Talk:Jews for Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Christianity / Jesus / Jewish (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Jesus work group (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Jewish Christianity (marked as High-importance).

Things are not clear in the article[edit]

Maybe this is beating on a dead dog, since the article is already a mess, but the content is misleading. I live in a south american country and none of the jews for jesus here are ethnically or religiously jews, they are merely christians claiming to be jews. The article seems to imply otherwise... (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Stuff taken out[edit]

I removed some parts that were quite wildly not neutral. I feel bad about just throwing text away, so here it is: --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


If needed, Apoc2400's deletions may be reviewed via this oldid link to this Talk page [His deletions were entirely reverted, and the large quantity of text he'd moved from the article to here was dominating the talk page. Pdebonte (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)]

Rick Ross[edit]

According to the Wikipedia pages for "Rick Ross" and "Jason Scott case", Mr Ross violently kidnapped a man and tortured him for 5 days. He also broke into a house and held two children captive in the basement. Are you sure you want to cite him as "cult expert"? He is clearly insane and evil.

The Rick Ross sentence was removed by User:DeknMike on 2011-07-07T17:36:34, resolving this concern.

Pdebonte (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about my changes[edit]

I was reverted by A Sniper. Please explain. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You call a purge of so much material justified? A Sniper (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, since the material was not neutral and doesn't belong in this article. This article was (still is) a complete hit piece, which is not acceptable. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
You have re-written the entire article, which was created by a group of editors of varying backgrounds. Your changes were not just minor ones but removing entire sections, total re-writes, and all under the guise of removal of POV - and your re-write smacks of it. Why not try editing a section at a time and allowing for the usual editors to get around to consensus? Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I made big changes and this article will need more. Do you really think the article was written from a neutral point of view? Also, I think you are aware of WP:OWN. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Please review WP:BRD. Your edits were bold, they were reverted; now let's discuss them. Please do not start an edit war. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
You cannot just revert "per BRD". You have to give a reason for reverting. Reverting with a reference to edit warring is just hypocritical. I ask again, do you think the version you are reverting to is neutral? --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I put a request at the Neutral point of view noticeboard. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Good for you. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Please, do you think all the POV pushing I removed actually belongs in the article? BRD does not mean you should revert without any reason. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
As respected editor Malik Shabazz has stated, you were bold and you were reverted. Now, if you'd like to take one section at a time, giving other editors the opportunity to agree, refute or expand, fair enough. All editors can have the chance to support or to challenge. However, your stating what you have at the neutrality page begs the question as to whether you yourself have an agenda. I myself am hoping your attempt was in good faith. Even members of Jews for Jesus acknowledge that they are Christians and that all denominations of Judaism reject that they are practising a form of Judaism. That isn't opinion - it is established fact. So is the provocative nature of their ministry, which can also be referenced without being POV. Yes, the article isn't perfect but it does not warrant a complete purging. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you raise some good questions, Apoc2400, concerning whether this article strikes an appropriate balance and achieves NPOV. May I ask that any substantive discussions be postponed until Monday? Some of the editors who may be interested in participating are precluded from using their computers during their observance of the Jewish New Year this weekend. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

very unfair, non neutral article[edit]

Jews for judaism is allowed to advertise on the Jews for Jesus page but on the Jews for judaism page they can't even talk rationally about Jesus. here's some advice it's this kind of bias in mainstream judaism against christianity that Jews are tired of. everyone knows what the torah says, christians made it the most printed book in history, many jews don't see a conflict between it and yeshua translated iesous translated Jesus. some jews let the talmud (any logical, honest individual can see obvious problems with it when compared to the torah) and people who hate christians for other reasons (based on emotional, irrational behavior planted in them from another person within the Jewish community) dictate to them what it means to Jewish. others don't. Jews for Jesus whether it is an outreach or not will always exist because Jews who take an interest in Jesus are ostrtacized, rejected, persecuted, by not only their communities but their families. Jews for Jesus gives them a place they can fellowship with other Jews who have gone through the same thing. shame on judaism for its treatment of people who accept the most famous Jew in history whose resurrection even non Christian historians have a hard time denying.

may i suggest people who oppose Jews for Jesus (any member of Judaism who considers a belief in Jesus to take away a persons Jewishness) be unable to remove information that supports the organization. this is analogous to a muslim taking control of the page on judaism.

Grmike (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)GRMIKE

Shouldn't the Jews for Jesus article be compared to the Christians for Judaism article, rather than the Jews for Judaism article? Bus stop (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

A neutral article on Jews for Jesus will contain complete coverage of opposition to the organizations activities. I think the article is reasonably well balanced. Fred Talk 20:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

too much of the article deals with its opposition[edit]

opposition to it within the Christian community is sparse if not non existent. on the page for Judaism is half the article about opponents to Judaism ? this is obvious hijacking of an article. this page deserves better. (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)grmike

I think the included information probably belongs in the article if Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is followed. The activities of Jews for Jesus are not a minor issue to Jews and that needs to be made plain if there is to be complete coverage of the subject. Fred Talk 19:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Though I have little interest in this article (I only checked it out, because Rosen, who I had met, recently died), I must concur that it is extremely unbalanced,, and deficient of encyclopedic content. If there were an award for worst article on wikipedia, this definitely be a candidate:

  • The sections on lawsuits warrants a brief paragraph, not a detailed enumeration of every legal action.
  • There in absolutely no information about the History of the organization, which should be largest section in the article
  • The Background section, is really just polemic against the organization, which misrepresents opinion as fact.
  • The section on leadership misrepresents Brickner's background (his father was Jewish, and his mother's father and her maternal grandmother were Jewish, making him fully Jewish according to Jewish law (plus many people identified as Jews on wikipedia have Gentile mothers).
  • The the method's of evangelism section, is worded as such, for the purpose of inferring that Jews for Jesus, intentionally uses manipulative and deceptive tactics.
  • The list of references is overkill to the extreme and does not enhance the article

These issues need to be addressed before this can be considered a valid article. Otherwise it should be deleted. -RevDan (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Christian support[edit]

I added a mention of that to the intro. Obviously many Christians do support them, giving money, letting them speak in churches, etc. More of this could be documented in the article. I am neutral. I think both Judaism and Christianity are good religions. Wolfview (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is so biased, so slanted against Jews for Jesus, and is so obviously critical in its contents that I'm not sure it can be fixed. I appears that efforts were made to dredge up every critical comment available and quote it as a source. If you're going to list comments from detractors, how about at least listing Jew for Jesus responses to the criticism? Incidentally, I'm not a Jew for Jesus, and, in fact, have considerable disagreements with their theology. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic source, not an editorial column. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Since there are so many complaints about this article, but A Sniper has pushed on this Talk page for incremential fixes to this pages' NPOV problem, I'm therefore trying to show who more specifically believes what, which I've seen help NPOV on other pages, my favorite example being the Sola Fide section of the Five Solas article). In particular, I've noticed that the "Christian oposition" cited in this article is largely (if not entirely) Liberal, and therefore this is a fight between Liberals and Conservatives, not Christianity as a whole vs Jews for Jesus. Will you help? Thanks! Pdebonte (talk; Please also see my Conflicts of Interest disclosure) 17:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

evangelism vs. evangelical vs. evangelistic[edit]

Zad68 asked for clarification in the edit, asking "noun is 'evangelism', isn't the adjective form 'evangelical', not 'evangelistic'? there are 2 attempts to use an adjective form of 'evangelism' in the lede, they should match one way or the other". These are 3 words used 4 ways:

  • evangelism (noun) is the act of attempting to convert another to your point of view
  • evangelical (adjective) describes a person or activity that does evangelism
  • Evangelical (noun) refers to a group of Christian denominations that practice evangelism as a core doctrine
  • evangelistic (adjective) describes an activity conducted to support evangelism --DeknMike (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


An editor wandered in and did a drive-by tag with several reasons for concern about the article, although none of these was fully explained or bolstered by any evidence or argument - nothing here at the talk page. As someone who has edited the page - and monitored recent editing accomplishments over here - I have removed the tag. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The tag in question was {{Multiple issues | criticisms = February 2011 | expert = February 2011 | globalize = February 2011 | POV = February 2011 | pov-check = February 2011 }}. I've put {{Undue-section}}, which covers a more specific issue and only on the Jews_for_Jesus#Opposition_and_criticism section. This is not a "drive-by," because I'm working on it. My main reasoning is that the criticism is more than half of the article, whereas the Jews_for_Jesus#Affiliations_and_support section is only a few lines. There are plenty of positive reports just on the Jews for Jesus website alone. Discussion and/or help welcome Pdebonte (talk; Please also see my Conflicts of Interest disclosure) 02:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright: does direct quote require quotation marks?[edit]

Pictogram resolved.svg
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

In section, "1987 – freedom of speech", the content, "as part of a larger ban on what they described as First Amendment activities. Jews for Jesus challenged the airport's right to institute such a sweeping ban." is a direct quote from the ADL web page. Although it has an end-noted citation, it is not enclosed in double quotes. Is this acceptable? If not, I wonder if there are other, similar violations in this article. I searched a little bit (e.g. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations), but would appreciate some help (thanks! :). Pdebonte (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Direct quotes need to be clearly indicated as such. They cannot be inserted into the article with no indication, regardless of whether or not they're cited. Quotation marks should be used, unless the quote is longer than four lines. If this is the case, format them as block quotes by using <blockquote> and </blockquote>, or {{quotation}}. Not indicating that they are direct quotes is a copyright violation, and should either be changed or removed. To find additional instances where this is occurring, you could try using the Copyright Violation Detector. GorillaWarfare talkcontribs 03:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks GW: now that I know the answer, it was easier to find : ). It doesn't come right out and say that quotation marks are required, (I guess because you can also use <blockquote> as you noted), but says: "Quotations must always be clearly indicated as being quotations." Pdebonte (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is confusing ....[edit]

I have little interest in this article, but the NPOV is out of whack, and full of troll edits.

for example:

on the "methods of evangelism " section: The majority of evangelism used by Jews for Jesus consists of large mailings and pamphleteering. The organization uses colorful pamphlets and T-shirts to get their message across and is known for targeting populations of Jews which they see as receptive to their message,[21] such as recent immigrants, college students, senior citizens and interfaith couples.

"targeting" ... perhaps this entry should be in the 'criticism' section, or a new section 'criticism of evangelical methods' reference [21] has a boatload of criticism to evangelical methods. references to actual methods could be more helpful.

Compare "methods of evangelism" section with stated methods at and it is obvious that the person who wrote/ edited this section is anti JfJ.

Also, BTW reference [10] is a dead link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like your organization has changed some the URL's of its pages. In any event, I fixed the link which is now to the one you provided here. If you don't like the word "targeting" perhaps you can suggest another one. Bear in mind that "targeting" is a formulation used by a number of reliable sources, including Billy Graham, who is quoted in another footnote saying "I have never targeted Jews." --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Revert of "Western pluralistic opposition" section[edit]

I'm a relatively new editor and am still learning, so I'd appreciate help understanding this reversion:

Steven J. Anderson: None of this describes opposition to JfJ. It's an argument against that opposition and WP:OR

  • Although the removed material isn't direct opposition to JfJ, is it not relevant to the opposition to JfJ? Is not presenting these two sides fitting with [[WP::NPOV]]?
  • I thought original research referred to the editor's own research. In contrast, this argument was obtained from a published book, and even quoted it in part. What am I missing?

Thanks very much! :) Pdebonte (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Please also see my Conflicts of Interest disclosure)

Directly after the sentence in the article that reads "Some Western Christians object to evangelizing Jews because they see Jewish religious practice as valid in and of itself." you wrote:

Such a view, however, espouses the pluralism common in the Western world, which can be shown to be a logical fallacy. One can easily show "the impossibility that all religions are equally valid [ways to God] in light of the fact that many religions contradict each other."[1] In the case of the two faiths at hand, the most fundamental contradiction is that Christianity requires the belief that Jesus is God, and Judaism holds that belief as idolatry: it teaches that Jesus is not God. To claim that both of those beliefs are equally valid violates the Law of Noncontradiction.

  1. ^ Winfried Corduan (1998). Neighboring Faiths. InterVarsity Press. p. 133. 
Now, here are some relevant questions that will determine whether this is original research or not. First, who is attempting to refute the (referenced) objection to evangelizing Jews based on the idea that Judaism is valid in and of itself, you or Corduan? If the answer is you, what you're doing is original research. Did Corduan mention Judaism or evangelism of Jews in the material cited (if so it's not in the quote provided). If not, it's original research. Did Corduan say anything about the quoted sentence being a logical fallacy? If not, it's original research. Did Corduan mention the dichotomy between Christian belief that Jesus is God and Jewish rejection of that belief? If not, it's original research. Does Corduan mention the "Law of Noncontradiction" in reference to evangelizing Jews or the view some Christians have that Jewish religious practice is valid? If not, it's original research.
It appears to me that the material I deleted was Pdebonte's personal view on the matter, thinly supported by a very general statement from Corduan about how some religions hold clearly contradictory views to other religions, with no clear indication that Corduan ever mentioned Christianity or Judaism or any conflict between the two, ever said anything about Christian evangelism targeted at Jews, ever addressed the view held by some Christians that Jewish practice is valid, or ever attempted a refutation of the view that your edit attempts to refute.
But, I might be wrong and I'm willing to be shown.
By the way, I don't think you have any conflicts of interest. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human to understand why. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Subject opposing the group should only be informational[edit]

I came across this page in order to find out about Jews for Jesus (i.e., information about the group - its founding, its belief system, etc.). As I kept reading, I found an enormous amount of information about Jewish organizations that oppose the group or are against its teachings. It seems that the site has been hijacked by those opposing the group. This would be similar to allowing others of different beliefs to take over pages of organizations they dislike or who have differing viewpoints. I can see the opposition of Jewish groups to this group as part of the general information, but it should not eventually be the dominant theme by taking up so much space. Perhaps all the dialogue opposing the organization should have a link to a site called "Jews opposed to Jews for Jesus" or something to that effect, and more information could be provided on that page. Would we allow religious groups to take over an "Atheist" or "Agnostic" page stating why they oppose people who have these beliefs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There are very few religious groups that adopt the name of another religion whose basic tenets are fundamentally opposed to their own. Because the Jews for Jesus call themselves Jews, it is necessary to clarify the fact that their religion is, in no way, shape or form, Judaism. Suppose I were to start a religious group called "Muslims for Krishna"? Clearly, being a Muslim and believing in Krishna are mutually exclusive and anyone trying to write an accurate article on such a group would be at pains to make that fact clear. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Krishna has nothing to do with being Muslim, while Jesus was born in Israel and was Jewish. The point being that your reasoning doesn't make sense. The previous editor has a valid point. Because you say Messianic Judaism is not a religion doesn't make it so. It may not be Judaism as you know it, but it exists. What you are saying equates to Christians calling other Christian's sects and denominations false religions. (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I have worked on other controversial articles and I can tell you this article has definitely been hijacked by those opposing Jews for Jesus. The tone is not neutral at all. Its obvious from Steven Anderson's comment that his viewpoint is bias. I dont have the time or the energy but someone should at least take the time to make this article fair. (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, Zad - why did you edit that stuff from out? It was pure comedy - I laughed myself off the chair.  ;) A Sniper (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is not WP:NPOV when the criticism section is 3x longer than the main article and covers lawsuits in greater detail than the groups history has been allotted. Are we saying that the only reason this group is notable is it's opposition? I just popped into see if Rabbi Ralph Messer was a member of JfJ. Alatari (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes sections are oddly done[edit]

Is there a reason why several of the footnotes are several paragraphs in their own rights? Footnote 7 is 8 paragraphs long. Also, this source from is being used as WP:RS but it is to a hate site and has many complaints against it from the WOT security analysis. The average values of the complaints is under 33% from reviewers with the lowest mark being given against child security Alatari (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, “oddly done” is putting it mildly. In fact, the references are a second article. The statements in the footnotes should imo either be integrated into the text, if pertinent, or be removed, if irrelevant. Ajnem (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

When updating the article, please update the reference too[edit]

I see there is interest in updating this article. If you add or change information that no longer matches what the cited source says, please be sure to provide an updated source to support your new information. With the recent changes (8 May 2012), there is now a dead citation link that should be updated to, and the article was updated from saying "Jews for Jesus employs more than 150 people" to "Jews for Jesus employs more than 200 people" but the reference that is in the article says "Jews for Jesus now employs more than 150 people" so the new article information doesn't match the source any more. Could you please help out by making sure the sources are up to date when you make content changes? Thanks. Zad68 (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Zad68: Okay, I will update the references. I also received a Conflict of Interest message from Wikipedia. Yes, I do work for Jews for Jesus and was not trying to hide that from anyone. I just didn't know that I was supposed to declare that here. But the things I edited were either inaccurate statements of fact (such as how many cities and countries we have branches in) or just our perspective (quoted from our old website) on charges from others that we "target" weak individuals or use "deceptive" methods. It doesn't seem right that it is okay for someone to post these charges without allowing our own group to provide its perspective, especially when I can provide a reference from our own website on the issue. Please let me know if I can put back those statements of fact and the paragraph I wrote about our perspective on those charges. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messianicmatt (talkcontribs) 14:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing updated references, and also for being up-front about your involvement with J4J. Wikipedia does not forbid employees of organizations from making updates to the articles about the organizations, but it is often very difficult for such employees to make edits that comply with Wikipedia policies regarding neutral point of view and balance especially. You can expect other editors to scrutinize your edits carefully. If you understand and apply Wikipedia policy, and bring excellent sources to back up your edits, it should not be a problem. Also, please do not misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia articles. They are supposed to neutrally present information about topics, be backed up by reliable sources, and have content in balance found in the reliable sources. They are not supposed to be a battleground with someone making "charges" against a subject made in Wikipedia's voice. However, if there is controversy about a subject, and there are reliable sources that cover that controversy, that controversy will be covered in the article. Hope this helps. Zad68 (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Zad68: Thank you for getting back to me so quickly. You will see that I made a few changes on statements of fact (statistics, income, etc.) with updated references. Now I would like to go into the "Evangelizing" section and quote from our own web page about our perspective on "targeting" and methods. May I proceed with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messianicmatt (talkcontribs) 15:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead! Be bold! You don't need my permission!  :) Regarding the edits you made, you updated the number of employees and removed the Forward reference, but the reference you put in doesn't give information about the number of employees, can't you put in a link to something on the J4J web site regarding the number of employees? References to a company's own web site for uncontroversial information like the number of employees is allowed under WP:SELFSOURCE. The other changes look great. Regarding the "Evangelism" section changes, there will probably be a back-and-forth of edits before there is consensus on how the information is presented. Zad68 (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Zad68: Actually, if you look at the last paragraph under "History" in the reference, you will see that they report that we have 214 employees. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find anything on our website that lists the number of people we employ.Messianicmatt (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I missed that, it's a relevant reference then. As the text is provided by J4J (it says at the top of that History section "This is a description of the history of Jews for Jesus as told by Moishe Rosen the Founder."), it is effectively in the same WP:SELFSOURCE category as if it were on the J4J site itself. Zad68 (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Zad68: There is a note above the Opposition and Criticism section saying that an editor feels that section may be unfairly weighted against Jews for Jesus. I don't object to other organizations and individuals voicing objections to Jews for Jesus, but I'm wondering if I could add a section entitled positive comments or positive criticism (since criticism can be either positive or negative) in which I document good things that other reputable organizations and individuals have said about Jews for Jesus? Please let me know what I could label this category and whether this is acceptable to Wikipedia. Thank you.Messianicmatt (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi MM, there's a section already "Affiliations and support", looks like the content would be appropriate there. Make sure everything you add is sourced to a good source and is relevant. I don't "own" this article any more than you do, you don't need to ask my permission. I'm about to leave for the weekend, have a good one. Zad68 19:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Secular Jews are eligible for Israeli citizenship but Jews For Jesus are not[edit]

Why? (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The question is answered on the page

In 1993 the Supreme Court of Israel, in a case involving a couple affiliated with Jews for Jesus, ruled that Jews who adhere to the Christian beliefs are regarded by Israeli law as "members of a different faith," and are not eligible for the automatic citizenship that Israel grants Jews. This is done not to try to change Jewish Law, but to preserve the Jewish character of the State of Israel – i.e., that allowing in people whose sole mission is to get Jews to become Christians is inimical to one of the core ethics of the country (to be a haven for Jews; see Israeli Declaration of Independence). In its summary of the ruling, the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the belief that Jesus is the Messiah "cannot be reconciled with Judaism" and "marks the clear separation between Judaism and Christianity.

Alatari (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)