet has been intermittent this week. Next time it comes up, I will move "5.3 Doctrines" up under "4.3 Core doctrines", "5.4 People of God" in with "4.5 People of God", "5.6 Torah" to "4.3.4 Bible", make '4.3.6 Oral Law" to be 4.3.5, since it follows Torah discussion, and finish 4.3 by moving "5.5 Eschatology" into 4.3.6. 5.2 Jesus into "4.3.2 Yeshua as Messiah"

The current "5.1 Judaism" is really an objection to discussions on messianic prophecy being fulfilled in Jesus. When I've tried to make it a true comparison, those words were removed. When I've suggested the title reflect the text, that, too was rejected. When the above is moved, that section will be moved to section 8 with the rest of the Jewish Objections.

In doing this move, no text will be altered, only the position of the paragraphs. Then the community can go back to fighting over whether this will become a good article or not. --DeknMike (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh this is a wonderful article when compared to, say... South Carolina civil disturbances of 1876. Don't even know how that article is still around in its current state...SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is actually better than it has ever been, but is still filled with unsourced material, or material sourced to unreliable sources (e.g. websites of individual congregations). Those are far more fundamental flaws than any alleged issue with "topic headings" etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If topic heading have no value, then remove them all, or quit worrying about which ones I use. --DeknMike (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Material moved to talk: unreliable source www.mcu.edu

I've moved the following material to the Talk: page

On May 22, 1901, the Boston Conference of the Messianic Council met, organized by Mark Levy, an English Jew, to push his idea to form an alliance in America of Jewish believers. In 1913, Maurice Ruben, a European-born Jewish businessman, held a meeting in Pittsburg with others (including Sabbati Rohold, an Orthodox Jew born in Palestine) to plan a conference, which established the HCAA in 1915; Rohold was elected its first President. http://www.mcu.edu/papers/mess_jud.htm<

As should be fairly obvious, www.mcu.edu is a Christian theological college that advertises on its front page the fact that it offers online theology degrees. The specific source in question is apparently an unpublished paper by William "Bill" Greene, who teaches at the college. Even if we were to assume this obscure individual is an expert on the history of Messianic Judaism, please review WP:SPS for more about why this source is inappropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume if you allow advertising press releases (Ref 39 for Authenticity's first paragraph - all all of David Yonke's 'articles' are meeting announcements) and anti-Messianic opinion blogs, you would accept a scholarly paper from an accredited college. (Note that many prestigious colleges offer online degrees. Harvard and Yale are two examples, but there are others.) --DeknMike (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The Rausch source you found and added was good enough; it at least was published in a respected Christian journal. This unpublished stuff on the website of a theological college, written by a non-notable author? Not so much. Also, Yonke is the religion editor for the The Blade (newspaper), a daily newspaper published for the last 175 years, and that's an article of his that's being cited, not a "meeting announcement". Please make only accurate statements about sources. And if you're looking for actually bad sources, why not start with reference 30, lightofmashiach.org, the personal website of Ellen Kavanaugh? You know, that absurdly unreliable source that you added at the end of September? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The Blade is a recognized news source, but Yonke's article doesn't meet the standard of a blog about local events. This one in particular reads like a promotional ad press release: "Rabbi Tovia Singer of New York will speak in Toledo on the topic: "Jesus Was a Jew – But Can a Jew Be for Jesus?” ...Rabbi Tovia Singer will speak at 7:30 p.m. Wednesday at the University of Toledo’s Driscoll Alumni Center, 2801 West Bancroft St. Admission is free. The talk is sponsored by UT Chabad/Hillel at the Chai Jewish Center. Information: 419-392-8941." This is not a sourced research paper. Moreover, the subject of the criticism is a single Messianic Rabbi who meets in a building that used to be a church, and - even if were more than one missionary's opinion - cannot in good conscience be extrapolated to the entire movement. In fact, the 'article' clearly states that Rabbi Singer is a radio talk show host and "founder and director of Outreach Judaism, an organization dedicated to countering efforts by Messianic Jewish groups to convert Jews." --DeknMike (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yonke's article is neither a blog not a "promotional ad". It was simply an article in the newspaper, written by the newspaper's religion editor. Again, please make only accurate statements about sources. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It says 'blog' in the title; it syndicates content to a number of sources. That article reads like the kind of promotional press releases I've been trained to write for my clients: the use of the phrase "admission is free" for a future event distinguishes it from an article about a topic, and makes it marketing. --DeknMike (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As was clear from the citation, that specific blog was merely a Wikipedia:Convenience link, and the article had originally been published in The Blade. I've changed the link to point directly to the article on The Blade's website. Also, I've removed some material sourced to non-notable WP:SPS or other similar (and dead) links. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was clear from the earlier link that the article had been on the Blade website, and the indication was the "true copy of the original, without any comments, amendations, edits or changes" (which is the definition of a Wikipedia:Convenience link) was to the blog site. Thank you for finding the original link. It still reads like a promo, and fails the common basic standards of a Wikipedia source on several counts. But thanks for making the change. --DeknMike (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No Mike, it was clear that the article had been published in The Blade, not "been on the Blade website". What are the "several counts" on which you claim it "fails the common basic standards of a Wikipedia source". Please quote relevant policy when giving your answer. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Read his website, it's helpful. "Outreach Judaism is an international organization that responds directly to the issues raised by missionaries and cults, by exploring Judaism in contradistinction to fundamentalist Christianity." -- Avi (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Avi, I'm not disputing that Outreach Judaism is an anti-Messianic organization with an agenda every bit as valid as MJAA or Chosen People. I simply quoted what the article said. Your edit ~~both~~ changed the quote ~~and removed the source~~. Please change it back. --DeknMike (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean as now the description of Singer's organization is now sourced, and the Blade quote has not been changed. I did expand it to include the next relevant sentence. -- Avi (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The Blade explicitly said "Rabbi Singer seeks to discredit groups such as Jews for Jesus and Messianic Jews." Lisa changed the quote and I put it back. You sourced his website inside the quote leaving the first sentence hanging, separated from its source. (the mixup above happened while I was fact-checking and hit 'save' instead of 'show preview' and then hit an edit conflict with you.) As always, credibility matters.--DeknMike (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. -- Avi (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There is little to be found about Tovia Singer except from his own website. There is no bio, no external sources, etc. There are few web references except press releases [9]. His radio show has shut down. The articles on OJ.org are more than a decade old or point to dead links, and have no scholarship. There is nothing on the web collaborating his notability that is not self-promotion Can Singer really be considered a reliable source? --DeknMike (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

_______

I corresponded with Dr Greene. The source was written as part of his PhD program at Florida International University. In addition to teaching at MCU, a 30-year-old state-accredited landed and online institution, he is also adjunct professor at Verity Institute in Indianapolis, Indiana, which cooperates wtih several degree-granting institutions. [10] --DeknMike (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it his PhD thesis? Has it been published anywhere? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not his thesis (way too short for a PhD thesis paper). Not sure it is published except on the university website. It does however follow accepted social science research protocols and references most of the majority sources. --DeknMike (talk) 05:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

If it was a published PhD thesis you could have argued that it was a WP:RS, but I don't see how an unpublished paper meets those requirements. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS says "theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. ...scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context." And while the article appears on the university website, the MCU is an accredited university, and the article doesn't meet the WP:RS definition of a 'Self-published source'. It is a scholarly paper, done in the course of PdD studies, presented for academic use, by a published social scientist in a relevant field. --DeknMike (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

By MCU are you referring to Miami Christian University? If so, it is not an accredited academic institution by any stretch (does not belong to and is not recognized as a university) - merely allowable to operate by the State of Florida for religious, ministry-oriented vocations, and not comparable to a secular educational institution. Similar to a correspondence school or any faith-based institute. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In addition to what A Sniper points out, putting something in your user space at a theology school's website in no way makes it meet the requirements of WP:RS, much less a published PhD thesis. If you think it is, please quote the relevant part of the guideline. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

So-called 'contentious' Torah observance

There is a claim on the article that 'the issue of Torah observance is contentious'. That misstates the issue without being untrue. There are a variety of opinions and levels of belief about how strict one should be in observing Torah, and different congregations may hold differing views. This is no more 'contentious' than comparing views of Orthodox and Reform Judaism. Instead, the opening line should say 'There is a variety of practice within Messianic Judaism regarding the strictness of Torah observance.' --DeknMike (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-notable source Singer

Unless you are pushing an agenda that this group has no reason to exist, there is no reason to leave in unsourced, self-published opinion and remove researched documents. Tovia Singer is an entertainer WP:BLP violation removed His radio show was fading and he set up an "educational" site out of his house. His primary source is a discredited work from 500 years ago, trying to apply it to a movement that began in the 1800s. His rhetoric is classic refutation literature, which is “more often than not, …characterized by such logical fallacies as making straw men, question begging and misrepresentation of the facts.” [11] Tovia Singer meets none of the standards of the sources I present, yet you build the whole section around him. Why is that? --DeknMike (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I know one of you will point to one or two sources used once where I misspoke, and your POV won't let you accept sources any other reasonable individual would understand, but I have no axe to grind here, except to provide a reasoned, rational representation of the movement. --DeknMike (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you imagine an evangelical missionising tract published by William Carey Library would be a reliable source in these matters, but please don't use it for further arguments here, and please stop using it in the article itself. Also, please review WP:BLP, and Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

??? I'm using a source who has a PhD from Harvard, and is one of the most respected mid-east scholars, and a consultant to USAID, to describe tactics used by a fellow operating a self-publishing house out of his back bedroom.--DeknMike (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be missing the point. It is the publication itself, not where the gentleman did his PhD. In addition, you keep using the same quote that isn't actually specific to Singer but is a generalization on the next page. All the writer says of Singer is, due to the wide distribution of his tapes, he grabbed the attention of evangelicals (which greatly diminishes your statement that Singer is insignificant). It seems to be your own original research that links Singer specifically to the generalization. You should also be careful about the personal attacks - what agenda do you claim individual editors have? Best, A Sniper (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Credibility is established either/or, not both/and. A valid expert can be cited even if the vehicle itself is merely a magazine or small publishing house. Conversely, an otherwise unknown who is published in a well established vehicle can be a valid source. People would cite Bruce Metzger even if he were quoted in the Sun. People would quote the Oxford English Dictionary even if they had no idea who the contributor was.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Again I'm confused. 1) It's not an 'evangelical missionising tract' but rather a cultural analysis of groups Christians come in contact with. 2) Singer is mentioned by name in a paragraph that talks about refutation literature, and the next paragraph continues with an assessment of those who use that style of rhetoric. 3)The agenda of some of the editors is clearly to refute MJ as having any validity, using unsourced sites to prove their point and refusing scholarly research that contradicts preconceived notions. Singer, for one, has notability as a radio talk show host, without any scholarly proofs of his claims. --DeknMike (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

But you cannot continue into the next paragraph because it isn't about Singer himself - it is a generalization. It is the same reason why you yourself edited out a descriptive reference of Passion of the Christ that I had added, when it was your text choice that brought up the film in the first place. I concede that my addition was unnecessary, hence why I didn't revert, and you'll have to accept that the continuing descriptive paragraph is not about Singer. I would also add that neither jayjg or I have attributed anything to anyone using iffy references, so you must be referring to other editors. Best, A Sniper (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

DeknMike, we understand that you don't like Singer as a source. In fact, he's not nearly as good as many of the other sources used in this article, which is why, for example, I have not used him when adding material. That said, he's as good as many of the sources already used in this article, and as good or better than many of the sources you have personally added. If you want to clean up the sources here, then please remove all the bad ones (including, but not limited to, http://www.rabbiyeshua.com/, http://www.levhashem.org/, http://www.graftedin.com/, http://jerusalemcouncil.org/, http://wordofmessiah.org/, http://www.messianicjewishonline.com/, and http://heartofwisdom.com/). You have no credibility when you complain about Singer but add citations to, for example, the personal websites of non-notable individuals. What you cannot do, and must not do again, is deliberately denigrate Singer on Wikipedia; that includes denigrating him in this article (e.g. [12][13]), denigrating him on Talk: pages (e.g. [14][15]), attempting to turn the article on him into an attack page (e.g. [16][17][18]) or creating attack articles on the organization he heads.[19] You must read WP:BLP very carefully, and stop doing this. You're free to argue that he's not a reliable source, or not a scholarly source, or nor a notable source, or any other reasonable argument against using him as a source. However, the next time I see you instead attacking Singer, I will make sure your activities receive much more serious attention. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

DeknMike, what was it that you apparently didn't understand about the comment made above? Where on earth did you imagine it gave you license to again try to edit Tovia Singer's bio solely for the purpose of denigrating him?? For claiming that he had a "low-level semicha" or uses "(NLP), a technique often associated with manipulation"? How could you possibly think this blog or this blog were acceptable sources for WP:BLPs? Last chance, Mike. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, please point me to a reliable second-party source that doesn't read like a self-written Press_release. You claim he's authorative, but I can't find anything but his self-published materials. Don't redirect to a different question. Answer directly, please. --DeknMike (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

We're here neither to defend Singer or arm you with ammo to belittle him. If you can't find anything on him, then move on to another article. If you still think he isn't notable, despite the fact you've referenced him yourself, then go that route and try to bring down the article. And if you're seeking direct answers, try answering mine about why you claim refs state one thing when they actually say another, if not deliberately to mislead. Best, A Sniper (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

DeknMike, you need to learn to cite accurately, and that includes citing Wikipedia editors: I haven't claimed Singer is "authoritative". Please read A Sniper's comment above, and then re-read my previous comments in this thread. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleting reliably sourced, factual information - historical revisionism

As part of an on-going series of historical revisionism edits, DeknMike has now removed this following reliably sourced information[20]:

Messianic Judaism itself arose in the 1960s.

As has been gone over in multiple previous threads, all reliable sources indicate that MJ itself arose in the 1960s. Yes, there were many missions to the Jews before that, and even various congregations of Jewish converts to Christianity that existed briefly and attempted to add Jewish-style worship to their Christian faith. However, again, all reliable sources agree that MJ as movement itself arose in the 1960s. DeknMike, that fact that you personally don't agree with these reliable sources in no way makes the information they present controversial in any way. For the very last time, do not change what these sources say, or remove it, or more serious action will be taken. If you think you have reliable sources that contradict or dispute what these sources say, present it on this Talk: page for discussion first. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I know your point of view is that you are correct and that you disagree with the validity of sources that don't say what you want to assert. However, reliable sources said the Jewish people's movement slowly emerged over many decades, adjusting names to match the times but not changing major personalities nor theology.

"The Brownsville Mission to the Jews" was formed in 1894 by Leopold Cohn, a Jewish emigre. In 1924, the organization of Jewish believers changed its name to "American Board of Missions to the Jews". In 1984, the name was changed again to its current name, "Chosen People Ministries"
The Hebrew Christian Alliance was formed in Britain in 1860, and the American branch, the Hebrew Christian Alliance of America, was founded in 1915. In 1975, the HCAA changed its name to the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America.
Joel Chernoff, who as President of HCAA led the shift to MJAA, is second-generation Messianic, growing up in Beth Messiah congregation in Cincinnati.

Yes, there are other valid sources that assert differently (most written by Jewish non-Messianics in the past 30 years). I removed the statement asserting only one side of the argument until the variance can reconciled without name-calling. DeknMike (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Mike, we've been through all this before. These were missions to Jews, Christian missions that attempted to convert Jews to Christianity, not "Messianic Judaism". They were run by Methodists, Baptists, etc. The HCAA, for example, insisted that it was not Judaism or a new denomination, but rather that it was part of the church. It specifically disavowed Judaizers, who wanted to bring Jewish practices into the church. There are no reliable sources that say anything different; when challenged to produce any, instead you produce rhetoric like this. Again, you must stop inventing history to match your beliefs, and instead accurately reproduce what reliable sources say. Do not remove, change or in any way modify the statement "Messianic Judaism itself arose in the 1960s" without reliable sources backing you up and consensus to do so on this talk page. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And, once again, DeknMike has chosen to ignore the direct accusation against him of purporting that refs say something when they do not, tailoring to his own agenda. A Sniper (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Quoting ReligiousTolerance.org, "The recent roots of Messianic Judaism date from the mid 19th century. Many Jews in Britain who had accepted Christian beliefs questioned why they were expected to forfeit their Jewish heritage and identity in order to accept the Messiah. The Hebrew Christian Alliance and Prayer Union of Great Britain was formed in 1866 to promote the combination of Jewish heritage and Christian theology."[21]] And from the University of Cumbria (UK), "In the 19th century Jewish Christian congregations began to reemerge. The first of these was Beni Abraham which came into existence in London when forty-one Hebrew Christians assembled as Jewish Christians. This led to a more general awareness of the Jewish identity of Christians with a Jewish background, expressed through the flowering of Hebrew Christianity in the nineteenth century. In 1866 the Hebrew Christian Alliance of Great Britain was organised with branches in several European countries and the United States. These organisations had the combined effect of encouraging Jewish believers in Jesus to think of themselves as a community with a unique identity." [22]--DeknMike (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's ignore the non-reliable nature of the sources for a moment. Where do either of those quotes discuss the movement of Messianic Judaism? Repeating what I stated above "Yes, there were many missions to the Jews before that, and even various congregations of Jewish converts to Christianity that existed briefly and attempted to add Jewish-style worship to their Christian faith." Please stop wasting everyone's time here with this revisionist personal opinion. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, the second, and more reliable of the sources, says the following (emphasis mine):

Hebrew Christians are quite happy to be integrated into local Christian churches, but Messianic Jews seek an 'indigenous' expression of theology, worship and lifestyle within the whole church. The latter group emerged in the 1960s when some Christian Jews adopted the name Messianic Jews in order to affirm their belief that Jews who accept Yeshua/Jesus are in fact returning to what they describe as "true Judaism".

Did you notice that bit? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Emerged from where? The movement had clearly been building for many decades, and 'arose' - was noticed by society at large - as it experienced a period of rapid growth in the 60s and 70s and coalesced around a descriptive name. --DeknMike (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless the source itself (in this case, the one using the word "emerged") clearly indicates where it emerged from, it would be a violation of WP:OR to offer any sort of response. And the fact that there were other groups of Jews who became Christian is not in and of itself a clear link to previous groups - again, we would need a reliable source, preferably an independent reliable source, for that information.

If I might propose a possible way of addressing this situation. I think what might be in everyone's best interests would be to find overviews of the subject of the MJs, in enclyclopedias or elsewhere, which are from independent reliable sources, and use them as a basic "outline" for the article, although citing better sources for the content as specifically added.

And, for those who already dislike me, allow me to give you even more cause to do so. I have been assembling the various articles and other sources I can find on various databanks available to me. Content on Jews for Jesus is included as well. So far, it's around 600, but I expect that number to increase, because those 600 are only from one databank. If any of you really wish to indulge your masochistic sides, just drop me an e-mail and I will forward the material assembled to you. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

We've been over this many times; various missions to Jews, congregations of Jewish converts, etc. existed before. None of these were Messianic Judaism. Sources only say exactly what they say, you can't invent a narrative or backstory for them. This persistent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, on top of all the other behavioral issues outlined above, is increasingly disruptive. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. Why do you persist to insist the movement had no historical origins? In spite of overwhelming evidence of Jews who came to faith in Jesus as Messiah/Christ, who created independent congregations with the help of gentile denominations. That these congregations formed secondary alliances among themselves, using the language of the day to call themselves Hebrew Christians until the language changed and they adjusted by changing their name to Messianic Judaism.--68.105.232.43 (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not what reliable sources say; instead, they describe a new ethos and philosophy emerging in the 1960s and 1970s, typified by the Hebrew Christian Alliance of America, which in the early 1970s completely reversed its previously strongly-held ideological position against "Judaizing". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

And I agree with Jayjg. This article, like all of our articles, is primarily based on what the independent reliable sources say. All of the reliable sources independent of the group which identifies itself as Messianic Judaism today is apparently the only group which sees the previous group as being in any way a direct antecedent/earlier version of itself. Therefore, until other disagreeing independent reliable sources which support that contention are produced, we would be obliged to place the greatest emphasis on what the independent reliable sources say, and only include a brief mention of the fact that the MJs of today themselves believe that there is a clear-cut direct linkage between them. John Carter (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Newly updated Wikipedia article "Hebrew Christian"

It seems there is a Wikipedia entry Hebrew Christian that for several years was simply a redirect Jewish Christians. Then, a week or two ago, it was changed from being a redirect to having content that looks to be almost identical to a lot of the content here. Can someone please explain to me exactly what the difference is between a Jewish Christian, a Hebrew Christian, and Messianic Judaism, and why there should be an article called Hebrew Christian that seems to largely be a copy of the content here... thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zad68 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears that User:DeknMike has been copying much of the material from this article into that one - without attribution, I might add, which is a violation of the GFDL. It's also a WP:POVFORK. I suppose it should be restored to a redirect, but perhaps others have views on this? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:POVFORK seems to describe it perfectly, but I'll assume good intent first and give him a chance to explain the differences between the 3 subjects that I mentioned. Zad68 (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that was partially at my doing. I had noted to DeknMike that the "Hebrew Christians" mentioned by Schoenfield, and that that group is notable enough apparently for its own article. I also indicated, I think reasonably, that it would make sense to indicate in that article, if only in passing, that some of the existing MJs consider that earlier group to be an earlier expression or version of their own beliefs. Regarding the possibility that the articles are effective redundant and repetitive, that is a different matter. I personally would think that the article on Hebrew Christians should be limited almost exclusively to the discussion of the 19th-20th century group discussed by Schoenfield, with perhaps a quick note indicating the linkage to the MJs. I do think that there is sufficient material on that group for such an article to exist as a stand-alone. Jewish Christian is a more blanket term for any number of other groups, including earlier groups like the Ebionites, Nazoreans, and others, which are seen as Christian but placing emphasis on Jewish characteristics. John Carter (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

John Carter - When you say "Schoenfield" did you mean Devorah Schoenfeld http://www.smcm.edu/philrelig/facultypages/drschoenfeld ? Or did you mean Hugh J. Schonfield? I'm STILL trying to figure out what a 'Hebrew Christian' is. Zad68 (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hugh J. Schonfield, who wrote a book on the subject which has been well received in academic circles, if largely subsequently ignored because of his later works, was the individual I meant. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

DeknMike is clearly aware of the discussion here, but has chosen to ignore it, and has instead been updating the article using unreliable and obviously self-serving sources to insert non-factual material. Is there any objection to simply turning the WP:POVFORK back into the previous re-direct? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No objection, seems like the right thing to do.Zad68 (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Avi (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've informed him on his talk page of this specific conversation, in case he's missed it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There were no objections here to restoring the redirect. I went ahead and restored the original redirect from Hebrew Christian to Jewish Christians. If there's anything new to add, it should be added there. Zad68 (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the subject is sufficiently notable on its own to have an article, as I indicated above, but agree that at present the POV problems make its continuation problematic, and have no particular objections to the redirect as a temporary measure, although I would like to see the material exposed in the future based on the better sources available. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Misrepresenting sources again

DeknMike, you have again misrepresented what the sources say, with this edit. You added the sentences

The movement saw a period of quiet growth between the 1920s and the 1960. Many in the Jewish community were surprised in the early 1970s to find a large, vibrant,and growing movement;^[1] many even assumed that

However, the material cited actually says the following:

Missions to the Jews during the period were conservative evangelical institutions. It should be noted, therefore, that the years from the 1920s to the 1960s were not ones of decline but rather a period of growth for these enterprises in size, experience, organization and sophistication. Contrary to the way many Americans viewed the matter, conservative evangelicalism did not consider itself defeated following the Scopes trial in 1925. The decades between the trial and the evangelical resurgence of the late 1960s and early 1970s were in actuality years of quiet growth in the movement. ...In the 1970s many were caught by surprise when they discovered in the early 1970s the existence of a large and dynamic movement of missions to the Jews.

As is clear, the section in question is all about missions to the Jews, not the MJ "movement", which, as has already been shown, arose in the 1960s. You left out the critical phrase "missions to the Jews" twice, thus completely changing the author's meaning. To add insult to injury, you also added the phrase "many even assumed that" before the sentence "Messianic Judaism itself arose in the 1960s", thus totally changing that sentence's meaning too. However, the sources nowhere say that people "assumed" that MJ arose in the 1960s. Rather, they simply say that it arose in the 1960s.
For weeks now you've been inventing a history in which the modern MJ movement actually arose in the mid-1800s, and continued to the present day, conflating Christian missions to Jews with the MJ movement. We've already been over this at Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 20#Pittsburgh??? and Talk:Messianic_Judaism/Archive 20#Invented history again. This must stop. You must, from now on, accurately represent what the sources say, rather than misrepresenting them. Your continued failure to do so is a serious violation of policy. Do not do this again. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I must agree about DeknMike. I have patiently had to check his sources because now there is an established pattern of wholesale embellishment, all the while casting an 'agenda' accusation at any editor reverting or challenging. The bottom line is that I cannot trust any of the references and must actually take the time to read each one to verify that the point being made hasn't been invented based on something else entirely. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

For whatever it is worth, I agree. It seems that a majority (at least) of DeknMike's edits to this article are either misrepresentations of sources, or violate WP:POV or WP:OR. I haven't done an edit-by-edit analysis but that is my impression. I think the article's quality has been steadily suffering because of it. Zad68 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

My 'agenda' is truth, to counter the misrepresentations on the board, to return the article to an encyclopedic background of who these people are and where they came from (per my BA in History). Part of the problem in finding sources is that to obtain financial support, Jewish groups often translated their efforts into the language of Christians eager to support their work. However, primary sources and secondary reviews of those sources validate the term Messianic by Jewish believers at least 100 years ago, as well as the growth of the movement. It was 'missions to the Jews' but just as likely by Jews. It is clear from the scholarly sources that the movement's emergence surprised mainstream Judaism (and many Christians, who still don't quite get it). That is probably why most of the counter sources are from organizations which have emerged in the past 40 years, often created to counter efforts by Jewish evangelists. If a particular world view doesn't accept a Messianic viewpoint to be valid, then every Messianic source is viewed as a lie - or at least tainted point of view. The view that a movement sprang from nothing is ludicrous; actions have anticedents, and movements often exist for decades before reaching a tipping point of popular acceptance. (example: The internet predates Al Gore's involvement.) --DeknMike (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That's all very interesting. However, you've avoided the issues raised above about your editing. You blatantly claim that references say one thing when they do not. Now, we are in a position to have to check your every reference to make sure you haven't misrepresented what it actually says. Why not address this? A Sniper (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

DeknMike, this article is littered with bad sources, or completely unsourced material, as outlined in various sections above, much of it introduced by you. Rather than deal with that issue, you have instead consistently chosen to take the actual reliable sources, and either misrepresent what they say, or remove them entirely when you don't agree with them. At the same time, you have claimed to have no "agenda" here except "truth", and denigrated the motivations of other editors. As a result, every single edit you make must be scrutinized intensely, with sources checked meticulously, because it inevitably turns out that they are bad sources, or good sources misrepresented or deleted. This must stop. Please replace the bad sources you've introduced with good ones, represent good sources accurately, and leave the properly sourced material alone. I don't see how we can be more clear on this. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

According to Michael Lind, "a worldview is a more or less coherent understanding of the nature of reality, which permits its holders to interpret new information in light of their preconceptions. Clashes among worldviews cannot be ended by a simple appeal to facts. Even if rival sides agree on the facts, people may disagree on conclusions because of their different premises." ^[2] Perhaps your point of view (we all have one) is preventing acceptance of sources outside your frame of reference? --DeknMike (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I'm certain the problem is that this source you inserted, for example, fails WP:RS, as do many of the other sources you've inserted. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, a misdirection. I searched the article, and that reference is not there. I don't know if I put it in at some time in the past (before you taught me to improve my skills as a researcher), or if someone else did. Really doesn't matter. You used it to not address a conversation. It felt like a slap, a slander. I'm beginning to think you're not editing in good faith. --DeknMike (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Mike, you added the source to the article less than 4 months ago. Here's the link where you did it. It's not in the article any more because I eventually removed it. I'm not sure what "conversation" you think is not being addressed; the issue most editors here think is not being addressed is your consistent mis-citing of sources, which has been brought up with you many times now, including your failure to address it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

NOR again

DeknMike, please restrict yourself to reliable secondary sources that explicitly discuss Messianic Judaism. We've talked about this many times before. As far as I can tell, none of the sources you've used in this material you are trying to edit-war in to the article actually mention Messianic Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You are the one removing sourced content. In what way is Biblical Archeology Review an improper source? It is the largest paid-circulation magazine in the field of archaeology. It's readers "rely on us to present the latest that scholarship has to offer in a fair and accessible manner. BAS serves as an important authority and as an invaluable source of reliable information." The society, its magazines, and its editor Hershel Shanks have been the subject of widespread acclaim and media attention in publications as diverse as Time, People, Civilization, U.S. News and World Report, The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Jerusalem Post. DeknMike (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't removed anything. Now, please focus on the issue at hand: Does the source mention or refer to Messianic Judaism? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The SYNTH matter is a serious concern, and I think it should be addressed. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Biblical Source Materials

It is important to Messianic Judaism to use accurate sources. Scholarship is valued, and the leadership of most of the major organizations have advanced degrees and write sourced books on the subject. (Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Sam Nadler, Mitch Glazer, David H. Stern, etc) Stern, Nadler and Fruchtenbaum take pains to make distinctions between the earliest sources (copies of the Septuagint) and rabbinical writings. (See Sam Nadler's, Messianic Discipleship, [23] such as page 51 "The Oral Law are traditions of men, and should not be compared in authority to the written Word of God.") To understand why there are Jewish objections you must understand that Messianics and Counter-Missionary organizations use different versions of Scripture, and Messianics assume theirs to be more accurate. --DeknMike (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Please explain which specific sources you would like to use, how they meet the requirements of WP:RS, and why you think so. And please make sure the sources discuss Messianic Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

And Mike, please immediately cease your continued use of edit summaries to suppose why editors revert you. Apparently your perspective is that you are being reverted because I or others have an axe to grind or are following an agenda. Let me state now that my agenda is NPOV, sourced editing. I am interested in reading sentences that are bolstered by secondary, bona fide sources that apply directly to what has just been written. When I see you write a statement and then give a reference that is general and doesn't pertain specifically to that statement, I place a fact tag, and if it is clearly original research, I revert. It doesn't matter what you are writing or from what stance - if it is POV, OR or without a citation, it must be challenged. A Sniper (talk) 07:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"Ethnic" Jews?

I think this term should be removed from the article, because it is paraphrasing racist Nazi Ideology.-- 87.188.223.184 (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Several different reliable secondary sources refer to people who are Jews by birth or by family history, and are not necessarily followers of Judaism, as 'ethnic Jews' (or variants of the term). Please follow the reference links on the term 'ethnic' in the article to view the usage of this term by reliable secondary sources. It is critical for the factual accuracy of the article to make clear in certain cases that the term 'Jew' can be applied as either a description of someone's birth status or family history (whether or not the person follows the religion of Judaism), or religious beliefs, and these are two separate meanings of the word 'Jew', which is unfortunately overloaded in this way. If you don't like the term 'ethnic' Jew, what alternate do you propose? Zad68 (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity is not "racist Nazi Ideology". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: Christian Antisemitism

What do these paragraphs have to do with understanding Messianic Judaism?

Concerning Christian-Jewish reconciliation and Christian missions to the Jews, Emil Fackenheim wrote:

"…Except in relations with Christians, the Christ of Christianity is not a Jewish issue. There simply can be no dialogue worthy of the name unless Christians accept — nay, treasure — the fact that Jews through the two millennia of Christianity have had an agenda of their own. There can be no Jewish-Christian dialogue worthy of the name unless one Christian activity is abandoned, missions to the Jews. It must be abandoned, moreover, not as a temporary strategy but in principle, as a bimillennial theological mistake. The cost of that mistake in Christian love and Jewish blood one hesitates to contemplate. …A post-Holocaust Jew can still view Christian attempts to convert Jews as sincere and well intended. But even as such they are no longer acceptable: They have become attempts to do in one way what Hitler did in another."[114]

Carol Harris-Shapiro's 'Messinic Judaism' describes Messianic Judaism as an "other' religion, looked at with suspicion by liberal Christian churches, accepted only partially by evangelical organizations and considered pariahs by the American Jewish community. Given that assessment, the quoted section is out of place in this article. --DeknMike (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that quote was not relevant to "Messianic Judaism" in particular, I removed it. In general, this article has a lot of 'fat' that needs to be trimmed. Zad68 (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

At least it was accurately cited to a reliable source. Mike, I think your time would be better spent removing all the unsourced or poorly sourced material, much of which has been tagged for months. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Been trying to remove your thinly sourced tangential materials for some time... --DeknMike (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Whose "thinly sourced tangential materials" have you been "trying to remove", and which specific ones? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from WillHarrell85, 6 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Add link the file description text for the file Messianic synagogue.jpg to match the description for the file on Wikimedia Commons, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Messianic_synagogue.jpg. The description should be:

[[File:Messianic synagogue.jpg|thumbnail|right|225px|The Baruch HaShem house of worship in Dallas, Texas]

WillHarrell85 (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

already done —Gƒoley Four— 04:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The file description on wikipedia for this page does not match wikimedia commons for the same file. There is a hyperlink that is missing on the text "The Baruch HaShem house of worship". — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillHarrell85 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism by DeknMike

DeknMike has twice inserted into the lede[24][25] the sentence

There are currently Messianic congregations or fellowships in virtually every city in the United States with a Jewish community of a few hundred families or more.

The source says

There are currently Messianic congregations or fellowships in virtually every city in the United States, wherever a Jewish community of a few hundred families or more exists. (Ariel 2006, p. 191.)

Note the words highlighted in the source, which DeknMike has copied verbatim. As is obvious, this is blatant plagiarism. DeknMike, do not do this again, and do not insert anything in the lede without gaining consensus here first. The current lede was arrived at through lengthy negotiation, and past experience has shown that all of your insertions invariably violate WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, or some combination of the above. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that "Plagiarism is the incorporation of someone else's work without providing adequate credit" and Wikipedia says to "Cite your sources in the form of an inline citation after the phrase, sentence, or paragraph in question." The guidance says that "If you find an example of plagiarism, where an editor has copied text, media, or figures, into Wikipedia without proper attribution, contact the editor responsible, point them politely to this guideline page and ask them to provide the proper attribution. Please use care to frame concerns in an appropriate way, as an accusation of plagiarism is a serious charge." [[26]]

On 30 Aug 10 (Archive 18) I was instructed not to change direct quotes. I did not, and had included proper citations; further, one sentence from a two hundred page volume falls within 'fair use' doctrine. Nonetheless, the offending phrase has been rewritten, and the proper citation retained.--DeknMike (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:PLAGIARISM is quite clear about this. It explicitly lists what you did as a form of plagiarism, and even has a specific box for the kind of plagiarism you did:

N Copying from a source acknowledged in a well-placed citation, without in-text attribution
Inserting a text—copied word-for-word, or with very few changes—then citing the source in an inline citation after the passage that was copied, without naming the source in the text.

Of course, you've now done something just as bad, you've falsely attributed to a source something it does not say. You've inserted the claim "throughout the country in every city with a recognizable Jewish population"[27], whereas the source says "in virtually every city in the United States with a Jewish community of a few hundred families or more" (emphasis mine). As is obvious, these do not mean the same thing - there are far more cities with a "recognizable Jewish population" than there are with "a few hundred [Jewish] families or more". Your wording misrepresents the source, and exaggerates the extent of the spread of Messianism. As I said above, "do not insert anything in the lede without gaining consensus here first. The current lede was arrived at through lengthy negotiation, and past experience has shown that all of your insertions invariably violate WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, or some combination of the above". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

How can I fix this? I can't quote, I can't fix and I can't summarize. How would you state this truth?--DeknMike (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You can propose changes on the Talk: page, as has been suggested to you at least twenty times, and others can come to a consensus about if, how, and where the material should be included. Also, please stop crossing out the word "Plagiarism" in the section title; that is what you did, and our policies specifically describe it and list it as plagiarism. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

32 AD

I agree with the person who expressed concern about the use of "arose in the 1960s". I do think you are accurate to say the term gained usage in the 1960s, but the beginnings of Messianic Judaism occur around 30 A.D. My citation for this is from the Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 15. I do not quote a single verse as to avoid the accusation of taking verses out of context. The entire chapter, even if consulted as an historical text rather than a religious one, explains that the majority of first century believers in the Christ (the Messiah) are, in fact, Jewish. There had to be a Council at Jerusalem to figure out what to do with all the Gentiles who wanted to believe. Therefore I strongly urge to to reconsider the wording of the introduction of this section.

Thank you for your kind consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowwis5771 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

To support a claim that "Messianic Judaism" as the term is currently understood and used today arose at a different time, you'd have to provide reliable secondary sources that say so. Your interpretation of widely-debated--and outright rejected by many--primary religious texts would not be acceptable support for such a claim. Review the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources. However if you could find a legitimate, respected scholar on the subject who supports the claim that "Messianic Judaism" arose in 32 CE, please bring that source. Otherwise the claim should not be made in the article. Zad68 (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Scope of article?

Is this article about Messianic Judaism as a world-wide movement or only in the USA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeknMike (talk • contribs) 17:58, 29 April 2011

Is that a rhetorical question? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

no, goes to context. Most of the sources used are US sources, although there are Messinaic congregations in multiple nations around the world.--DeknMike (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by US sources? Firstly, just because a book was printed in one country does not make it automatically ignorant of any other country. Secondly, as the movement pretty much began in the US in the 60s, most of its history is in the US, so it stands to reason that most of the works are US-based. Thirdly, this is the English Wikipedia, so works in English will be most desired and most used. -- Avi (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly so. In addition, while it does have members in other countries, a large majority of its followers are found in the U.S., so its inevitable that the article will be somewhat U.S. focused. DeknMike, was there any specific issue with the article text that you wished to address? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Beginnings of Messianic Judaism

Last week I bought a copy of Carol Harris-Shapiro's Messianic Judaism: A Rabbi's Journey through Religious Change in America." I read on the first page "Messianic Judaism is a largely American Jewish/Christian movement whose origins can be traced in the United States to Hebrew Christian missions to the Jews in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the Jesus people of the late 1960s and the early 1970s, and the resurgence of American jewish ethnicity during the same decades." That says that while Messianic Judaism began to be noticed as a recognizable religious movement in the 1960s, it did not begin there. Saying in the opening line simply that it 'arose' ignores that fact. Recommend either we remove that phrase or admit that it 'arose to prominence' in that time. --DeknMike (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

DeknMike, first, thank you for taking your concern to talk first. Regarding your point, the quote does not counter the three sources cited in the article as support for the 1960s as the time period in which MJ arose. I agree with you and the reliable sources we have that say that MJ is built on top of the previous Hebrew Christian movement. But MJ itself arose in the 60s. It would be WP:SYNTH at least to try to use the Harris-Shapiro quote to say otherwise. Zad68 (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Trouble is, it's WP:SYNTH to ignore the use of the term and the presence of congregations prior to common recognition of the movement, and simply declare an interpretation of the the texts to equate 'arose' with 'began'. --DeknMike (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No, exactly the opposite; it's WP:SYNTH to insist that the invention of the term and various ephemeral Jewish Christian congregations are the equivalent to the start of the "Messianic Judaism" movement. Of course Messianic Judaism didn't appear out of thin air; as a simple example, its religious texts are millenia old. However, all sources, including Harris-Shapiro, make clear that while it was influenced by earlier events and movements, Messianism itself arose in the 1960s and 1970s. That's why we include all that in the History section. We wouldn't claim that Lutheranism arose in the 1st/2nd century, despite the fact that it grew out of (and was a reaction to) the Catholic Church, whose roots did stretch back that far.

And Mike, we've been over this many times; you must represent sources accurately, and you cannot continue to pretend that Messianic Judaism arose in the 19th century. Taking a break for a few weeks, and then returning to the same unacceptable behaviors is disruptive. As you've been told before, you must stop this. Focus on sourcing the extremely poorly sourced material in the article about Messianic beliefs, practices, etc., not on revisionist history. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

DeknMike, I disagree as well. WP:SYNTH is when you take what two difference sources say and you use them together to draw a new conclusion that neither source says on its own. But that is not what we have in this case. In this case, Feher, who has a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of California, and did post-doctoral work in the field of new religious congregations at the University of Illinois, says plainly in her book, "This interest in developing a Jewish ethnic identity may not be surprising when we consider the 1960s, when Messianic Judaism arose." There is not even a hint of WP:SYNTH in concluding from this sentence that Dr. Feher found that Messianic Judaism arose in the 1960s. It is the plain meaning taken from a single, reliable source, using the exact words and meanings the source uses. So there is no WP:SYNTH here. Further, this finding is backed up by two other sources. I actually think your concern that people might read the article and think Messianic Judaism sprang out of nothing in the 1960s is unfounded, and underestimates the intelligence and common sense of your readers. In the History section of the article, you provided a lot of content that does show that use of the term "Messianic Judaism" does date back to the late 1800s (although not with the meaning it has today), and you provided the context from the Hebrew Christian movement through to when Messianic Judaism arose, especially in the continuum of the HCAA. Further, Jayjg moved the History section to the very top, so the first thing a reader of the article will see after after reading the lede is the History section, including the background on the Hebrew Christian movement. So I hope you will agree your concerns are actually addressed by the article now, and that we have reliable secondary sources for the 1960s date. Zad68 (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I take 'breaks' when I have to attend to my job. And it is clear from multiple sources that several societies in the 1800s sought to form congregations of Jewish Christian who retained Jewish practices in their worship and met separately from gentile churches, just as most Messianic congregations today. Feher's research was to descrbe the rise in popularity (not the founding) of the new religion. That is the plain text reading of what she wrote. --DeknMike (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What you call "the plain text reading of what she wrote" is Original Research. She doesn't say that, she said it had earlier precursors, as do the many other reliable sources who say it arose in the 1960s and 1970s. Unless you can find a source that explicitly states Messianic Judaism arose at some other time, this discussion is over. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The lead cites 3 sources in for the assertion that MJ began in the 1960s: Feher, Ariel and Melton

Feher, who chronicled a sociological field study of the movement, asserts in passing that the movement began in the 60s, but without any bibliography to the assumption. It was her opinion that it was true, but tangential to the conclusions she was after.
Ariel says that the term came into “public use” in the early 1970s, but that in the 1930s, Presbyterians had created “Presbyterian Jewish communities {where) many converts would feel more a home in communities of their own, where being Jewish and acting Jewish was normative.” He explicitly ties these early Jewish-Christian communities to the modern movement with “These Presbyterian congregations are the oldest Jewish-Christian communities in the United States and the most obvious forerunners of the Messianic Jewish movement.”
Ariel notes on the next page that "The term, however, was not entirely new. It was used in internal debated in the community of converts as early as the beginning of the century. At the time it referred to a very small minority of converts who wanted to retain elements of Jewish tradition and law. When the term resurfaced in Israel in the 1940s and 1950s, it designated all Jews who accepted Christianity in its Protestant evangelical form."
Melton affirms your assertion, but only in general terms.
Another source, Religious Tolerance.org has been chronicling various religious forms for over 20 years and is widely seen for its encyclical value. It agrees with Ariel and says the term found first use after WWII, to mean Jewish persons who had adopted a Christian faith.

Harris-Shapiro, Ariel and ReligiousTolerance all say the movement began before it was widely recognized, because of the rapid growth in the 60s and 70s.--DeknMike (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources explicitly state it arose in the 1960s and 1970s. Your attempts to dismiss these statements via WP:NOR are irrelevant. We've been through this a half-dozen times before; everyone recognizes that there were congregations of Jewish converts to Christianity before then, but Messianic Judaism itself arose in the 1960s. If you remove this reliably and clearly sourced material again, I'm going to ensure more serious action is taken. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You continue to cite common assumptions and off-hand comments as fact. There is no sourcing by Fehrer, nor any of your citations. Most sources that do look to the historical roots say the term was used as early as late 1800s, and routinely by the 40s and 50s, though by a small number of congregations. (see article, note 5) The movement was noticed when it experienced rapid growth in the late 1960s. (see Ariel, p194: came into public use in America in the early 1970s)--DeknMike (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The sources, including Ariel, explicitly state it arose in the 1960s. Enough historical revisionism. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Need page numbers. I read through Ariel yesterday. It's not there. What he did say is "The term Messianic Judaism came into public use in America in the early 1970s, to designate groups or individuals who viewed themselves as fully Christian and fully Jewish at the same time, and were assertive about their ability and right to express both Jewish identity and the Christian faith. The term, however, was not entirely new. It was used in internal debated in the community of converts as early as the beginning of the century. ... When the term resurfaced in Israel in the 1940s and 1950s, it designated all Jews who accepted Christianity in its Protestant evangelical form." (Feher's unsourced assumption doesn't count as 'explicit'.) --DeknMike (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Page numbers have been provided in the footnotes for the multiple sources that explicitly state the movement rose in the 1960s for months now. The congregations of Jews who had converted to Christianity before that were not practising "Messianic Judaism", but were instead simply ethnic congregations of established evangelical Christian movements. In fact, I've also added a fourth source from Ariel himself, where he states exactly that:

The Rise of Messianic Judaism. In the first phase of the movement, during the early and mid-1970s, Jewish converts to Christianity established several congregations at their own initiative. Unlike the previous communities of Jewish Christians, Messianic Jewish congregations were largely independent of control from missionary societies or Christian denominations, even though they still wanted the acceptance of the larger evangelical community. (Ariel 2006:194).

Get that? The "first phase of the movement" was "during the early and mid-1970s", and it was "unlike" all those "previous communities of Jewish Christians" that you keep pretending were also "Messianic Judaism". But you know this, of course, since it has already been explained to you multiple times; see Talk:Messianic_Judaism/Archive 20#Invented history again, Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 20#Deleting reliably sourced, factual information - historical revisionism, Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 20#Misrepresenting sources again, among others. If you remove the number "1960s" again, or insert your invented pretend history of Messianic Judaism one more time, I will ensure that your persistent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and disruption is rewarded with a block. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep reading. The very next line after your quote says "The term, however, was not entirely new. It was used in internal debated in the community of converts as early as the beginning of the century. At the time it referred to a very small minority of converts who wanted to retain elements of Jewish tradition and law. When the term resurfaced in Israel in the 1940s and 1950s, it designated all Jews who accepted Christianity in its Protestant evangelical form." (Ariel 194). I don't dispute there was a major growth in the movement in the 1960s, even a shift of practice as the charismatic movement added Christian worship modes to Jewish ritual and started congregations without denominational oversight. The 60s and 70s lifted the movement from obscurity into mainstream American life that has spread to "wherever a Jewish community of a few hundred families or more exists" (Ariel 191), but Ariel says it didn't start them. --DeknMike (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The term was not new (as is explained in this very article), but the movement itself did not exist. Again, you must stop making up things that the sources do not actually say, but instead accept what they do say. The sources explicitly state that the movement arose in the 1960s in 1970s, even though the term was used in various ways before then. This point has been explained to you multiple times, including at Talk:Messianic_Judaism/Archive 20#Invented history again, Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 20#Deleting reliably sourced, factual information - historical revisionism, Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 20#Misrepresenting sources again, and at the top of this section. If you remove the number "1960s" again, or insert your invented pretend history of Messianic Judaism one more time, I will ensure that your persistent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and disruption is rewarded with a block. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like the editors at Messianic Judaism to work together and come to a consensus on how to characterize when the movement arose. So that we are all working from the same source material, I have collected all the relevant source quotes I could find and put them in a table here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zad68/MJ_history_sources . Could you please review this table and make any changes or comments you see necessary? Once we can all agree on the quality and credentials of the sources, and what the sources say, then we can work together to express what the sources say accurately in the MJ article itself. I appreciate your collaboration on this! Thanks very much, --Zad68 (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for creating that table, but I don't see how it will help. As is obvious even from your table, it consists of sources saying things, and then DeknMike either disagreeing with what they say, or pretending they say something else. At least six editors here have told DeknMike that they disagree with his OR, only one editor, DeknMike himself, disagrees with the sources. We have a consensus already. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well if efforts here to get all the editors including DeknMike to join the consensus aren't successful, we can use that table for perhaps getting a 3rd opinion or a mediation. I think anybody 'outside' that we try to pull into this discussion would find it useful to have all the information summarized and in one place for easy review. Zad68 (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a pretty clear consensus here, IMO (see here for a list of major contributors). Furthermore, one cannot create a "consensus" to ignore core wikipedia policies and guidelines (such as OR, SYNTH, NPOV, plagiarism, etc.). -- Avi (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The table is a sham. It lists your opinion and a list of digs against me. I won't have time to fix your mistakes until after Passover.--DeknMike (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Your attitude is disappointing. The table only provides the direct quotes being used, and your own comments in the table were pulled verbatim or nearly so from your own edits. It is clear to me that you and I and the other editors at this article should use some of the Wikipedia methods for conflict resolution, perhaps we should all agree to 'binding arbitration' or a third opinion. Until then, I am sure you are aware that the section of the article under discussion here needs to remain as it is, since--as has already been pointed out to you--yours is most certainly the minority opinion. Zad68 (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The table was lacking the breadth of scholarly investigation. One source and some passing references. I added more sources, including that for the AMF, which began using the Messianic name in 1953. Also note Rausch's comment that many within the movement assume it began in the 60s, when the influx of converts swelled the ranks; the movement was fully functioning in Israel, Chicago and NYC before the public noticed it. DeknMike (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Summary: There were congregations in NY calling themselves messianic in the 1920s. There were messianic congregations in Israel in the 1940s and 1950s. The 'Chicago Committee for Hebrew Christian Work,' founded on November 4 1887, changed their name in 1953 to the American Messianic Fellowship (AMF) in 1953 (this confirmed by a top rated university and peer reviewed by an international study organization). And Rausch found a number of people who (he says) mistakenly believed the movement began in the 1960s.--DeknMike (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

DeknMike, in your last two edits you added the phrase "to public notice" without mentioning it. I've read the discussion above, and it seems clear that you are again trying to imply that Messianic Judaism arose before the 1960s and 1970s. But the sources in the footnotes clearly say that it arose in the 1960s and 1970s, not before then. Why have you inserted this when the sources don't say that? It appears that the editors above are correct, that you are trying to invent history, and have the sources say things that they don't. Also, why do you think the sources you used for the AMF are reliable, and what does the AMF have to do with Messianic Judaism? brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

And please stop placing ~~~~ at the end of your edit summaries. It's very annoying. When are you finally going to realize that signatures do not form in the edit summary field. It's been what, years already?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, 1) the second was a direct undo. 2) the Jewish leadership of the Chicago Committee for Hebrew Christian Work changed their name to the American Messianic Fellowship (AMF) in 1953, so AMF has everything to do with messianism. 3) the evidence is from the rare papers archive of what Princeton Review and U.S. News and World Report calls 'one of the top national liberal arts colleges' - clear evidence of a messianic organization before 1960, so the change was warranted. 4) please review Wikipedia:Civility.--DeknMike (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

DeknMike, let's go through your edit and claims one item at a time:

You claim the material was "peer reviewed by an international study organization". The link you provided was http://www.lcje.net/papers/1989/LCJE.pdf , a scanned PDF presented in 1989 to the Lausanne Consultation on Jewish Evangelism (http://www.lcje.net/), a Christian group devoted to missionizing Jews. As is obvious, the report was not "peer reviewed" in any real sense, nor is the Lausanne Consultation on Jewish Evangelism a reliable source on Messianic Judaism. Scanning a report and storing it on your website is not "peer review".
You claim the material was "confirmed by a top rated university", providing the links http://www.princetonreview.com/WheatonCollegeIL.aspx . Wheaton College (Illinois) is a private Evangelical Protestant college that was recently ranked #55 among "National Liberal Arts Colleges" by U.S. News & World Report. The page in question is a list of a records collection for the American Messianic Fellowship, which states that the AMF's name from 1953 to 1993 was "American Messianic Fellowship". That is the only thing "confirmed" by this source.
You have not provided any source stating that the "American Messianic Fellowship" is a Messianic Jewish organization, much less that it was one in 1953. The AMF (now known as "Life in Messiah International") states nowhere on its website that it practices Messianic Judaism: http://www.lifeinmessiah.org/ Rather, it appears to be a evangelical Protestant group attempting to evangelize Jews.
You have not provided any source for your insertion of the words "to public notice" regarding when Messianic Judaism arose. Rather, you have found a source that more or less shows that The Chicago Hebrew Mission changed its name to "American Messianic Fellowship" in the 1950s, and used that to construct a claim that therefore Messianic Judaism itself arose in the 1950s.

Over and over you have been told that you must stop a) misrepresenting sources, b) inventing history, and c) inserting WP:NOR that contradicts explicit sources. Yet you continue to do all three. I know you've been given final warnings before, but let me be even more clear now: you have proved yourself to be incapable of editing in a policy-compliant way on this topic. Therefore, if you make any edit whatsoever to this article regarding the history of the movement without first getting a clear consensus to do so on the Talk: page then I will immediately bring you to the correct administrative board to ensure that you are topic-banned. Is this clear? Jayjg ^(talk) 08:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

^ Cite error: The named reference Ariel2000p191 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Lind, Michael. 'The five worldviews that define American politics' Salon Magazine, 11 Jan 2011 [28]. Michael Lind is Policy Director of the Economic Growth Program at the New America Foundation, Washington, DC

[Ariel2000p191-1] Cite error: The named reference Ariel2000p191 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[2] Lind, Michael. 'The five worldviews that define American politics' Salon Magazine, 11 Jan 2011 [28]. Michael Lind is Policy Director of the Economic Growth Program at the New America Foundation, Washington, DC

[1]

[2]