Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 16

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 10

←

Archive 14

→

Touching base

Is the current version of the lede acceptable to everyone? It seems like a good compromise, opening with "religious movement" and explaining at the conclusion of the intro that it is broadly considered a Christian movement. If this seems to be an agreeable compromise, I will close the RfC request. What are everyone's thoughts on the current compromise? Vassyana (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Vassyana. Yes, it has been agreed by consensus - for the second time in a year. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, yes, this brand new intro is much better than it was a few months ago. Because of the second sentence, the lede is no longer misleading, and is acceptable to me. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk)

Yes, the lede is agreed to by me. (It was what was there before this whole thing started. :P) inigmatus (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the version seems stable and there are no objections, I have removed the RfC request tag and closed the MedCab case. If I can be of further assistance in any way, please do not hesitate to leave me a message. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Trinity

The article is not sufficiently clear about views on Trinity. It is the biggest christian doctrine, possibly moreso than Messiah. 99 % of christian churches believe in Trinity, 99 % of jews don't. This is the decisive element that would distinguish christians and jews, and also christians and muslims. If we can say Trinitarian Judaism, it would be the same as messianic judaism. I would recommend an article entitled Jewish views on the Trinity. ADM (talk)

The trinity is not a concept universally shared by Messianics, nor even by a majority. inigmatus (talk) 06:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

MJZine.com

A page was just created for MJZine.com which was a webzine for the 20s-30s generation in the Messianic Jewish community in 2001. You can add this link to the main article if you want or deem it sufficiently important to make your article better. Hkp-avniel (talk) 17:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

US Military may think that MJ's are Christian.

See this. If we can find more relibale sources it may make sense to add it into the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on http://messianicdailynews.com/art6.shtml, but I haven't found anything from the military yet. -- Avi (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/article.php?p=27582 The Navy considers Messianics to be Christians, probably because they are Christian by definition. --Alpha166 (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That is based on the http://messianicdailynews.com/art6.shtml article. -- Avi (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Jews who accepted Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Father were considered Jews in ancient Israel

I just want to know one thing, if Hebrew was a dead tongue long before Jesus was ever born, how come his original name is in Hebrew? Wasn't his original name suposed to be in Aramaic(language jesus spoke)? or at least in Greek (language in which Paul took jesus's story into Europe)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loulafg (talk • contribs) 19:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

They were treated badly but were considered Jews by Israel and the gentiles. ancient Israel considered the son of God to have the same authority as God the father and King David called the holy spirit the spirit of God. if someone can trace their ancestry to Jacob they are Jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.185.6 (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Completely false, they were regarded as being apostates just like the Jews who worshipped the golden calf. Judaism is not a race you do not have be a descendent of Jacob, to be Jewish you can be a convert just like Ruth, the ancestor of King David. Judaism is a religion! Judaism is not a race, the word proselyte, is derived from the Greek word for a convert to Judaism. --Alpha166 (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That is, of course, your opinion, and the yardsticks you use are not necessarily the ones used in ancient times. First off all, there is no evidence that all the early Jewish Christians were considered apostates from the very start (at a time when the Talmud had not yet even been written). In fact, there is good reason to believe that before Paul's schism and the creation of Gentile Christianity, the earliest Jewish Christians who continued to uphold Mosaic law were recognized as Jews by the Jewish leadership of the day. Secondly, not all proselytes were considered Israelites or full converts to Judaism. Read up on the distinction. Third, while it is true that Judaism is a religion, the Jews themselves are a people/nation and that has always been how they defined themselves, since Biblical times. The distinction made in antiquity was between "Jews and Gentiles" or "Jews and Greeks", i.e. between peoples. That is not the same as saying that the "Jews are a race", which is not true, any more than it can be said about any people/nation. One could join the Jewish people, in just the same way as one could adopt the ways of the Greeks, become Hellenized, and be a true Greek, without adopting supposed "racial characteristics" of the Greeks.

Here is some further food for thought. Karl Marx, though born a Jew, was baptized as an infant by his father, and though disavowing both Christianity and Judaism throughout his life, Marx has always been regarded as a Jew by both the Jews and the Gentiles. Benjamin Disraeli, the British Prime Minister, was baptized as a child because his father had a dispute with his synagogue. Despite the fact that Disraeli was a church-going Anglican, he always referred to himself as a Jew and expressed pride in his Jewish heritage. Once again, both the Jews and the gentiles seem to have placed him in the ranks of the Jewish people, if not religiously, then certainly ethnically.

Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that the Jews certainly considered Christians apostate. It might be possible to say that some outsiders, less knowledgable about the Judaic religion, might not have made the distinction between Christians and Jews, but that's another matter entirely. And, even the, we'd only use it to say something like "outsiders didn't always perceive the difference between the two." John Carter (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I BTW would not agree with this in such a blanket way. The attitude of various Jewish sects towards the various proto-Christian sects varied with time. The question of attitude is specific to the when and the who. jbolden1517^Talk 03:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Notable Messiancs?

I was thinking that it might be neat to add a section at the bottom with a list of some famous Messianic Jews.

Any comments?

Chachamim (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Request to update article from Starina1

Whoever can do that, please correct the following outdated statement in the article.

      Instead of:

<quote> "This is also the opinion of the Supreme Court of Israel which ruled that the Law of Return should treat ethnically Jewish individuals who convert to Messianic Judaism same way it treats Jews who convert to Christianity. [14]

[14]^ a b Berman, Daphna (June 10, 2006). "Aliyah with a cat, a dog and Jesus". Haaretz. http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=21820&sec=59&con=35. Retrieved on 2007-02-20. "In rejecting their petition, Supreme Court Justice Menachem Elon cited their belief in Jesus. ‘In the last two thousand years of history…the Jewish people have decided that messianic Jews do not belong to the Jewish nation…and have no right to force themselves on it,’ he wrote, concluding that ‘those who believe in Jesus, are, in fact Christians.’" <UNQUOTE>

       please insert

<QUOTE> "This is also the ruling of the Supreme Court of Israel which states that "being a Messianic Jew does not prevent one from receiving citizenship in Israel under the Law of Return or the Law of Citizenship..."[14].

[14] Calev Meyers, Jerusalem Institute for Justice (April 25, 2008). "Israeli Supreme Court rules in favor of Messianic Jews". © ISRAEL TODAY. http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=15802&skintype=G&skinname=_default&skinsrc=printmodule.ascx&containertype=G&containername=_default&containersrc=printContent.ascx&mid=912. Retrieved on 2008-04-28. "In a landmark decision this week, the Supreme Court of Israel ratified a settlement between twelve Messianic Jewish believers and the State of Israel, which states that being a Messianic Jew does not prevent one from receiving citizenship in Israel under the Law of Return or the Law of Citizenship, if one is a descendent of Jews on one's father's side (and thus not Jewish according to halacha)." <UNQUOTE>

Full text of the quoted press release follows: --- ISRAEL TODAY

Friday, April 25, 2008 Jerusalem Institute for Justice

Israeli Supreme Court rules in favor of Messianic Jews

The following is a press release issued by Jerusalem Institute for Justice co-founder Calev Meyers:

In a landmark decision this week, the Supreme Court of Israel ratified a settlement between twelve Messianic Jewish believers and the State of Israel, which states that being a Messianic Jew does not prevent one from receiving citizenship in Israel under the Law of Return or the Law of Citizenship, if one is a descendent of Jews on one's father's side (and thus not Jewish according to halacha).

This Supreme Court decision brought an end to a legal battle that has carried on for two and a half years. The applicants were represented by Yuval Grayevsky and Calev Myers from the offices of Yehuda Raveh & Co., and their legal costs were subsidized by the Jerusalem Institute of Justice.

All twelve of the applicants were denied citizenship solely based on grounds that they belong to the Messianic Jewish community. Most of them received letters stating that they would not receive citizenship because they "commit missionary activity". One of the applicants was told by a clerk at the Ministry of Interior that because she "committed missionary activity", she is "acting against the interests of the State of Israel and against the Jewish people". These allegations are not only untrue, but they also do not constitute legal grounds to deny one's right to immigrate to Israel.

This important victory paves the way for persons who have Jewish ancestry on their father's side to immigrate to Israel freely, whether or not they belong to the Messianic Jewish community. This is yet another battle won in our war to establish equality in Israel for the Messianic Jewish community just like every other legitimate stream of faith within the Jewish world.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=15802&skintype=G&skinname=_default&skinsrc=printmodule.ascx&containertype=G&containername=_default&containersrc=printContent.ascx&mid=912

Questioning the lead

I'm thinking some work needs done on the lead. Messianic Jews self-identify as both Jewish and Christian. That self-identification is obviously contested by almost all Jews. Both those facts should be recorded, and neutrality demands we neither say that "most Jews" or MJ are right or wrong. We simply record opinions.

However, the lead does not currently clearly state that MJ self-identify as Jews, instead it seems to try to declare that they can't be:

The central characteristic defining the Messianic Jewish movement as Christian, rather than Jewish, is its belief in the divinity of their Messiah, Jesus.[4]

That's not neutral. Messianic Jews do not see believing in the divinity of Jesus to be inconsistant with Judaism. Most/virtually all other Jews certainly do, so that's what we should say.

I'd suggest:]

Messianic Jews consider themselves to be both Jewish and Christian. However, most contemporary Jews reject this claim, holding that their belief in the divinity of their Messiah, Jesus, is incompatible with Judaism. This is also the opinion of the Supreme Court of Israel regarding immediate and automatic eligibility for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return.[7]

Leads should concentrate on describing the claims and beliefs of a religious group, and only after that record the response of others. Take for example Latter Day Saint movement - it states that the movement self-identifies as Christian. It does not give much prominence to the fact that most Christians would reject that self-identification as Mormons do not accept the Trinity or the Nicean Creed. We certainly would not have a statement in the lead implying that the self-identification claims were false.

I'm not suggesting we hide the fact that MJ claim to be Jewish is verdantly rejected by most Jews. But we should be recording points of view (even ones of the overwhelming majority) but we should never be endorsing them.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Good points. I personally might add a link to Jewish Christians#Contemporary Jewish Christians and Messianic Jews as well, because that section seems to go into a little detail regarding the subject. John Carter (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The second footnote makes clear that MJ see themselves as a Jewish sect, yet that is not even mentioned here. Just stuff indicating that they are not.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The lead was hotly contested before, but I think that Scott and John have good recommendations. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagreed. You can't say "most Jews" consider MJ to be Christian and not Jewish. All Jews consider them to be Christians. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(Disclosure, I learned of this discussion on an off-site, public forum). I support Doc's and John's recommendations. The proposed wording will help make the lede more NPOV. Cla68 (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"All Jews" would include "Messianic Jews" and "Atheist Jews". I think Lisa meant all Jewish Jews -- I know, "Jew" is a weird word to try to work with.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

MJs may prefer not to use the term "Christian" to describe themselves, but their self-description is, in any case, congruent with the term "Christian". Term switching on their part doesn't change the basic facts. -LisaLiel (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I think we all agree that they are religiously "Christian" and not religiously "Jewish." The problem is that many of them are ethnically "Jewish." In a religious-ethnic sense they are "nonJewish-Jews" -- but we have to admit that Jewish self designation raises some... difficulties sometimes.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Except that I'd say "some", rather than "many". -LisaLiel (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In general, Messianics are theologically congruent to evangelical Protestant Christians, but their practice is more consistent wtih Conservative or Reform Judaism. Many keep kosher and observe the holidays and holy days described by Torah more consistently than most non-religious Jews, often rejecting Christian holidays like Christmas and Easter as pagan corruptions of faith. Ethnically, they remain Jewish. In practice, they remain Jewish. The differences lie in whether they believe the Messiah predicted by Scripture was represented in the person of Jesus (Yeshua) or not.DeknMike (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As a neutral 3rd party (ethnically Jewish atheist) I agree with the Messianics, this lead is far too hostile. We don't start articles for other religions arguing their religious beliefs are false. We should state what their beliefs are and then have one sentence near the end of the lead indicating all these claims are rejected by other streams of Judaism. There is an entire section of Jewish objections to address what competing sects/denominations think of them. jbolden1517^Talk 03:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that it's too harsh. While part of that is from hard feelings from different sides, at least some of it is due to the thorny problem if the word "Jewish". If you aren't clear, an ethnic designation can be confused with a religious one. Not sure quite how to word it in the best way. I think Scott's suggestion is closer than what's there now.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I just tried my hand at a rewrite and gave up. It's pretty late for me. I think that we all want to say the same things in the same NPOV way, but it's a thorny problem to get just right.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I made some minor changes shifting disclaimers to one place. I think we should shift the sentence regarding the Israeli supreme court to the body. I'd also like to see more descriptive material in the lead but I figure this is enough for a first round. jbolden1517^Talk 05:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I made a few changes to your the last edits. Firstly, the sentence that was in the lead, besides being unsupported, is not necessarily accurate. Whether Messianic Judaism is distinct from Christianity is more a matter of opinion than fact. Jews and most Christians do not believe it is distinct, and I am uncertain if all Messianics believe it is distinct. What we know as fact is that there are some Messianics who believe it is distinct, all practicing members of Judaism (avoiding the ethnicity issue of the term "Jew" here) believe that it is not distinct, and most Christians believe it is not distinct. That needed some clarity in the latter potion of the lede as well, which I added, as well as minor copy editing/grammar/flow. -- Avi (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

How about my first sentence proposal with "differs" instead of "distinct"? My problem is that the very first sentence makes it sound like some form of actual Judaism believing in Jesus.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

By jove, I think we're onto someting! This is starting to read a lot better than it was before.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Reading the lede changes since Feb. interesting. The lede appears passable for now. I much preferred the previous lede as it was when I last edited the article (but that could just be personal preference). I'll go with the consensus on this one since it appears the wikiprocess on preserving other's opinions worked yet again on this article and with this editing team. I think "differs" was a better choice than "distinct." I have to personally admit that those claiming to be Messianic fit the whole spectrum of those who are Jewish in religious practice (halacha), to those who are Christian in religious practice, so tagging it one way or the other would probably also be POV to the exclusion of others claiming to be Messianic. I'll be watching as I can, preferably taking a back seat to see how this new lede goes. ;) inigmatus (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I find the lead to be entirely false because of the statement "is a religious movement within Judaism." The "...within Judaism..." statement is false. No other movement that self identifies and Jewish recognizes this movement as coreligionists. Therefore, the inclusiveness implied by "within" is problematic. This qualification should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elefink (talk • contribs) 12:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. I fixed it.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Messianic Jews do not consider Messianic Judaism a syncretic religion, as does the first sentence of the current lead. Seeing as this sentence does not even cite any references, the reader has no reason to believe that ANYONE thinks Messianic Judaism is a syncretic religion. The lead should not be about what other people think about Messianic Jews; it should inform about how MEssianic Jews see themselves. JosiahHenderson (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Considering that Christianity started off as Judaic in the first place, that also weakens the possible applicability of the word "syncretic", because early Christianity incorporated many or most of the elements of Judaism anyway. Having said that, I also believe that it might make sense to add a link to new religious movement to the lede, because, by its apparent age, the movement does qualify as one. John Carter (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I corrected the lede to be non syncretistic and non misleading at the same time. The initial "correction" was misleading in that it made the group appear to be Jewish.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The current lead is an improvement in that it no longer includes the word "syncretic", but the words "combining elements of each (Judaism and Christianity) into a single faith" still demonstrates a mainstream Jewish POV... This article totally fails to make clear the fact that Messianic Jews consider themselves fully Judaist. This fact should be mentionned in the lead paragraph, before the use of the phrases "Christian" and "not mainstream Jewish" begin to dominate, because it is an essential part of the Messianic Jewish identity. JosiahHenderson (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Messianic Jews regard Jewish Jews as "unbelievers." They do not regard themselves as a subset of "unbelievers." Your argument is internally inconsistent. Christians regard them as Christian, Messianics are members in good standing and eager participants at the Christian Booksellers Association, and Jews regard them to be Christian. They are a Christian movement that is trying to be more authentic to their Jewish roots. Everyone is in favor of authenticity -- let's not be inauthentic here.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I by no means disagree that Messianics are Christian. I also don't disagree that mainstream Judaism regards Messianics as non-Jewsih. Do you disagree with the statement that both Messianics and other Christians regard Messianics as Jewish? If not, I think this deserves a mention. I can think of no other article about a religious group where we would not think it of paramount importance to establish how the group sees itself.

I think we could learn a lot from the Mormonism article. The lead describes the group's basic beliefs quite well and only later does the article go on to discuss the fact that while Mormons consider themselves Christian, most other Christian groups do not. This model seems to me very instructive: Could we agree on a lead which quickly describes the group's basic beliefs (including their belief that they are Jews) and then goes on later on in the lead paragraph to state that no other group identifying as Jewish acknowledges Messianic Judaism as Judaism. In this way, the reader will understand both the very important point that you are trying to get across and the very important point that I am getting across. Is that something we can live with? JosiahHenderson (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Josiah -- Christians do not regard Messianics to be religiously Jewish (i.e. "unbelievers"). They regard some of them to be ethnically Jewish. The article already acknowledges that some Messianics are also ethnically Jewish.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 08:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Josiah, how the group views itself is mentioned within the article. But since it's a fringe view, it does not belong in the lede of an encyclopedic article. Please be aware that the current lede is a compromise worked out over a long time. Were it up to me, the lede would read something like this:

Messianic Judaism is a Christian group which preys on Jews, particularly those with a limited Jewish education, in order to convert them to Christianity via deceptive practices. Judaism views the worship of a person as idolatry.

I think that's an accurate description of the group, and can easily be supported by reliable sources. However, MJs and their supporters can bring MJ sources that say otherwise. Hence the compromise lede. Of course, the problem with such compromises is that someone from one side or the other of the debate will show up long after the compromise has been achieved and, not realizing that it is a compromise, will view the compromise position as a place from which to start. It isn't. I'm happy to go back to something along the lines of what I wrote above, if you like. Then we can thrash this out and wind up back with the compromise language. Or we can save ourselves a lot of time and edits and leave it alone. Your call. -Lisa (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, first, WP:FRINGE has this to say:

We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.[3] Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.

Judaism is not a field of study. Messianic Judaism is not a theory. WP:FRINGE clearly does not apply to this article's content.

Secondly, it is my impression that you are not editing from a neutral point-of-view, have admitted as much and should thusly not continue to work on this page. I am considering this an incident worthy of reporting to an administrator. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents requires that I notify all parties involved in the incident of this on the discussion page relevant to the incident. JosiahHenderson (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's the now existant location of said incident report: [1] JosiahHenderson (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. Josiah, first every editor has a point of view. Neutrality is achieved through awareness of our own POV and willingness to compromise. Lisa acknowledged her POV, that the group claims to be Jewish for deceptive reasons. My POV is that they are seeking authenticity (now go report me somewhere). Regardless, Lisa's post was completely clear, fair, and rational: viz, we all start from a POV and reach compromise; that compromise cannot become the starting point for a new compromise because the original POV of all involved is still in place. You will note that when you REMOVED the compromise I reverted to my own preferred wording of

Messianic Judaism is a Christian movement that worships Jesus with Jewish words and rituals.

Lisa then came back and restored the compromise. I'm fine with compromise. Lisa was fine with compromise. If anyone needs to be reported for a NPOV violation it's the one NOT willing to compromise -- which in this case is yourself.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

most legitimate messianics do not affiliate with chritsianity at all as christianity has adopted so much paganism.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trooper753 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Trooper, are you referring to the Christian practice of worshiping Jesus? I'm aware that some Messianics do not do so, but in general Messianics are quite protestant in their theological formulations.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

SkyWriter, most Messianics would not recognize a congregation that did not acknowledge Jesus as the middle person of the tri-part Godhead, just as they would not recognize a congregation that did not read Torah in Hebrew and teach scripture as a key tenent.DeknMike (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional sourcing?

It might be nice to have a source independent of the different Jewish denominations stating that the main denominations don't consider Messianic Judaism to be Judaism. This would help minimize any OR issues and possible RS issues. To that end, I suggest adding this Reuter's article as a source. Also, can we possibly get sources for the claim about Orthodox in particular from Orthodox sources other than Aish Hatorah? JoshuaZ (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Is a one line explanation is passing in a news article that's not really about belief or MJ really that great a source? We'd be better with a textbook or encyclopedia of religions from a liberal arts source.--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That's a valid point. This was more a thought that came from off the top of my head while I war reading that article and remembering what sources we had. We really should try to reduce the SYNTH element here. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Joshua, to say that Messianic is not Jewish because the mainstream does not recognize it is like saying that Baptists and Nazarenes are not Christian because the Catholic church did not recognize them. It is more intellectually honest to evaluate their practices against a standard and see if it matches. Are the Messianics ethnically Jewish? Do they worship with the same Tanach? Do they use the same or similar Haggadah and Machzor? Then they probably are at least similar, if not an offshoot.DeknMike (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand; the best source for demonstrating the positions of each denomination would be statements specifically from members of each denomination. This is not OR or even primary sources. For example, the Aish article is a compilation based on Talmudic and Rabbinic sources, itself a secondary source. Trying to move away from this is disturbingly like EM Forster's dystopian The Machine Stops. -- Avi (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The concern is two-fold: First, we aren't saying "The Reform, Conservative and Orthodox movements..." but rather "the various streams of Judaism" which contains a tiny bit of SYNTH. Second, Aish may be compiling sources but Aish Hatorah is a somewhat controversial organization so I'd feel more comfortable if we had other Orthodox sources making the point or simply neutral sources describing the Orthodox viewpoint. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

A little late to the discussion, but I just found this page. I don't think you're likely to find many reliable sources about the views of different denominations of Judaism towards Messianic Judaism. The problem is, within each denomination, there are very few organizations that put out reliable sources, and those organizations don't take Messianic Judaism seriously enough to comment about it. Organizations like Aish Hatorah and Torah, Life, & Living are picking up almost all of the slack in terms of anti-missionary work. FlyingPenguin1 (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If interested, in Israel, the Messianic Jews operates 2 official informative websites יהודים משיחיים and אמונה באור המדע there is also one from the anti-missionaries called יהודים משיחיים לשעבר —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.191.143 (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Blessed Virgin Mary

It would be interesting if we could have relevant Messianic Jewish perspectives on the Blessed Virgin Mary. She is the Mother of the divine Messiah (Theotokos) and she plays an important role in Jesus's redemption of all mankind (Co-Redemptrix). ADM (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Messianics are Protestant in perspective when it comes to Mary (Stern's commentary is an easy source). There isn't any relevance to this article. But thanks for suggesting we take a peek!SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt very much that Messianic Jewish perspectives are relevant to anything other than Messianic Judaism. PiCo (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

we do not worship mary. only Yeshua. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trooper753 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The term "blessed Virgin Mary" is a Roman Catholic term, and not representative of all Christianity. Also, that same Mary (Miriam) asnd her friends Simon, Jochanon, Jacob and the other disciples, were all Jewish believers that her son Yeshua (Jesus) was indeed the Son of G-d and the person of the promised Messiah. She did not remain a virgin after his birth, since she had other sons and daughters by her husband Joseph.DeknMike (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.176.115.176, 30 March 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Yeshua- is not the Aramaic form of his name, but it is in Hebrew, not aramaic

98.176.115.176 (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome. It isn't entirely clear what you are requesting. Could you phrase it in a 'please change X to Y' manner and provide a reliable source to support it if it is a factual change? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad links in footnotes

All of the footnote references to ourrabbis.org are busted. — crism (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Why Jews Reject Jesus (Yeshua) as the Messiah:

The subject matter of Jews rejecting Jesus (Yeshua) existed in the current Messianic Judaism page, the section was already bookmarked with references as to why Jews reject the Messiah. I listed the main reasons why based on this reference to complete the subject matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Channard (talk • contribs) 05:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Holiday observances

The citation for the sentence "Many Messianic Jews do not observe the Christmas holiday and those who do observe do not keep a Christmas tree." is Jeremiah 10:2-5.

I don't know how to edit so would somebody please check this out, and if you concur, make the edit?

Thanks.

I signed up for a UserName in Wikipedia just to be able to add this comment. We are Christians, not Jews, and we don't keep a Christmas tree either, for this reason.

Thanks.

CG

That particular sentence has had a "citation needed" tag for over a year, so I deleted it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It is true that many / most Messianic believers do not celebrate Christmas nor display a tree. There is widespread belief that Jesus was born during Sukkoth in mid-fall, but the date for celebration was moved to preempt a pagan winter solstace holiday.DeknMike (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Er, folks, I believe that the Christmas tree is not actually essential to the observance of Christmas.PiCo (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Problems with WP:SYNTH

Footnote #11 in this article is clearly an example of original research by synthesis. You can't take four statements by different Jewish organizations and generalize them into what "all Jews" believe, yet this is what is done in each reference to this footnote. *** Crotalus *** 16:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Footnote #11 has only one reference. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion; I mean footnote #11 on this revision. *** Crotalus *** 21:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Commentaries

Arthur Rubin removed added source material by Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum, a noted Messianic scholar but left references by Christian commentators. His rationale was that Fructenbaum's "do not seem to be notable commentaries." Dr F has a BA in Hebrew and Greek from Cedarville (same Univ as Timm Hegg) with post-graduate studies in Hebrew at the American Institute of Holy Land Studies and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He has also completed studies in Hebrew and Old Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, and earned a Ph.D. from New York University in 1989 with a dissertaion on "Israelology." Other authors in this section have fewer credentials and have published less. — DeknMike (talk • contribs) 20:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

source #1 quotes Fruchtenbaum as authorative source (p18, 204) DeknMike (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Jewish objections

Although this section rejects the right of Jews to also be Messianic in faith, the citation within the "Messianic Jewish Conversion" section affirms the Jerusalem Council's definition of who can be considered Jewish. Thus, an individual with a Jewish mother, or with a Jewish father and considers themself Jewish, is in fact Jewish, irregardless of religious faith. This section would indicate a person of no faith is more Jewish than the offspring of two Jewish parents who affirms Yeshua as messiah. (There is no debate that Gentiles who worship in a Messianic style do not automatically become Jewish.) — DeknMike (talk • contribs) 18:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. Actually, what you've been trying to do here is post as rank a piece of spam as I've ever seen on Wikipedia for an "ABSOLUTELY FREE" course on how to be a Messianic Jew. Not in this lifetime, buddy. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As a student of the theology of Messianic practice, I look to sourced authority from those with credentials within the core of the movement, and add those to the discussion. I continue to enlarge the validity of the article, countering those who attack from the outside with spurious deletions that don't address the illogic of earlier inconsistencies. —DeknMike (talk • contribs) 19:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"Universal" or "unanimous" rejection

Is there any reliable source for the claim that Messianic Judaism is "universally" or "unanimously" considered to be a form of Christianity by all other Jewish groups? (The existing wording seems tautological - it says "the various streams of Judaism are unanimous in their rejection of Messianism as a form of Judaism", but that only makes sense if you already start by assuming that Messianic Judaism is not a legitimate "stream of Judaism" in the first place!) The citation doesn't seem to back this up either; The Cambridge companion to American Judaism does say "Messianic Jewish groups are thus seen as antithetical to Judaism and are completely rejected by the majority of Jews" but it doesn't say anything that could be reasonably interpreted as "universal" or "unanimous." This should probably say that most Jews and Jewish groups consider Messianic Judaism to be inauthentic or non-Jewish. Footnote #12, the other citation for this claim, is a classic example of original research by synthesis — it takes claims from four individual organizations affiliated with various strains of Judaism, and then assumes that these groups speak for all "the various streams of Judaism" in their entirety. *** Crotalus *** 19:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of what I find on the web allows any number of definitions of what it is to be Jewish except the belief in Jesus as messiah. By these definitions, an atheist or agnostic with three gentile grandparents is seen as more Jewish than a Torah-baservant child of two Jewish parents with Holocaust credentials who believes in Jesus. ^[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeknMike (talk • contribs) 21:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That is correct. David Ben Gurion's son married a non-Jew, so his grandchildren were not Jewish. Leonid Brezhnev's son married a Jew, so his grandchildren were Jewish. Do you think that by bringing up tragic stories of this sort that the definition is somehow going to magically change? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

DeknMike is confusing the question of whether a movement is Jewish with the question of whether a person is Jewish. A "Messianic Jew" might be Jewish, according to Jewish religious law, if his or her mother is Jewish, but that doesn't make the movement to which he or she belongs Jewish. P.D. (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Just as a Jew could convert to Islam or Hinduism or Sikhism or Scientology and still be a Jew - but that wouldn't make any of those religions Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

We know that the Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform movements reject Messianism's claim to being a form of Judaism. Which Jewish religious movements accept Messianism as a form of Judaism? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that, to the best of my knowledge, the modern Jewish world does not accept that Messianic Jews are "religious" Jews, I think we might best just avoid the "u" words in general. Alternate phrasing, like "None of the major extant Jewish movements accept Messianic Judaism as Jewish", with maybe a footnote detailing how it is not considered such by the various groups Jayjg enumerated and any others (if such exist) might be the best way to go. John Carter (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You use the qualifiers "extant" and "major". Are you aware of any non-"extant" Jewish movements that considered Messianism a form of Judaism? Highly unlikely, I would suggest, given the fact that Messianism evolved in the 1960s as a more Jewishly palatable version of the Hebrew Christian movement, and no Jewish religious movements have disappeared from the 1960s to the present. Also, are you aware of any "minor" Jewish movements that consider Messianism a form of Judaism? And, even if it were possible that there were, given WP:UNDUE, would Wikipedia care? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I only used the words because it is, effectively, probably a bit easier, based on policy and guideline considerations, to verify the content regarding the lack of such recognition by using such qualifiers. No, I am not personally aware of any other groups, but based on discussion elsewhere in religious articles, there is a good chance that someone somewhere, possibly a self-appointed prophet or such, will argue that they as individuals or as a non-notable group disagree, and endless, pointless discussion ensues that could be possibly/probably more easily avoided by using such qualifiers. The old "never say never" argument, effectively, because, unfortunately, there so often are such slight exceptions, somewhere or other. John Carter (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point, but that's where WP:UNDUE kicks in (see previous comment). Sure, there may be some tiny group somewhere that actually considers them Jewish, but these are tiny minority views (see WP:UNDUE). There's always someone, somewhere who believes something, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia advertises their views in mainstream articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I find it interesting that all the objections come from Jewish religious groups, even though best estimates are that less than 20% of Jews are actively engaged in any variety of religion, and over 40% are non-practicingAmerican Jews. With that logic, a person can be agnostic, even atheist, and still be more Jewish than a Holocaust survivor who interprets Isaiah and Psalms in a way that supports Jesus as Messiah.DeknMike

References

^ http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1339

Introductory sentence

Posting RFC to get a less insular crowd here. How should the introductory sentence be worded? Should Messianic Judaism be described as "Jewish/Christian", or only as "a Christian religious movement"? Should it be based on reliable sources, or on the opinions of Wikipedia contributors? What kind of sources are needed to say that Jews are "unanimous" in believing something, or that "the various streams of Judaism" all hold a particular belief? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crotalus horridus (talk • contribs) 17:13, 23 July 2010

This dispute as to whether Messianic Jews are Jewish or Christian or some kind of portmanteau religion reminds me of the Medieval debates between rabbis and priests. In those days, of course, if the rabbi lost he was burnt at the stake. Here the matter is resolved by rfc; but aside from that, there doesn't seem to be much difference.

Because there is no way that you guys are ever going to resolve this question by what you keep parading as rational debate. There are questions which are not amenable to rational resolution, and this is one of them. So stop trying.

The question is also irrelevant to the lead. There is absolutely no reason why the lead has to characterize this religious movement as either Christian or Jewish. "Messianic Judaism is a religious movement that considers Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah. Messianic Jews observe many Jewish rituals, including Jewish holidays, dietary laws, and more, but are distinguished from observant Jews by their acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah."

Of course, because of this obsession with the ideological purity of profanity of Messianic Judaism, the article ignores many interesting issues, or relegates them to the end of the article. The fact that institutional Jewish religious organizations consider them apostates, the fact that in Israel there is an intense campaign against them which has taken on political importance, all that is pretty much downplayed. How many Messianic Jews were Jewish originally, and how many Christian (or other)?

In any case, I doubt that comments from others will help much. This is one of those cases where the battle is more important than the prize. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said earlier, although (IMHO) the movement is undoubtably Christian, our sources are not unanimous to that effect, and they don't call themselves Christian, so we should not report them is Christian in the lede. The fact that the movement was founded by Christians is noted in the lede, as well as in the text.

I don't think outside comments will help much, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ravpapa and Arthur on this - there's no reason to identify them as christian or jewish in the opening statement. I'm going to edit in a rewrite that reflects this. feel free to revert if you like. --Ludwigs2 11:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I made the change. I left the past two lines in place, but I am not certain that either of them is needed for the lead on this article (both should probably be included in the body somewhere). but I'll leave that for discussion. --Ludwigs2 11:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I can live with that. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I've modified slightly to make it more accurate. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So have I. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made some considerable changes to the lede. My aim is to simply state what is most relevant and known. Concrete facts. Bus stop (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed them all, because they were original research using an unreliable polemic website. Please try to get consensus for massive changes to the lede here. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Lisa's additions are probably more accurate, but:

"certain elements" is unsourced
"other" (Christians) implies that these are Christians; if we are not allowed to say these are Christians, we're not allowed to imply it.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin — you say, ""other" (Christians) implies that these are Christians; if we are not allowed to say these are Christians, we're not allowed to imply it." Why wouldn't they be "Christians?" I fail to understand this. The superficial admixture of merely symbolic elements from Judaism does not alter the most salient point defining Christianity — which is the central concern with a figure that is named Jesus associated with a place called Nazareth that coincides exactly with the time of the inception of all other instances of a religion called Christianity. The figure Jesus is understood in Messianic Judaism to have been the Son of God — just as in every other instance of a sect of Christianity. Messianic Judaism maintains that Jesus was resurrected after death. Are these not all precisely the quintessential theological hallmarks of Christianity? Doesn't Messianic Judaism maintain that salvation is attainable only through acceptance of this set of circumstances, conceptions, understandings and underpinnings of man's relation to life, sin, charity, other good deeds? Where is there any distinction between Messianic Judaism and Christianity? The trappings of Judaism in the form of yarmulkes and the like do not make Messianic Judaism non-Christian. I fail to see the cogency of the argument that Messianic Judaism represents anything that is not Christian. We have a misleading title — both of the article and the movement. The first sentence in the lede should say that Messanic Judaism is not related to Judaism the religion. That is necessary because the title is very misleading. It would not be an overstatement to say that the title is a contradiction. Surely that must be addressed. The first order of business in a Wikipedia article should be clearing up likely confusion, just as would be the case in a less contentious article. If for instance an article on a certain species of mammal had a title that suggested that the animal was a fish, a Wikipedia article would, as a first order of business, clear up any potential and understandable confusion deriving from that misleading common name applied to that species of life. Should we be perpetuating the notions conveyed in the title of this article? The title implies that it is Judaism under consideration when it is not. It is in point of fact Christianity that the term (confusingly) refers to. This confusion is a primary concern. I think this confusion must be squarely addressed. Elements used in Messianic Judaism that derive from Judaism (yarmulkes, star of David, tallit, etc.) require mention in the lede along with mention of the centrality of the Jesus figure in Messianic Judaism. This is in essence what defines Messianic Judaism. Sources support that the rejection of the Jesus-as-Messiah narrative is widespread in Judaism. In point of fact the rejection of Jesus is virtually universal in every strata of Judaism. This article should not be providing sketchy or cursory treatment of the inherent contradictions in this subject matter. Judaism rejects all that Christianity is theologically about. That is not to say that there isn't a meeting of the minds on the products of the two religions — charity, good deeds, for instance. But the rejection or the acceptance of Jesus is by far the most significant distinction between Judaism and Christianity. As I see it a primary concern of this article should be clearing up inherent contradictions in this subject matter. That is not accomplished by sidestepping the underlying theological questions. Rather, that is accomplished by laying out the concrete material relevant to the theological entity under consideration. Bus stop (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Bus stop: what you wrote above is a marvelous example of synthesis. You have taken the well-established definition of Christianity and applied it yourself do demonstrate that MJ are Christian. We don't do that on wikipedia. If there's a reliable source that makes that association we can use it, but since Messianic Jews do not identify themselves as Christian we cannot determine that they are Christian over and above their own self-definition (any more than we can, say, determine that Mormons are not Christians because of arguments that suggest their faith violates certain fundamental Christian tenets). --Ludwigs2 14:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs — There is very little WP:SYNTHESIS involved. 1. ) Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah promised in the Old Testament. 2. ) Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 3. ) Christians believe that God sent his Son to earth to save humanity from the consequences of its sins. 4. ) One of the most important concepts in Christianity is that of Jesus giving his life on the Cross (the Crucifixion) and rising from the dead on the third day (the Resurrection). It doesn't matter much if you are saying that the description fits the object or the object fits the description. We would be engaging in sleight of hand if we didn't point out all the particulars that apply to Messianic Judaism and that curiously also apply identically (except for the superficial admixture some symbolic elements from Judaism) to the religion of Christianity. We need to enumerate cultural as well as theological elements. The article is not meant to conceal relevant material but rather to present it. This should be considered the primary concern of this article. I agree that the article should clearly identify the phenomenon by which Messianic Jews assert that they are Jewish. The contradictions are the most important part of this article, in my opinion. We are not talking about one or two coincidental similarities. Messianic Judaism is 100% theologically identical to Christianity down to the minutest detail. Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with including sources that say all that, as appropriate, but we cannot go the extra mile and assert that MJ is Christian ourselves. This is a very important distinction, and I want to make sure that you get it. do you? --Ludwigs2 15:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

J. Gordon Melton, in The Encyclopedia of American Religions, includes Messianic Jewish organizations in Section 12, the Independent Fundamentalist Family, within the larger "Christian" grouping, on page 601 and thereabouts, of the Seventh edition, copyright 2003, ISBN 0-7876-6384-0. Would that be enough? John Carter (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty good, actually. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

what, enough to counter the fact that Messianic Jews (for the most part) think of themselves as Jewish rather than Christian? As I said, if this is a reliable source it is certainly worthy of inclusion, but there are limits to how far we can talk over the actual participants in the faith. Let's be frank: if Messianic Jews called themselves Christians then there would be no problem, but if they don't then we are essentially engaging in a form of prejudice if we force the term on them. If you were Catholic, would you like some Protestant insisting that you're not a Christian? If you're protestant, would you like some Catholic asserting that you are a heretic? These are not people who are trying to give up their Jewish heritage and become Christians (which would be tremendously easy to do, simply by converting); these are people who want to accept Christ while reaffirming their Jewishness. They can be both or they can be neither or they can be something midway between, but it's not fair to them to force them into one category or another. --Ludwigs2 01:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

While the claims they make about their religion do need to be reproduced in the article, members of religions often believe all sorts of things about themselves or their faith, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia accepts these statements as accurate or factual. Wikipedia relies on the views of reliable secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, should we then remove the plethora of Jewish propaganda being used as "reliable" sources? A Jewish organization writing simply to confuse the honest inquiry (ref 10) would not be allowed using that test.DeknMike

I don't think it is really necessary to categorize them as one or the other. Judaism is both a religion and a culture. Not to make anyone crazy here but it would seem to me that they can be both. If they believe in the divinity of Jesus, then they would arguably be Christian. If they are raised Jewish and are of Jewish families, then they are arguably Jewish. In today's multi-cultural, blended family world we might do better to not be so rushed to have everything and everyone be one or the other. The fact is some people and things are simply both. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Like (other) Christians

This introductory phrase of the second paragraph is simply a gratuitous invitation to battle. "Like (other) Christians, Messianic Jews believe that Jesus of Nazareth, whom they call Yeshua, is the resurrected Messiah and the Divine Savior."

Tell me, is there a reader out there that doesn't know that belief in Jesus is a Christian thing? Are we really enlightening the reader with this totally unnecessary appendage?

"Like other fish, the guppy has gills, fins and scales." "Like other octogenarians, Mel Brooks is over 80 years old." If other Wikipedians wrote like that, we would have closed the project long ago.

For Heaven's sake, take it out. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, actually, possibly in some areas which speak English but don't have much of a Christian population, like maybe parts of India?, there probably are some people who don't link belief in Jesua with Christianity. Also, such people might know of Jesus as a prophet of Islam alone, and not as associated with Christianity. It's hard to imagine there being many such people, admittedly, but it could happen. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Christian

Although I believe it's a Christian sect, it is controversial. In order to include it in the lede, we would need reliable sources in the lede, especially since they (the members; I can't speak for the leaders) consider themselves Jewish. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct, Messianic Judaism is a Christian sect. This is because this is a religious group that maintains that Jesus is the Messiah. The Messiahship of Jesus is the hallmark of Christianity. It is also something that all strata of Judaism reject emphatically. Bus stop (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin — you say here that there is a dispute. What is the dispute? Are the editors at Wikipedia not sure that "Messianic Judaism" is a Christian religious group? Why would we not be sure about that? Because some of its members claim to be "Jews?" They worship Jesus. That is 100% in the camp of being Christian. In point of fact the name of the group is superficially false. It is calling itself Judaism from the outset. The religious movement "Messianic Judaism" can adopt any "Jewish customs" they like. That would not make them "Jewish." That would make them pretenders to being Jewish. Wikipedia has got to draw the line somewhere. Judaism universally rejects any suggestion that Jesus was/is a Messiah. Yet "Messianic Judaism" worships Jesus and its members (some of) call themselves Jews. That is a contradiction and it can be highlighted somewhere in the article. But the lede should call a spade a spade. Wikipedia should speak honestly and directly about a topic. All identifiable strains within Judaism reject the notion of Jesus being a Messiah. This is not irrelevant to how Wikipedia editors identify a religious movement in the lede of an article. Bus stop (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV stipulates that "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints." Putting one viewpoint in the lead (that Messianic Judaism is just a form of Christianity) is not in keeping with that; it says that Messianic Jews are wrong in the interpretation of their own religion and that conventional Jews are right. I know it is possible for people to be so mired in their own POVs that those viewpoints seem to them to be uncontroversial conventional wisdom, but that's not supposed to be how things are done on Wikipedia. What would be best is if we could find a religious dictionary or encyclopedia published by an unbiased academic source, rather than relying on our own definitions. Until that can be done, only by maintaining a balanced definition can NPOV be sustained. *** Crotalus *** 19:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed the article to use the definition from Carol Harris-Shapiro's Messianic Judaism: A Rabbi's Journey Through Religious Change in America. I would like to find better and more academic sources, but what is not acceptable is to remove this and replace it with unsourced POV of individual Wikipedia editors. *** Crotalus *** 19:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Messianic Judaism" is very misleadingly named, as it is not a form of Judaism at all. We should not be using language that is in any way misleading. The source that you provided, Crotalus, is not implying that Messianic Judaism is a form of Judaism. It is almost universally known that Judaism and Jesus as a Messiah are incompatible. This is the province of Christianity. Rejection of Jesus as a Messiah figure is standard in Judaism. Judaism never contemplates for a moment that the historical figure of Jesus is a Messiah. Only precisely worded language can avoid the muddying of the distinction between Christianity and Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Read and understand: Your own OPINION on this issue doesn't matter a damn. See WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. For the lede, we need to be neutral and go with what mainstream, unbiased sources say. Do you have a better source? One that isn't associated with some kind of religious or ideological organization? If so, please offer it up. If not, then stop violating Wikipedia policy by adding unsourced soapboxing and POV. *** Crotalus *** 16:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, stop. You can't exclude religious sources without excluding the views of MJs themselves. Virtually all Christian groups consider MJs to be Christian. All Jewish groups do. The MJ view is WP:FRINGE. There are people today who hold by geocentrism, but that doesn't mean the article has to reflect their views, particularly not in the lede. The Flat Earth Society article notes that it's discredited right there in the lede. Or try Groups claiming an affiliation with the ancient Israelites, which doesn't identify them as being affiliated with the ancient Israelites, despite their claims/beliefs. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Scientists can prove that the world is roughly spherical and is not the center of the universe, which is why geocentrism and flat-earthism are fringe views. We cannot "prove" who is and is not a Jew — that's purely a matter of opinion and is not agreed upon even by those who everyone would consider to be observant Jews. We can describe a scientific view as WP:FRINGE, but I don't think it is appropriate to do so with a religious view. Some scientists think that all religious beliefs are fringe — do you really want to go down that road? Obviously the article should describe notable controversy surrounding Messianic Judaism, but this should not be placed in the lead. There are a lot of Christian Fundamentalists who think Catholics are not "real Christians," and even more Christians who think the same about the Mormons, yet if you go to the Latter Day Saint movement article you'll see a really big "Christianity" navbox on the right-hand side. The article on the Catholic Church simply refers to it as a Christian church and doesn't say anything anywhere, much less in the lead sentence, about how Fundamentalist Protestants consider it the whore of babylon and so forth. Now, the criticism of Messianic Judaism is more prominent and deserves to be mentioned, but that doesn't mean that we allow the movement to be defined by its enemies. That is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. *** Crotalus *** 18:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Crotalus — in this edit you include the following quote from the source you've provided:

"Messianic Judaism is a largely American Jewish/Christian movement…"

That paragraph in your source goes on to say:

"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 early 1970s, and the resurgence of American Jewish ethnicity during the same decades. Messianic Jewish congregations are composed of both those born Jewish who accept Jesus as their savior and their Gentile supporters who adopt a "Jewish lifestyle."

You are using that source to support the sentence which you put in the article which reads:

"Messianic Judaism is a largely American religious movement that combines aspects of Christianity and Judaism."

Where is your support in sources for the second half of your sentence, which reads:

"…that combines aspects of Christianity and Judaism"?

That remains unsupported by sources. Bus stop (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that it is controversial that Messianic Judaism combines J and C traditions? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Cortalus, as it's been pointed out to you that you're misusing your source and you have no consensus for your changes, you really should stop edit-warring them into the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I reworded it so that what is said now exactly matches what is written in both sources. I interpreted "Jewish/Christian" as "combining aspects of Christianity and Judaism," but if you think that interpretation is problematic, I will reword. What I will not do is allow POV-pushers to insert in the lead, as fact, the very controversial claim that Messianic Judaism is simply "a Christian religious movement" and not Jewish at all. No other religion article that I know of (with the possible exception of Scientology) is written primarily from the POV of its detractors. *** Crotalus *** 14:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no one has yet replied to my challenge for competing sources; instead, they continue to fall back on "But it's true by definition!" which is not how Wikipedia works and has been repeatedly rejected on numerous other articles in the past. *** Crotalus *** 18:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether Messianic Judaism is compatible with (you say "the same as") Chrstian, but whether one can be Christian without losing Jewish identity. Most of the sources in favor of MJ come from messianics themselves, many of whom were raised Jewish. Much of the opposition is from outside the movement, often Jewish, using Jewish antimissionary sources. I am clearly an advocate from the former camp, a gentile member of a Messianic congregation which is led by a Jewish man born & raised in New York, and (until recently) shunned by his Orthodox family. As an historian, I try to remove my bias and write only truth. Tonite I found Samuelson's interfaith approach ^[1] and while it is long (25 web pages) it is as objective a document as I've seen. It clearly states that MJ are both Christian and Jewish, though there are members of both camps that deny that truth. If we, the editors and contributors to this page will only adopt that stance, much of the dispute will fade. DeknMike —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeknMike (talk • contribs) 05:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

References

^ http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3236/is_2_37/ai_n28813248/pg_17/?tag=content;col1

Christians or Jews? Missing the point

In all this polemic about whether Messianic Jews are Christians or Jews (or perhaps both, or perhaps neither - two options that haven't been raised), we are missing the point. Which is: there is a big argument, not only among Wikipedians, as to whether these people are Cs or Js. The argument is bitter, not only among us, but also among those whom we are quoting. The issue is hot, far hotter in the real world than in the rarified Wikipedian atmosphere. In Israel, for example, there are angry demonstrations and have been physical attacks against these "apostates." There is an organization dedicated to rooting out what they see as an evil threat.

MJ response has been much more civil, but the feelings, I am sure, are no less intense.

Yet this dispute is covered in the article only incidentally, Hints of it appear buried in the section on Jewish objections; and there is none of the intensity of this debate.

I suggest that instead of slugging it out on the talk page, you create a new section, prominently place, on "Controversy of Messianic Judaism." --Ravpapa (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be equating the two sides of the argument. This is about a small and fraudulent group; not about an internal disagreement. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, small and fraudulent. Interesting. What exactly makes a religion not fraudulent? --Ravpapa (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In this case "not fraudulent" means representing itself. In this case "fraudulent" means representing another religion. Judaism and Christianity are considered quite different religions. Rabbi Tovia Singer says here of Messianic Judaism:

“He’s not running a Jewish synagogue,” Rabbi Singer said, speaking of Messianic rabbis in general. “It’s a church designed to appear as if it were a synagogue and I’m there to expose him. What these irresponsible extremist Christians do is a form of consumer fraud. They blur the distinctions between Judaism and Christianity in order to lure Jewish people who would otherwise resist a straightforward message.”

He also says:

"Christianity is not the same religion as Judaism. It's a different religion. If they tell me that believing in Jesus is Jewish, that's simply not true."

At Judaism 101 we find:

"It is important to understand that Jesus is simply not a part of Judaism. He is irrelevant to our religion. To ask a Jew, "why don't you believe in Jesus?" is like asking a Christian, "why don't you believe in Zeus?"

The Judaism 101 website goes on to say:

"We don't study why we don't believe in Jesus, because he's simply not a part of our religion. When we discuss Jesus, it's usually in response to attempts to convert Jews, which are more common and more aggressive than most non-Jews realize."

It becomes nonsensical when you say that dissimilar things are the same thing. It makes a mockery of language. Bus stop (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for cogently presenting the Jewish point of view on this issue. Are there any nonJewish thinkers who subscribe to this opinion as well? --Ravpapa (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess that question was a showstopper. But the fact is that there is at least one nonJewish website that voices an opinion on this: http://www.religioustolerance.org/mess_jud.htm, a Canadian website dealing with religious tolerance. There they write:

"If one defines a religion according to the deity that they worship, then Messianic Jews are actually Christians because they recognize the existence of the Christian Trinity and the divinity of Yeshua. However, if one goes by how the membership define their own religion, then Messianic Jews are a part of Judaism."

That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? That website's article on Messianic Judaism is, incidentally, far better than this shatnez affair we are working on. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You do have a point. And I do have to question at least some of what Bus stop says above, both in quoting one individual as authoritative for Judaism as a whole and in the quote about how Jesus is irrelevant to Judaism. Jesus was a Jew, and I think he is even quoted or referenced in some major Jewish work. Also, I do wonder about the quote from religioustolerance applying to all "Messianic Jews", although I have no doubt it applies to those groups who are members of the Association of Messianic Congregations do believe that. I guess I'm not sure if there are any MJs outside of that group. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

John, the fact that Jesus was a Jew is really irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not religious movements that worship him as God are Christian or not. He also doesn't play any significant role in any major Jewish works. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The work I meant was the Babylonian Talmud, which seems to mention him in some sort of manner relevant to Judaism, although I don't know how many other, possibly fringey, individuals are included there as well. And I don't for a second question the fact that belief in the deity of Christ is not Jewish. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The Talmud (a huge multi-volume work) has some very brief references to a Yeshua who lived 100 years before the Jesus of the gospels. Yeshua was not an uncommon name at the time, and whether or not these references are indeed about Jesus of Nazareth is a matter of scholarly debate, with no consensus either inside or outside Judaism. In any event, these references are not of any significance in Jewish writing or thought. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to concur with Jay on this one. There is no concrete evidence that Jesus is ever mentioned in the Talmud. There are some references in various versions of the Talmud that some scholars believe may be referring to Jesus, that is still a contested issue. Even those references, at least the ones of which I am aware, never quote him or his teachings (whomever is being discussed is considered an apostate, so the teachings are heresy) but narratives about this person, or this person's teacher, and what caused this person to sin and become a heretic. There is no traditional authentic Jewish text that I know of prior to the Haskalah that discusses Jesus in any light other than an apostate, which obviously, jibes with the Jewish tradition about him. There were plenty of other apostates in that era. The Sadducees, the Boethusians and the Essenes were all in force, if not at their peak, around the time ascribed to Jesus's life, so it is very possible that the apostates referred to in the Talmud are members of those sects. -- Avi (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

(OUTDENT) I think sources are not overly concerned about whether Messianic Jews are Jews or Christians. That seems to be an obsession found here — not in reliable sources. But related concerns are found in reliable sources. Importantly:

"Messianic Judaism is a largely 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 early 1970s, and the resurgence of American Jewish ethnicity during the same decades. Messianic Jewish congregations are composed of both those born Jewish who accept Jesus as their savior and their Gentile supporters who adopt a "Jewish lifestyle."" [2]

The above quote is saying that the origins of Messianic Judaism were the "missions to the Jews in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries." This is a reference to Christian proselytization. The origin of Messianic Judaism is also attributed by the source to "the Jesus people of the late 1960s and early 1970s." That too connects Messianic Judaism to Christian proselytization. The source asserts that a contributing factor to this is the "resurgence of American Jewish ethnicity during the same decades." The term "Jewish ethnicity" is a reference to Jews with only a tenuous connection to Judaism. The author goes on to say that such congregations include not only those born Jewish but their "Gentile supporters." The term "Gentile supporters" is again a reference to proselytization. The quote mentions that the Gentile supporters adopt a "Jewish lifestyle." The term "Jewish lifestyle" is a reference to superficiality in the form of such landmarks of Judaism as yarmulkes, the star of David, and the reference to the place of worship as a "synagogue."

The above source is primarily talking about proselytization. It mentions the historical origins of Messianic Judaism. It mentions the sorts of Jews most susceptible to the sort of message Messianic Judaism might bring, carrying with it symbols that have resonance with all people of a Jewish background, except in this instance packaged with a quintessentially Christian message including belief in Jesus as the Messiah. Bus stop (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop and Lisa, I return to my original point. All your passion about these people not being Jewish is lost on the talk page - it should be in the article. There should be a section, high up in the article, called "Controversy", where you should cite these Jewish sources saying that MJs are not Jews, but are proselytizers and apostates. You can quote the Rambam, who forcefully rejects the idea that a Jew could believe in tripartism. You should tell about the Supreme Court decision, and the Hassidic antimissionary organization in Israel that has demonstrations and sometimes violent actions. You should cite the MJs' insistence that they are Jewish, including quotes. You should also include the military chaplain incident (the MJ military chaplain who resigned because the Navy wouldn't let him wear a Star of David instead of a cross).

The point is not whether these people are Jews or Christians. The point is that this question is one of angry and sometimes violent debate between the parties involved, and that should be covered in the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't heard about that Navy story. It's nice to know that the Navy is willing to stand up against deceit. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Except that a section like that would probably violate wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, and editors who are angry about what they see as the corruption of their faith should not be using wikipedia to argue their case. The fact is that Messianic Judaism has a quarter of a million followers, they have a right to exist as a faith, they have a right to determine for themselves what their faith is, and the article should not be used for the goal of labeling the entire belief system apostate from the perspective of people who find them offensive. --Ludwigs2 11:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig, you misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that any wrongs be righted. I am only saying that this debate - argument, if you prefer - about the taxonomy of the MJ religion is a central issue, relevant and necessary for any serious coverage of this topic.

Throughout the Jewish world, these people are vilified, and in Israel they are actively persecuted, because of their beliefs - or because they are apostates and frauds, as Lisa and Bus stop contend. Are you just going to leave that out of the article, or bury it somewhere where no one will ever read it? Would you write an article about Verdun and not mention that a quarter of a million people died there in battle? Would you write an article about the Huguenots and not mention that they were burnt at the stake? --Ravpapa (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I misunderstood you. I was commenting against the idea of them transferring their passion to the article. the article should obviously describe the debate in detail, but should avoid taking sides in the debate (something which is difficult to do when editing passionately). --Ludwigs2 03:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

They're like Huguenots, who were burned at the stake, and massacred by the tens of thousands? Isn't that a bit of a stretch? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

A bit, I suppose. Poetic license. But you got the idea, anyway. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Later: Okay, I did it. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There's already a section on persecution. The controversy section is about the controversy over what MJ is. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest, then, that the Persecution section be deleted, and the information restored to the Controversy section. The topics go together, and the harassment of MJs (I would not call it persecution - I don't think even they refer to it that way) is important enough to merit a more prominent place in the article. Also, I think the Daniel Ortiz incident, which got deleted, should be restored. Don't you think attempted murder is worthy of mention? --Ravpapa (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

They are two different topics, and belong in two different sections. There are people who rule MJ out absolutely as anything but a clever missionary technique, but would never dream of committing acts of violence against them. Your drive to conflate the two is a bad faith attempt at propaganda. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that MJs are harassed for reasons other than those mentioned in the controversy section? That, even if there were no controversy over whether they are Jews or not, they would still be harassed? If so, why? --Ravpapa (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

So... by your reasoning, we should include their theology in the section as well, since the controversy wouldn't exist if they didn't have that theology. Maybe we should lump the whole article into that one section. Maybe we should just rename the article to Messianic Judaism controversy and be done with it? Or we could be reasonable and put each topic in its own section, recognizing that since they're all about one subject, they're all going to be interrelated. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"synagogue"

I believe "synagogue" deserves quotation marks around it in relation to Messianic Judaism as this is an unusual usage, as per this guideline. Probably italicization is called for too, for the same reason. The term has as its normal usage the indication of the standard Jewish house of worship. The Messianic Jewish usage is unusual and unexpected. Bus stop (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The standard English term for a place where JC is worshipped is "church". That's the term that should be used here. It's enough to note that MJs refer to their churches as "synagogues". - Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Carol Harris-Shapiro

This article claims that Carol Harris-Shapiro sees MJ as a form of Judaism. But the citation says nothing of the sort. Furthermore, the article on Shapiro herself says nothing of the sort, and instead says that she sees it as a form of Christianity. So unless someone can come up with a solid rationale for maintaining this claim (other than the fact that deceitful missionary organizations make the claim), I'm going to remove it.

I have an inquiry in to Dan Cohn-Sherbok as well, to see if he really maintains the position claimed for him in this article. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, while looking Harris-Shapiro up, I came across this article, in which the head of an MJ congregation makes an interesting comment:

“We are not messianic in the sense that the word has been used,” Meyer said. “Messianic Judaism is just another Christian sect.”

When even a Jew who believes in JC considers MJ to be a Christian sect, I think the arguments about it here become a little ludicrous. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation placement change suggestion

With the huge amount of citations and quotations in this article, I am seriously considering changing the format to have ONLY "named" references in the text, and putting the templates and quotations all into the references section, see Wikipedia:LDR#WP:LDR for more details. I'd not add groupnames, but I think moving the citation templates and quotations to the reference section will make the article itself much cleaner. Any objections? -- Avi (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No objection, but please stop making the quotations in small text. I know you prefer it, but it makes them impossible to read when using commonly used skins. Try it out in MonoBook (the previous standard) and you'll see what I mean. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Footnote 33

This looks like some editor's opinion and not a source, and seems to be original research to me. Anyone disagree? -- Avi (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there's something funky about that entire passage, and the footnote doesn't exactly support the phrase its attached to. I'll try a revision. --Ludwigs2 18:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Time for an RfC?

We're rehashing old arguments. Well, most of us are. Ludwig2 is mostly ignoring evidence, or interpreting it. But I don't see him giving up any time soon. Can we agree that it's time for some dispute resolution? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It all depends on how significant the dispute is. Currently it appears to me that Ludwig2 is disagreeing with you, me, Avraham, and Bus stop. Are there other people involved in the dispute? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. There's someone called User:DeknMike, someone called User:Crotalus horridus, and someone called User:Arthur Rubin. They aren't on it full time the way Ludwig2 is, although Crotalus was pretty horridus for a while. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

They seem to be pretty absent from the discussion, though, and I'm not sure exactly what their position is. Maybe they can weigh in for themselves, if they're watching or care. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

An RfC would work fine for me; I don't think we need to go as far as more serious forms of dispute resolution. the problem here is that we each think the other side has a skewed understanding of NPOV, and a little clarity from a broader range of editors would probably settle the issue nicely. shall I set an RfC up? --Ludwigs2 03:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess it all depends, if there is anyone else but you who objects to the descriptor. Or even better, a reliable secondary source that disagrees with the characterization. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, John Carter, and a few others have weighed in on excluding the categorization. Few editors are quite as willing to put their foot down for reason and common sense as I am, however. --Ludwigs2 03:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with Ludwigs2 as to the desired content, and as to the fact that calling the group Christian, although undoubtedly accurate, is not what they call themselves. After all, we don't call a certain dead organization Heaven's Gate (cult), even though that is what everyone calls it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand, Arthur. Wikipedia calls it "Heaven's Gate (religious group)". The name of this article is still "Messianic Judaism", no one denies that, and no one is calling MJ a cult. What point are you trying to make? The article clearly states that most MJs view themselves as Jewish, that is not hidden. However, neither can we hide the fact that basically all scholars, both secular and religious, as well as the mainstream media (and the US armed forces, and the Israeli Legal system, etc.) all consider MJ as Christianity. -- Avi (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The only reason that we don't call Heaven's Gate a cult is that the term is considered offensive. Being called Christian is offensive to many people (although I draw the line at celebrating Newton Day on December 25 as some people I know do), including MJs. We can say that they are called "Christian", but we cannot say or imply that they consider themselves "Christian", in the absence of reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The article does not “say or imply that they consider themselves "Christian"”, it says that many consider themselves Jewish. The article does say or imply that secular and religious scholars believe that MJs are Christian. As of yet, I believe that there has not been found a scholar (secular or religious) outside of MJ itself which states that they are not Christian but Jewish. The word "cult" may in-and-of-itself be derogatory. The word "Christian" is not in-and-of-itself derogatory. That is another difference potentially invalidating your analogy, I believe. -- Avi (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Saw Ludwigs edit summary on my watchlist. Standing by to read a good summary in an RfC. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Messianic is to Christian as Yeshua is to Jesus

Messianic is to Christian as Yeshua is to Jesus. This is the basic point. Just as we have no qualms about saying that they worship Jesus, and are content to note that they call him "Yeshua", we should have no qualms about saying that they are a Christian group, and be content with noting that they call themselves by the word "Messianic". If we can't do one, we can't do the other. If one is okay, the other must be as well. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If that is the basic point, then it is a basic point which seems to be clearly contradicted by the history of Judaism itself. There have been other Jewish movements led by individuals who have claimed to be the Messiah or who have been called that by others, including Sabbati Zevi and others. I think it is clear that there have been and are non-Christian, basically Jewish, claimants to the status of Messiah, some of whom, like Zevi, have inspired movements which have existed for several hundred years, and, so far as I know, have existed until very at least the past fifty years or so. John Carter (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

None of their followers ever claimed that they were divine; Jesus's followers do. -- Avi (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Basically true, Avi. That point was less clear in the original post by Lisa. However, it should be noted that it is far from being the case that all Christians say Jesus was "divine", or that the use of that word necessarily means that the subject being described is himself "God". The Jehovah's Witnesses say he was the archangel Michael, other Christian groups call him "a" god, with different meanings of the term, I myself don't entirely understand the Mormon point of view on the matter, but it doesn't include Jesus as "God" in the conventional sense, and there are other nontrinitarian variations of Christianity as well. I agree most Christians today say Jesus was somehow divine, but there is a range of opinion on that subject within the broader Christian world. John Carter (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

We are now getting out of the scope of this article; however, even the Christian traditions you bring above ascribe some sort of supra-humanity to Jesus (God, son of god, angel, etc.). In Judaism, the Messiah is unquestionable a man born of woman, no more, no less. He may be a prophet (but not as great as Moses), he may be a general with fantastic understanding of tactics and strategy, he will be a holy man whose very existence will demonstrate piety and godliness, but there have been many people like that. I am certain many people believe that Mother Theresa was a lady whose very existence described piety, charity, and godliness, but I doubt anyone thinks she is the archangel Michael. In a nutshell, Messianics believe in a fundamental concept that is the core of Christianity and is absolutely opposite that of Judaism, no matter how much spin is placed on it, so from a religious definitional point of view, they are undoubtedly Christian. Messianics themselves choose to redefine "Judaism" to mean "Christianity with a Jewish flavor" (as BusStop points out below), and that is why they self-identify as Jewish, and why the article says so. However, if people redefine "Christianity" as "Belief in the Bahá'u'lláh as the final Manifestation of God", does that mean that there is reliable source outside the group in question to refer the Bahá'í Faith as Christianity?? -- Avi (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Judaism is irrelevant to Messianic Judaism. We have a source saying that. The source says: "no obedience to the Jewish Law or 'works' is necessary in order to obtain that goal." The source says, in the same vein, that "Jewish manners and cultural heritage are just as good as whatever cultural trappings other evangelicals choose to adopt."

That is found here:

"Messianic Jews share many of the values of the larger evangelical Christian community. For example, Messianic Jews, without exception, believe the way to eternal life is through acceptance of Jesus as one's personal Savior and that no obedience to the Jewish Law" or "works" is necessary in order to obtain that goal. Those in the evangelical community insisting on the need to observe elements of the Law as a prerequisite for salvation gravitated towards another movement, B'nai Noah ("the sons of Noah"), composed of evangelical Christians who adopted modes of Jewish observance. But, as a rule, such groups neither presented themselves as part of the Messianic Jewish movement nor were accepted as such. Remarkably, it has been exactly this adherence to the basic Christian evangelical faith that has allowed Messianic Jews to adopt and promote Jewish rites and customs. They are Christians in good standing and can retain whatever cultural attributes and rites they choose. In principle, there is no reason, except for cultural prejudices, to follow in the customs, habit, and regulations of mainstream Anglo-Saxon churches, and Jewish manners and cultural heritage are just as good as whatever cultural trappings other evangelicals choose to adopt."

The above is excerpted from: Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America: African diaspora traditions and other American innovations, by Eugene V. Gallagher, W. Michael Ashcraft.

Note in the above that Messianics are, "Christians in good standing." Note in the above that Messianic Jews, "share many of the values of the larger evangelical Christian community." Theologically, Messianic Judaism is Christian. That is what matters in this instance. That is what is under discussion. We are not discussing those cultural artifacts that lack theological significance. Any "Jewish law" observed is merely optional. Theologically it is the acceptance of Jesus as a supernatural factor that is the operational force providing the power to the religion of Messianic Judaism. By the way, it should be noted, that Judaism has no counterpart to the supernatural factor provided by Jesus in Christianity. I mention this by way of accentuating that these are two very different religions: Judaism does not posit that there is a "Son of God" of some supernatural transcendence or anything remotely like that. There should be no reason for confusing Christianity with Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added one more source. Dan Cohn-Sherbok in "Messianic Judaism" states: "Evangelism of the Jewish people is thus at the heart of the Messianic movement." That is found on page 179 of his book. Bus stop (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added the supporting material to the citation (book name, etc.) and moved the citation portion down to the reference section just leaving the named link in the article as per above. -- Avi (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

In the book, "Evangelizing the chosen people: missions to the Jews in America, 1880-2000," Yaakov Ariel writes, on page 223:

"Messianic Judaism, although it advocated the idea of an independent movement of Jewish converts, remained the offspring of the missionary movement, and the ties would never be broken. The rise of Messianic Judaism was, in many ways, a logical outcome of the ideology and rhetoric of the movement to evangelize the Jews as well as its early sponsorship of various forms of Hebrew Christian expressions. The missions have promoted the message that Jews who had embraced Christianity were not betraying their heritage or even their faith but were actually fulfilling their true Jewish selves by becoming Christians. The missions also promoted the dispensationalist idea that the Church equals the body of the true Christian believers and that Christians were defined by their acceptance of Jesus as their personal Savior and not by their affiliations with specific denominations and particular liturgies or modes of prayer. Missions had been using Jewish symbols in their buildings and literature and called their centers by Hebrew names such as Emanuel or Beth Sar Shalom. Similarly, the missions' publications featured Jewish religious symbols and practices such as the lighting of a menorah. Although missionaries to the Jews were alarmed when they first confronted the more assertive and independent movement of Messianic Judaism, it was they who were responsible for its conception and indirectly for its birth. The ideology, rhetoric, and symbols they had promoted for generations provided the background for the rise of a new movement that missionaries at first rejected as going too far but later accepted and even embraced." [3]

I think the above clearly draws a connection between Messianic Judaism and the conversion of Jews to Christianity, and I think it clearly supports the assertion in the lede that the adherents of the movements are Christian. I think it is stretching credulity to give undue weight to the few Messianic Jews who claim they are Jews. According to sources some Messianic Jews claim they are Jews and some Messianic Jews claim they are Christian. This should be noted in the article. But the overwhelming body of evidence (concerning the Christian identity of the movement, and the Christian identity of its adherents) should not be put aside due to the claims of some of the movement's adherents. Bus stop (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Added to article. -- Avi (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a nice quote, but (again) you misunderstand the nature of NPOV. this citation depicts one notable perspective' among several on the nature of Messianic Judaism. It is not our job as wikipeidia editors to "support the assertions" made by given sources. We merely report the assertions with proper attribution and balance them properly among other assertions. if you want to say "according to Yaakov Ariel MJ is derived from Christianity" then I have no problem with that. Asserting it as truth without proper attribution, however, is a clear violation of core policy. --Ludwigs2 17:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a quote from anyone outside of the Messianic community that does not believe that they are a Christian group? Please remember that WP:UNDUE is a part of WP:NPOV, and if the editors of the encyclopedic "Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America" (widely lauded by academic reviewers it seems) decide that Ariel's view is the appropriate scholarly view, that certainly makes it more widespread than just one person. -- Avi (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

wp:undue states "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space." bad writing, which I may need to address over there, but the point is that this is an article about messianic judaism, and you cannot blithely dismiss their understanding of their own faith as a minority viewpoint. again, I will repeat what I have said several times above: No one is suggesting that they should be called a Jewish sect, and no one is suggesting that they should be given any prominence on any article about Judaism, but you cannot extend UNDUE to the article about MJ itself to impose a definition of the faith held mainly by its opponents. That is the height of prejudice. There are sufficient non-MJ sources that leave the question of the categorization of MJ an open question to make it clear that this is not a decided issue. we are obligated not to try to decide the issue ourselves. --Ludwigs2 18:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 — you are not naming their "opponents." You say, "…you cannot extend UNDUE to the article about MJ itself to impose a definition of the faith held mainly by its opponents." Who are the "opponents" of Messianic Judaism? Bus stop (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia only cares about the "viewpoints" of reliable secondary sources, even for minority viewpoints. Please provide a reliable secondary source that disputes that it is a Christian sect. We're all still waiting for even one. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig2, this isn't simply a matter of Undue or Fringe. The fact is, there are no MJ sources that say they aren't Christian. You're being inconsistent. They don't say that they worship Jesus. They say they worship Yeshua. That doesn't mean they deny worshipping Jesus; they just use a different word for it. The same exact thing applies to Messianic. Messianic comes from the word Messiah. Christian comes from the word Christ, which is Greek for Messiah. Messianic Judaism is another way of saying Christian Judaism in exactly the same way that Yeshua is another way of saying Jesus. Yes, there are MJ sources which claim that they are a Jewish group. Something that no one in the world accepts as anything other than a tactic. But there are no MJ sources that deny being a Christian group. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

@ Bus Stop: by 'opponents' I mean Mainstream Jewish sources, who oppose classifying Messianic Judaism as any form of Judaism whatsoever, on doctrinal grounds. they have a perfect right to do so, that goes without saying, but they cannot be considered neutral sources on the issue.

@ Jayjg: you keep saying that, and I keep telling you you're wrong. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, but primary sources are perfectly acceptable as long as they are recognized as source that advocate a position (which is almost universally true of primary sources), are only used on wikipedia to describe a particular viewpoint, and are properly attributed.

@ Lisa: I've presented sources in sections above that show messianic jews presenting themselves as Jews. more to the point, however, the burden of proof is on people who want to demonstrate that MJ is explicitly Christian. The three or four of you want to explicitly categorize MJ as Christian; I want to avoid categorizing them at all (as Christian or Jew), since there are obvious sources who aren't fully comfortable with any given explicit category.

Allow me to put this as simply as possible. The viewpoint that MJs are a Jewish faith exists (if that viewpoint didn't exist, then we wouldn't be having this debate). Since that viewpoint exists, wikipedia cannot make implicit or explicit arguments against it, since that would amount to taking a side in a real-world dispute. The only case in which wikipedia can make an implicit or explicit argument that excludes a real-world viewpoint is when that viewpoint is held by such a small, limited group of people that it cannot be added without creating a bias in the article (that's Fringe and Undue, that keep viewpoints like 'flat earth theory' from taking up space on hard science articles about geology and cosmology), but even Fringe and Undue do not apply on an article about the minority viewpoint itself, which must make efforts to present the minority viewpoint clearly and objectively in its own light. see what I'm saying? --Ludwigs2 03:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it a reading comprehension thing with you, Ludwig2? No one denies that they see themselves as Jews. Those of them who are Jewish are Jews. But the movement itself is Christian. Even they say so. The word "Messianic" as used by them is a synonym for "Christian". They call themselves "Christian Jews", but they choose to use a more Hebrew word rather than a more Greek word.

You continue to ignore this fact. It's getting hard to assume good faith when you ignore points that other editors make and choose instead to address strawmen. Unless you want to claim that they don't worship Jesus, you have to stop denying that they're a Christian group. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, progress: you admit that no one denies MJ adherents see themselves as Jews. but then you go on to say: "But the movement itself is Christian. Even they say so. The word 'Messianic' as used by them is a synonym for 'Christian'." Here I need to point out to you that the word 'messianic' refers to a belief in a messiah, which is a term that Christianity borrowed from Judaism. In a sense, mainstream Judaism is itself messianic to the extent that it holds out a hope for an eventual messiah. If they had wanted to call themselves Christian Jews, they would have (in fact, the Harris-Shapiro source I quoted above states that the movement explicitly moved away from 'Hebrew Christian Alliance' to 'Messianic Jewish Alliance' because the wanted to identify more strongly as Jews).

seriously, are you really trying to use the adoption of a Jewish term in their name to prove that the organization is Christian?

More to the point, however, let me point out one more time (since you seem to have a hard time grasping this idea), that I am not trying to deny that they are a Christian group. I'm trying to keep you from collectively pushing the POV that they are a Christian group. I'm holding out for a degree of categorical ambiguity here, because ambiguity seems to be what exists in the real world. You keep engaging in original research on this point (every time you try to dictate what 'kind' of religion it is by looking at its practices you are ORing), and that's just not consistent with wikipedia policy. If messianic jews want to identify themselves as Jews who worship Jesus, then wikipedia doesn't get to say that they are not jews just because a handful of editors think the idea is nonsensical/offensive.

When and if sources uniformly agree that MJ is a Christian sect, then wikipedia can call it that. As long as there is disagreement in sources, however, then any claim about them being Christianity has to be properly attributed, and cannot be presented as unattributed fact. --Ludwigs2 15:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 — there is no confusion between Christianity and Judaism. Christian sources make clear that no confusion exists. Christian sources as well as non-Christian sources make clear that there is in fact no "blending" of Christianity and Judaism in Messianic Judaism. Christian sources accentuate that "witnessing to Jesus" is absolutely essential. Christian sources accentuate that any trappings of Judaism found amidst Messianic Jews are permitted not not essential. The below is from "Old Testament ethics for the people of God" by Christopher J. H. Wright. It is a Christian source.

"One might have thought that Jewish believers committed to preserving their Jewish heritage and choosing to live their lives as far as possible in accordance with the Torah would adopt a more or less theonomic approach to the Hebrew Bible. But this is not the case. As regards the Torah as understood within Orthodox Judaism—including both the written law of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible, OT) and the oral rabbinic law—the Messianic Jewish position is that a Jewish believer may observe it as a matter of choice. Thus he or she may circumcise children and observe the kashrut (food laws), the sabbath and other festivals, etc. There may be two valid reasons for such observant lifestyle. It may be a matter of ethnic and cultural identity. The Messianic Jew is saying, ‘I am a Jewish person, so let me live as one’. Or it may also be a matter of evangelistic integrity, choosing, with Paul (1 Cor. 9:20), to live a Jewish lifestyle within a Jewish context in order to avoid unnecessary offence while witnessing to Jesus. But such laws are not binding. The Messianic Jew may choose to keep them and do so enthusiastically, but he is not obliged to, nor are they in any way linked to salvation." [4]

In Messianic Judaism the operant theology is not Jewish, but rather it is Christian. Note carefully: "But such laws are not binding. The Messianic Jew may choose to keep them and do so enthusiastically, but he is not obliged to, nor are they in any way linked to salvation." Repeat again: "...nor are they in any way linked to salvation." We are talking about religion. We are not referring to membership in Club Med. Theology happens to matter in this realm. Notice the wording in the above excerpt: "...the Messianic Jewish position is that a Jewish believer may observe it as a matter of choice." Does Christianity posit that belief in Jesus is merely optional? There is a distinction between Christianity and Judaism in Messianic Judaism. "Blending" is an entirely misleading description. That word should be struck from our lede. Christian sources as well as non-Christian sources which have been cited earlier in this discussion establish clearly the bifurcated theological status of Judaism and Christianity in the religious entity of Messianic Judaism. What these sources establish is that those characteristics derivable from a Jewish realm are relegated to positions of non-theological status. Bus stop (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

<sigh...> please read wp:SYN. after you've read it, please read it again to get the nuances of it. Your basic premise in the above is that it is theologically impossible to be Jewish and 'witness to Christ', a claim which you have not presented a source for and which explicitly denies some of the statements Messianic Jews make in the sources given previously (plus, I suspect it would have deeply surprised Jesus and his apostles - all of their miracles and teachings were offered almost exclusively to Jews). You use that premise to construct an argument which allows you to conclude that MJ is Christian. Now, I have the advantage of being neither Christian nor Jewish (though I have a good understanding of both faiths). From my perspective the difference between Christianity and Judaism is paper-thin, and while I understand that MJ has stuck itself down on a sore spot - they are challenging the one real distinguishing factor between judaism and christianity, and raising hackles on both sides of the fence - it's not our job on wikipedia to move them to someplace more comfortable by explicitly labeling them. Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet, but we don't call them Christians; some Hindu sects accept Christ as a god (technically an avatar) but we don't consider them to be Christians. Why this desperate need to label Jews who do it as Christians?

You can prove anything if you argue cleverly from a false premise; that's why wikipedia has policies against editors arguing towards conclusions of their own. But if we remove the original research in the above - what's left? A naked assertion that the two faiths must be kept separate, therefore MJ must be the one and not the other. That's not really a strong argument. --Ludwigs2 18:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 — you say, "…the difference between Christianity and Judaism is paper-thin…" Christianity posits that virgin birth is possible. Virgin birth is not possible in mammals. Humans are mammals. Judaism does not posit that virgin birth is possible. Christianity does not merely posit that virgin birth is possible — virgin birth is central to to Christianity. Virgin birth is a supernatural phenomena. Judaism does not embrace any supernatural occurrences — certainly not in a way that is of central importance. Do you really see the distinction between the belief in the supernatural and the absence of such considerations to be "paper-thin"? Christianity posits that an offspring of virgin birth is a "Son of God." Judaism has no counterpart of anything even remotely like that. Belief in that is belief in supernatural phenomena. "Paper-thin?" I would find that distinction of incalculable significance. And Christianity posits that a Son of God, who was born to a virgin, was Resurrected after death. And it goes on. Christianity posits that we attain Salvation and everlasting life by accepting such a narrative. Do you think Judaism posits anything that could possibly be construed as a counterpart of that? That is entirely supernatural and bears no relation to the natural world. You say that you have a reasonably good grasp of Christianity and Judaism. How is belief in the supernatural somehow comparable to the eschewing of any such beliefs? The differences between Christianity and Judaism are not "paper-thin." Christianity in fact centrally locates the supernatural in its primary theology. Judaism does not. Judaism eschews anything that smacks of the unreal. The metaphysical is a central concern of Christianity — yet the metaphysical plays almost no role in Judaism. Christianity inserts the Jesus narrative into whatever Jewish elements that are added to Messianic Judaism. The narrative involving Jesus is grafted into any Jewish entity that appears in Messianic Judaism. This would be true of the Bar mitzvah if it appears under the auspices of Messianic Judaism. This would be true of a holiday such as Passover if it is to appear in a Messianic Jewish setting. All such instances in Messianic Judaism take on the qualities of Christianity. All such instances involve the affirmation of the narrative that is central to Christianity — the narrative concerning Jesus with all attendant unnatural events from virgin birth to resurrection to the promise of Salvation for believers. The differences between the original Jewish qualities and new Christian qualities are anything but "paper-thin." One is rooted in reality — the other is imbued with the qualities of the supernatural. These differences should not be underestimated.

Concerning Bar Mitzvah:

"The Drasha, or Dvar Torah, interpretation of or extrapolation on the Torah portion, that Bar Mitzvah boys used to deliver, is instead a public declaration, which reaffirms and promotes the Messianic Jewish creed. By the age of 13, Messianic Jewish children are expected to accept Jesus as their Savior and become fully acquainted with Messianic Jewish Theology. The Bar Mitzvah serves therefore as a communal forum for 13-year-olds to declare their faith, affirm the Messianic Jewish agenda of being Jewish and Christian at the same time, and, like all Bar Mitzvah children, receive the community's attention and approval" [5]

The above is from "INTRODUCTION TO NEW AND ALTERNATIVE RELIGIONS" by EUGENE V. GALLAGHER, W. MICHAEL ASHCRAFT, page 211. Please read the surrounding context to the short extract that I provided above. Bus stop (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to quote from WHAT IS MESSIANIC?, on the Messianic Ministry to Israel website. This is a reliable source for MJ. It is only one source, but unless you can find a source which contradicts it, you have to accept this one.

Messianic is the Hebrew equivalent for the English word, Christian which comes from the Latin and from the Greek, Christos. In fact, when translating the Hebrew Scriptures (TeNaK) into the Greek for the Septuagint, those seventy (+) Jewish scholars used the word Christ when translating the Hebrew word, Mashiach (Messiah). The word Messianic literally means "Christian."

Now unless someone has an unequivacable MJ source that says they are not Christians (and saying they are Jews is not the same thing as saying they are not Christians, Ludwig2), we're done here. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

wow... you wrote all that, and still somehow think you are unbiased on this issue? I am nonplussed.

Please note, I said from my (disinterested, objective) perspective, the difference between Judaism and Christianity is paper-thin. I don't expect it to look paper-thin from the perspective of an adherent of either faith. Both Judaism and Christianity have their fair share of magical thinking - Moses did not pull an assortment of plagues out of his headgear or part the red sea with a bucket and shovel, and the conceit that the Jewish race is the one chosen people of God runs pretty close to the idea of virgin birth in terms of plausibility. Both Christianity and Judaism are Abrahamic faiths that share large sections of doctrine, and the practices of Orthodox (Eastern) Christianity preserve many of Jewish practices and eschew many of the the crazier ideas that have slipped into the Catholic (western) Christian model. Christianity began with the teaching of both Jewish law and Christ's teachings to gentiles, and much of the divergence between Christianity and Judaism can be traced to the fact that gentiles lacked the cultural referents to understand Jewish traditions and philosophies correctly. Most significantly, Judaism has a long tradition of waiting for one messiah or another: had a collection of Jews in Jesus' day accepted Jesus as the messiah they were looking for, they would have produced a sect that was unquestionably a Jewish sect and almost identical to what modern Messianic Jews purport to believe. This is, I think, part of what motivates at least some elements of messianic judaism - they want to reach back and recreate that moment in time. Of course, they are running into a couple of thousand years of unpleasant judeo-christian interactions which makes for trouble, but there is nothing impossible or objectionable in the idea itself. By trying to force them into the Christian mold, you are effectively denying any possibility that they might create what is (arguably) the very thing that Jesus himself tried and failed to create, oh so many years ago. Is that what you're trying to do? --Ludwigs2 22:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

@ Lisa: again - I do not need to find a source that that explicitly claims that MF is not Christian. all I need to do is find sources which accept that the categorization is currently not a foregone conclusion. I have presented such sources above. You are free to add all the sources you want which claim that MJ is a Christian sect, so long as you add those sources with proper attribution, and do not try to assert or imply that they represent the only opinion on the matter. --Ludwigs2 22:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you do need to find a source that explicitly claims that MJ is not Christian. Until you have one, common sense and the plain meaning of words takes precedence over your desire to fiddle. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, without a reliable secondary source stating that Messianism is not Christian, policy demands that Wikipedia reflect the views of the current reliable secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Piffle. there is no sense discussing the matter further with either of you further if you are not going to listen and communicate properly. I'll start an RfC on the issue later today. --Ludwigs2 18:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg knows perfectly well that WP:PSTS allows the use of primary sources, so long as editors don't interpret them. There are plenty of primary sources which say the adherents of Messianic Judaism are Jews who have not converted to Christianity. There are also qualified experts in the fields of religion and philosophy who have reported on that claim in reliable journals, e.g. See paras 10-11 of Pauline Kollontai's, Between Judaism and Christianity: The Case of Messianic Jews, Journal of Religion and Society, Volume 8 (2006) ISSN: 1522-5658 [6]. Info on Kollontai is available here [7] harlan (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I know perfectly well that WP:PSTS allows primary sources under restricted circumstances, and in particular, for non-contentious material that requires no specialist interpretation. On the other hand, policy demands that Wikipedia articles rely on secondary sources, particularly for complicated assessments such as whether or not a religion is Christian. So, your first point is essentially completely irrelevant. In addition, Kollontai there merely reports the belief and reasoning of Messianics; she does not state her own views. She is summarizing the beliefs of primary sources (which we already knew, and which was already in the article), not stating the views of reliable secondary sources. In addition, she states that they took on a "new faith", part of a "conversion process". If they were still practicing Judaism, how could that be possible? So, your second point is incorrect. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1339

[2] ttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3236/is_2_37/ai_n28813248/pg_17/?tag=content;col1

[1]

[1]