Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Intro "all Jewish denominations do not consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Judaism"

I find changing the conclusion of the source to be that all Jewish denominations view MJ as Christianity, skews the intent of the paragraph concerning the MJ position on their Jewish status. Changing the conclusion that MJ is not seen as Jewish by other Jewish denominations, to a DIFFERENT conclusion that MJ is seen by other Jewish denomns as "Christian" seem to me to be POV pushing in the form that the reader is led to believe as "fact" that "if one groups considers MJ to be Christian, then OF COURSE it's certainly not Jewish." Instead the intent of the paragraph is communicated just fine in that the Jewish status of MJ is disputed by all Jewish denomns (the removal of "other" Jewish denoms being the compromise). Now someone wants to take it a step further beyond this concession and now wants to post that all Jewish denoms consider MJ to be Christianity... skewing the original intent of the paragraph, forcing an unwritten conclusion (that if one is Christian that one is not Jewish), and almost smacks of being a disclaimer. To keep balance, I highly suggest not changing this intro without consensus, or else put that information in the appropriate Jewish objections section of the article. inigmatus (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

While I find it interesting that you weren't concerned about modifications to the header by Carlaude, I'm willing to stick with this wording. But consensus works in both directions, Inigmatus. Not just the one that suits MJs. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Sorry Lisa, I haven't been more active. I just saw the recent change only, and not the ones from before. I had posted far above concerning the tags, that they arent necessary. I didn't realize some POV pushing has been engaged in. I certainly value your guys input as well as MJs. This article needs it. I'll see what I can do to help clean up the article and talk to some of the other editors. :) inigmatus (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think what the three of us agree on is that the header, as it has stood (Messianic Jews consider themselves to be Jewish. However, Jews of all denominations do not consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Judaism. Many Christians consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Christianity.), is indeed one of consensus. This I have tried to state clearly to Carlaude, who started this ball rolling again. I made the mistake of trying to re-word Carlaude's recent edit, instead of simply reverting (again). I hope we can keep the header as is and that there is no need for dispute resolution, etc., which is what Carlaude seeks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree here. "All Jewish denominations..." carries the clear implication that Wikipedia considers as a matter of fact that MJ is not Jewish. That's not a position Wikipedia should be endorsing. There are good alternative wordings that I suggested above. I think dispute resolution might be a good idea. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You've missed the point of our consensus - which is 'balance', and that includes the input of MJ inigmatus. If you feel you must go to DR, you might be there alone. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to push the point about DR, but I still thing there are less-biased versions than what we have now. See what I suggested on May 9th. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean this with all due respect, DJ Clayworth - I believe the other users did have a chance to review your options. However, what users such as LisaLiel and inigmatus pointed out is that a lot of work and back & forth editing went into finding a balance in the overall article. To change the wording now would be to tip that in one direction of POV over another. inigmatus, a professed MJ, did the bulk of writing and editing of the article and he was satisfied with the balance created by all of us without a single user resorting to an 'edit war'. You might recall there was one user who came aboard with the POV notice, all guns blazing, and then he/she ceased - and calm came once again. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it accepted that the statement "All Jewish denominations..." is biased towards the view of non-Messianic Jews, but that this is balanced by other statements which are biased in favour of MJ? If so, then I think that's aiming too low for Wikipedia. We should be aiming to be neutral throughout. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What is fact is that a) MJs consider themselves Jewish and b) all Jewish denominations (all of established Judaism, from the most liberal to the most traditional) does not consider MJs as being a part of Judaism because, for 2000 years, believers in Christ are considered members of another religion. Some users were complaining that the very use of the word 'Judaism' in the title of MJ was itself misleading and false, but compromises from either side avoided this. The MJs understand, even if they don't themselves agree, that they are not considered a part of Judaism by Jewish people or established Jewish religion - even the yellow pages. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I see above the subtle assumption that the view of MJ as "not Jewish" is the correct and factual one, not as the opinion of of a group of people. You write "What is fact is that...all Jewish denominations ... does not consider MJs as being a part of Judaism". That is true only if you already consider it a fact that MJ is not a Jewish denomination, and that it's views on the subject don't therefore count.

I understand that some people believe MJ to be anti-semitic and deceitful and I have no problem with recording the fact of that belief. But should we really shift the factual balance of this article to accommodate those views? I don't think so. Some people consider Judaism itself to be demonic and evil - should we change what is recorded as fact in the Judaism article in the spirit of compromise with those people? I would say strongly no. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You're reading far more into my posting than is there, DJ Clayworth. I'm not stating whether MJ is Christian, Jewish or antisemitic - I am pointing to the references which state that all Jewish denominations do not consider Messianic Judaism to be 'Judaism'. The explanations at these references are clear that believers in Jesus are members of another religion, not Judaism. The views of MJ do count, which is why they are able to self-identify, and this is reflected in the article. Your comparison of all of contemporary Judaism on the one hand with some people consider Judaism itself to be demonic and evil on the other, I can't find the words to address... A Sniper (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If MJ is Jewish then it is not true that all Jewish denominations consider MJ to be Christian - because MJ consider themselves to be Jewish. By saying "all Jewish denominations..." you are implying that MJ is not one of them. My apologies for the comparison; it was intended to show what can happen if you try to change what is reported as fact to accommodate the views of those who seem to be opposed to a group. If we can agree that is a bad idea then I'll say no more. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, maybe the time has come to stop this conversation. I think the current wording is the best that is likely to be achieved at the current time, and it's already better than the last time I had this conversation, several years ago. Maybe in a few years we'll be able to improve it again. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't believe that anyone is being difficult because it appears there are editors with different views and mindsets, working together. We're doing what we can to keep the article as correct and neutral as possible. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Many

I've reviewed the history, and I see no support for "many" in the place I made a fact tag. It looks like there was indeed a lot of work back and forth here, there are a lot of citations. One almost implies the "many", and another uses "many" in a different way than is meant in the sentence. My recommendation is to either find an explicit citation of a denomination that officially states Messianic Judaism is NOT Christian, or take out the word "many." I'd be satisfied to stop being a nudge if you two do one of those two things. I don't care which. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

All right -- now this is ridiculous. I asked you to cite the exception, or remove the weasel word. Instead you removed my tag. This is stretching good faith. First, you refuse to cite WHO the exception is. Second, you refuse to state WHAT part of my intro will not be accepted regardless of sourcing. Now you won't support EITHER option I gave you when I boiled my objection down to a single word. I think you need to go back and look up the word, "consensus." Completely ignoring any and all requests for reason is not consensus, but rather edit warring. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, I have no objection to "many" being in there as long as the exception is cited. That's extremely fair. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Again: where does it say in the lede that some Christians DO NOT consider MJs Christian? The reference is to support that, at the very least, most Christians DO consider MJ Christian. If you can find a reference that ALL Christian denominations consider MJs as Christian, go right ahead and put that in...but it is a tall order. You'd have to find a reference that is all-inclusive. That is why your argument that MOST is a weasel word falls flat. It was a fair way of stating that it is nearly impossible to prove that every, single Christian denomination considers MJ as being within the Christian fold. So, the onus is on you to produce a source that MJs are considered Christian by all of Christendom. A Sniper (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not -- for the simple reason that this would require explicit statements from every existing denomination and group, which numbers in the tens of thousands. They do not do that even for each other, which is tens of thousands multiplied by tens of thousands. Instead, they state a negative for some groups. Your demand for tens of thousands of explicit statements instead of accepting my request that you state ONE that holds an exception -- is on the face of it absurd. I'm asking for one exception. Just one. It's not a tall order. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that 'Christians believe that MJs are a form of Christianity', and you don't want to find a source that states that, fine - let's let that stand! I have just edited it so that it reads that 'Christians agree with Jews that MJs are a form of Christianity'. So now everyone agress that MJs are Christian. Phew! Buddu-bum (drum roll, cymbal crash). Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Cynicism is unhelpful

Christians do not agree with Jews here. They state a similar conclusion, yes, but they do not do this for the sake of Jews, and they do not care whether they agree or not. As such your cynical edit violates SYNTH. Please remove the cyncism and find a simple exception. Hint: you MAY find something from Reformed (i.e. Calvinistic) groups who object to "Judaizing." I've not seen such a source, but you could possibly find one. I'll even try to look with you. Surely you agree that finding such a source would add some color while supporting the word "Many" in the sentence. This is my final attempt to compromise with you -- and even to HELP you. Please accept it. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This is your issue. You are the one who has a problem with what has stood the test of time - at least by Wikipedia standards. It is you who want to state that Christians (not some, not most - just 'Christians') think that MJs are a part of Christianity. I have no problem with that. Whether or not one is trying to appease the other, as it now stands Christians and Jews BOTH believe MJs to be within Christianity. That's cool with me. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine -- I'm worn out. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Blessed be the peacemakers ;) A Sniper (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I'm in that very chapter right now in my third New Testament translation. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the way these things work out sometimes. Have a nice Sunday. A Sniper (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

New Intro

Recommend the following intro -- it's more clear and specific:

Messianic Judaism is a Christian movement that emphasizes the Jewish roots of the Christian religion. Accordingly they continue many Jewish religious and cultural practices, use Jewish names and expressions, and call Jesus by the more Hebraic form of the name -- Yeshua.

The movement is accepted by Christian denominations, and often holds services in Christian churches on Friday nights or Saturday mornings. Larger Messianic congregations build their own synagogues.

Although many members of the movement are halakhically Jewish, the various streams of Judaism are unanimous in their rejection of MJ as a form of Judaism.

As of 1993 there were 160,000 adherents of Messianic Judaism in the United States and 350,000 worldwide. As of 2003, there were at least 150 Messianic synagogues in the U.S. and over 400 worldwide. By 2008, the number of Messianics in the United States was around a quarter million. The number of Messianic Jews in Israel is reported to be anywhere between 6,000 and 15,000 members.

What was wrong or lacking in the previous intro that warrants the necessity for a new one? This new wording almost smacks of a POV disclaimer. Simply posting a source's defintion for MJ that favors one viewpoint that it is Christian funded is totally ignorant of the fact that much of the MJ I am familiar with is serious NOT funded by any Christian organizations. In fact, J4J may be Christian funded, but certain not all of Messianic Judaism which could only be the acceptable criteria for inclusion of such a ridiculous statement, no matter how sourced. inigmatus (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing the point

I notice that up in the "Sources" section, there's a lot of argument going on about whether MJ is considered a form of Christianity by Christians or not. I think the problem is really one of terminology. Some people read "Christianity" as synonymous with "Christianity and not Judaism". Others read "Christianity" as being consistent with "both Christianity and Judaism".

So what are we saying when we say that "Christians view MJ as a form of Christianity"? Those who see Christianity and Judaism as mutually exclusive will read that as "Christians view MJ as a form of Christianity, and not a form of Judaism". Those who do not can read it as "Christians view MJ as a form of Christianity" without excluding the possibility that they also view it as a form of Judaism.

Obviously, I think they're mutually exclusive. But my view isn't the point here (unfortunately). Still, I think it's incontroverably true that Christians (all of them) would view MJ as a form of Christianity, at least to the extent that they'd view any denomination they don't happen to belong to as being a form of Christianity. Thus Tim's edit is correct. But Ignatius seems to be assuming, ironically enough, the Jewish view as dominant, and is therefore objecting to the statement on the grounds that it implies MJ to be not-Judaism.

I think it's fair to say that:

• Most, if not all Christian groups view MJ as Christian
• Some Christian groups view MJ as Jewish
• All Jewish groups view MJ as Christian and not Jewish

If there are no objections to this, the question would then be how to phrase this in a clearly understandable way. If there are objections... well, I guess I'll see them Thursday night. Chag Sameach to those who are Jewish and non-MJ. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This was already taken care of with a 'final' edit (after the back & forth with Tim) to how it reads now: that Christians and Jews consider MJ to be a form of Christianity - Tim did not register a problem with this, and (of course) I certainly like it. Hag Sameach. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources, and such

I'm not married to the version that's there -- but it's more specific than the one J is trying to put in. MJs do not just think they are Jewish, but many of them actually are (even though their religion is Christian). Also, it is not just many Christians who accept them, but there aren't any that reject them on doctrinal grounds (although some "Compound Unity" MJs SHOULD be rejected by Christians as a heresy). Also, they aren't just funded by Christians, but actually worship in their churches unless they are large enough to fund their own building. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I know of a Church that meets in a synagogue, and a synagogue that meets in a church. This doesn't mean one is funded by the other. Furthermore stating that Messianic Judaism is a Christian funded organization (what organization? we're the most splintered group of people I know!) is akin to the former debates of adding a disclaimer. Is it me, or is saying "Messianic Judaism is a Christian funded organized religion" a thinly veiled POV disclaimer? I can find sources for both yes and no on this question, thus it is better to be left out of the intro and hashed in the appropriate subsections - as was originally designed to help keep this article from reverting to an edit war. I am a Messianic Jew. I have many many Messianic Jewish friends that will readily attest to our LACK of support by the Christian Church. Do you want examples? I've got tons. The only congregations getting support from churches are those that aren't keeping Torah, and most likely could fit into the category of a Christian church meeting on Saturday - perhaps this better describes J4J than orthodox Torah observant Messianic Judaism. If we were so "funded" by Christians as you claim, then tell me why Messianic Jewish synagogues are a rareity? My rabbi and our congregation would LOVE to get our hands on just a sliver of the "millions" being spent by Christians to fund the movement to build OUR synagogue. As if. Sorry for my rant, but I find this idea of being funded by Christian churches not only deeply inaccurate by deeply offensive as well.inigmatus (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I don't know who inserted that line - it wasn't there during all of the consensus-building between the various users working diligently for NPOV during the last year. Sorry it wasn't noticed. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I now see that Jayjg mentioned that it was from a source. If so, then at the least it should be noted that way in the text, not just the reference. Blah blah has referred to MJ as ".....". A Sniper (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

A quote like that would best be in a subsection, or else to maintain POV balance the intro would have to have a counter-source also so quoted - and I don't want to bloat the intro since it's already pretty concise and agreed to consensus without modification - and passed when it was considered for Good Article. It has stood the test of time and consensus, and I see no reason to modify a Good Article intro, as the new additions such as that one proposed, would unnecessarily skew the POV of it. In fact the only reason I could see for including that new phraseology would be to simply introduce yet another attempt at a "Christian" disclaimer phrase for the article, which has been debunked before since the consensus was no disclaimer in favor of removing "other Jewish denominations." Unless other parties want "other" Jewish denominations included in the intro, I suggest keeping the intro as-is since that was the compromise. inigmatus (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Also -- on consensus -- J just reverted a consensus version. At least today, two editors created the version that one editor reverted. The consensus -- at least at present -- is in favor of mine and Lisa's SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Great points, but you didn't actually provide any sources for them, and you removed other material that was sourced. The version of the lede that currently exists was worked out via painful consensus that lasted many months, not just a complete re-write with one editor's quick modifications. Why not propose a new version here, and we'll work on it together? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You've seen my proposed version, and reverted it. I'd like to include Lisa's clarifications as well. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Please bring your version here so we can discuss it. As a simple example of issues with it, the entire second paragraph:

The movement is accepted by Christian denominations, and often holds services in Christian churches on Friday nights or Saturday mornings. Larger Messianic congregations build their own synagogues.

is unsourced. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand you correctly -- Christians fund them but do not accept them? In any case, I can find sources for that paragraph, and will take the time to do so if you are open to improving the header. If you aren't, there's not much point. Please state what you will include with sourcing, and I'll find sourcing. Anything you won't include with sourcing, I won't bother. Fair? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps to save you some trouble: the lede doesn't say anywhere that "Christians do not accept" MJs. The lede clearly states that some Christians consider MJs to be Christians, and this is sourced. A Sniper (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead actually says -- "Many Christians consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Christianity.[10]" Many is an unnecessary weasel word, and so is form of. Messianic Judaism is a Christian movement, much as Charismatics are. A movement crosses denominational lines, and so Messianics worship in many different denomination buildings until they are large enough to fund their own building. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Your point being taken, regardless of what you've described as weasel words, the point of the line is that a percentage of representatives of Christian denominations consider MJ to be Christian, whether a sect, denomination or line-blurring group. This was a line that was agreed upon after much wrangling by all camps - please check the history of the article, as well as this very talk page - the MJs didn't see a problem with the line per se and the Jewish editors supported its inclusion as it further identified the group as being Christian. A Sniper (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Specifically WHICH Christian groups did you source as NOT accepting Messianic Judaism as a Christian movement? The "many" involves an exception that is blatantly missing from the article. At least document the exception. If not, then remove the weasel word. That's fair, isn't it? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I would stress that the entire lede was written over a period of time with the assistance of a group of editors, at least two of whom identified as being from the MJ community. Through a series of back & forth edits we came to a compromise on issues, all backed by sources. The latest tinkering seems unnecessary and to drift away from the consensus. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I reverted it since it does not meet with consensus, and that intro was stable for a very very very long time with multiple parties on all sides in agreement on it after much debate and compromise. inigmatus (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat my offer -- I'll source anything that you'll accept if sourced. I won't bother if there is something other than sourcing as a priority here. If the weasle wording is required by some previous consensus in which one side was demanding the weasle wording, then I won't waste your time, or mine, improving the article. So, please tell me what part of my intro you will not accept if it is sourced, and I'll forget about it. However, if you don't, then per Wikipedia standards I'll provide the sources and remove the current weasel wording. It's a fair offer. Just tell me what is prohibited regardless of how well it is sourced, and I'll forget about it. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

All editor suggestions and support is encouraged. However, this article has a history including lots of struggles and, after a period of edit warring and problems, consensus among editors (of various backgrounds and mindsets) who remained involved after the dust settled. You can see on this talk page the back & forth involved with rectifying POV. On a personal level I would state that the best way forward is to bring ideas to the talk page - the edit, revert & discuss route will just lead back to here anyway. You're right in figuring that, due to the consensus, particular wording was agreed in exchange for inclusion of other parts - as long as everything was sourced to allow for balance overall. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I repeat my request -- please state which aspects are immune to Wikipedia standards and sourcing because of political arangements from previous editors. It's a fair request. I will not push Wikipedia standards on the aspects of my intro that you explicitly state are immune. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the relevance is of your question. All the elements in the consensus lead were sourced, and complied with all Wikipedia standards. On the other hand, your changes were unsourced, and did not comply with Wikipedia standards. If you would like to propose changes to the lead, then please do so here. Please ensure that your comments explicitly state which parts of the lead you think do not follow Wikipedia standards, and why you think they do not. Nothing is "prohibited", so long as all proposals comply with Wikipedia standards. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And Jayjg, you of all people should realize this article was not designed per standard wikipolicy, or else we'd wikilawyer all day until the admins were involved (which includes you) and at that point there would be no fair representation by any MJ view. This article tends to follow the wikistandard that there are no standards - in that one should edit an article as best possible to reach consensus, not POV. In actuality, this article has only survived without major edit wars due to POV balancing, not NPOV voicing. That is why there are subsections for presenting various viewpoints. The intro needs to stay truly neutral, without POV, even if you can find "neutral" sources. The phrase "is a Christian funded" is totally false, meaning your source is false, not that it's sourced. For consensus sake the intro was just fine without the addition. Please move that "clarification" to the appropriate subsection in the article. Please. inigmatus (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, Harris-Shapiro, the person who literally "wrote the book" on the movement, and one of the most sympathetic ears the movement has had in Judaism, says explicitly that they are "Christian funded"; it's right in the quote included in the reference. Please review WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." If you have other similarly reliable sources that say the movement is not Christian funded, please bring them forward. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg - First, it's impossible to absolutely disprove a negative. If anything the onus of proof is on one to prove that "Christian funded" is an accurate statement applicable to the general (and for purpose of consensus I would demanding it be applicable to even the orthodox Torah-observant since in my view those are the only Messianic Jews that can rightfully claim the label). Second, I would like to know what exactly is funded - the missionary activities (like what), the buildings, the Torah scrolls, the Artscroll siddurim, the salaries of rabbis who denounce the Church's way of life and its pagan practices? My "tons" of sources are the clear statements that churches will not financially support the "judaizing" of Christianity:

Christians Should Not Give To Those Teaching The Doctrine Of The Judaizers.

But Gal. 6:6-17, read in context with other verses in the Galatian epistle, suggest that Paul was teaching something else as well. As we will see, these verses, read in context, provide evidence that Paul was teaching that Christians should not give to anyone who was teaching the doctrine of the Judaizers, a doctrine which included the teaching that Christians were under obligation to the law of Moses. Three facts provide evidence of this.

from: http://christianitywithoutcompromise.com/essays/webessay3_galatians_.pdf on page 5.

or

"You cannot give money to help build Satan's kingdom," I explained, "and in doing so, please our Lord God. If the Zionist Jews are doggedly determined to mock and disrespect the truth, why should you, a Christian, help make that come to fruition?"

from: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/scofield.htm

and many others. inigmatus (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you said you could bring sources stating the opposite, and now you can't? Please don't use your original research based on New Testament verses to "disprove" what reliable sources have said on the matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Inigmatus, YOu quoted Galatians out of context. Yes, what you said Paul wrote, was actually written. HOWEVER, the Judaizers are not equivalent to Messianic Jews. Messianic Jews consider themselves "completed Jews", as in the Hamaschia (sp) has come, and he was Yeshua (JESUS). The Judaizers, on the other hand, were preying on the new and struggling church in Galtia, telling the new Christians that they had to be Jews first. YOur quote it not in context. Thanks! KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 16:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sect of Judaism or Christian Movement?

Based on various sources, the religion of 1st century followers of Yeshua is clearly a sect of Judaism, and that Christianity was a gentile-controlled sect of this sect that rose to prominence and power with the rise of the Holy Roman Empire. inigmatus (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The artscroll source is about ancient Christians being excommunicated. It is not about modern Messianics. Messianic Judaism is a Christian sect. It is no more religiously Jewish than Jewish Buddhists would be. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You are factually incorrect. Christianity arose as a sect of Messianic Judaism, not the other way around. What's the difference between "early Christianity" and "modern Messianic Judaism"? If there is no difference between the two groups, then the groups are synonymous and thus the artscroll source is still applicable to any group meeting that definition it calls a "heretical Jewish sect such as the...early Christians" with "heretical" dropped for POV of course. inigmatus (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Inigmatus, please stop these bizarre edit war changes. The Artscroll Siddur footnote shows a passage that EXCLUDED early Christians from Judaism, and you are using it to INCLUDE modern Messianics as Judaism! Two negatives do not make a positive:

1. Early Christians were being EXCLUDED
2. Modern Messianics are not identical with early Christians anyway
3. You are equating them with early Christians to prove they aren't Christian, AND equating them with an EXCLUDED sect to INCLUDE them in Judaism!

It gives me vertigo just trying to follow it. I refuse to be dragged into an edit war, but it is apparent that you have no intention of working within Wikipedia standards or even to work with a consensus of a neutral position from multiple points of view. I have a degree in theology from a Christian seminary. LisaLiel is well knowledgable about Judaism. You are apparently a Messianic. If you intend to edit on Wikipedia, you have to use NPOV with the help of others with different POV. Although I am sympathetic to many Messianics for trying to forge a more authentic Christianity, it does NOT represent Judaism, and it is disengenuous to try to say so -- and I would add it is bad faith to twist Artscroll into doing so. That's like using the Baptist Faith and Message to prove that Jesus isn't God. Regardless of your POV, use sources AS those sources would have you use them (the golden rule of citation). SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not an edit war. Please stop reverting sourced material, and instead lets talk about theses things. The fact that it says it is a "heretical sect of Judaism" still makes it a "heretical sect of Judaism." So then, are you saying by your logic that if "early Christians" are called a "heretical sect of Judaism" that Artscroll intends to no longer make them a sect of Judaism? If so then applying your same logic to the other groups mentioned in that same sentence, that you would then make Artscroll saying that the Sadducces, and the Essenes aren't sects of Judaism either. inigmatus (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you have resumed the previous edit war with three forces today, I've reported the violation. It is impossible to reconstruct the consensus around your disruptive edits. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The "previous" edits you refer to were to removing unsourced material. Since when does that qualify for a 3RR? But I digress. If you are truly interested in building consensus on the matter of my ADDITIONS (not reverts), then please answer this question for me: how is modern Messianic Judaism different than the "early Christians" which Arstscroll says is a heretical "sect of Judaism"? Furthermore, answer in such a way so as not to disqualify the term "sect of Judaism" for the Sadducees, and the Essenes which are also mentioned in the exact same list. inigmatus (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer with a single word: "history." The dates, culture, and religious backdrop form the context of sects and the religions they spring from. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Proto-Christianity is not modern Messianism. To make that connection on your own, inigmatus, is a violation of WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. I have removed the inaccurate and mistaken extrapolation of the Artscroll commentary. -- Avi (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please explain to me how its a violation of WP:OR, or WP:SYNTH, do you have facts to back up your argument? After all I suppose if modern Messianic Judaism is not "proto-Christianity" I am sure there would be a difference. Would you care to state for the record what the differences are between "proto-Christianity" and modern Messianic Judaism? Even one? If not, I will re-add the source since it is appropriate to the article. If we need a third opinion or third party to arbitrate the inclusion of this source as used in the intro I propose, then let's do so - but let's do it factually, and not just assume and revert. And while you're at it, if Messianic Judaism is not "proto-christianity" which Artscroll recognizes as a "sect of Judaism" - although a heretical one at that - then please point to what group of people are practicing that since that is where I personally want to go. inigmatus (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Again: "history." Messianism is a modern movement not historically contiguous with proto-Christianity. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

See Maoz (currently note 22), Sedaca (currently note 23), Winer (currently note 24), Kehilat Sar Shalom (currently note 25) etc. -- Avi (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

None of the notes you mention here make mention of ANY differences between "proto-Christianity" and modern Messianic Judaism. So please provide specific examples of the differences between the two. Heck, I'll even take just one difference (besides the obvious of course: one is 1st Century, the other is "modern") inigmatus (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother arguing with him on his terms. Inigmatus, the 1st century sect no longer exists. The fact that a brand new group has chosen to try and imitate that sect makes no nevermind. There've been any number of modern groups that have painted themselves as reemergences of ancient groups. Everyone likes a good myth, but it isn't reality. There's no continuity between your MJ and the original sect of Christians.

None of us need to show differences between you and them. That's not relevant in any way. If I put on a centurian outfit and march around speaking Latin, it doesn't make me a living continuation of the Roman Empire. If I get dressed up and go to a Renaissance Faire, it doesn't make me a Druid or a bard or a medieval lady.

I get it. You're irked about what you view as a change to a consensus version of the article, and you're "getting us back" by making your own changes. But your edit warring is going to get you banned. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, why do you keep reverting qualified edits to the article? The words "artscroll" or "sect of Judaism" aren't even in the version you reverted. So what are you reverting? inigmatus (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Answering inigmatus above, the line in the article based on Maoz: "The Messianic Judaism movement of today grew out of the Hebrew-Christian movement of the 19th century." -- Avi (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, see Messianic Movement where it is dated back to the 1880s. That the modern-day Messianics attempt to emulate proto-Christians is not the issue; the issue is that their activities are a modern-day phenomenon, and are unquestionably NOT the group referenced by Shmuel HaKatan when he wrote V'Lamalshinim. As Lisa pointed out, Wicca also patterns itself after ancient paganism, but no one will say that Wiccans ARE the ancient pagans. -- Avi (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so then, are you saying the sect of Judaism that the "early Christians" were a part of, no longer exists? At all? There is no continuity between it and Christianity, and the Messianic movement that came out of it? At what point did the continuity break? Based on your logic then, are you saying that you are not Jewish since you are not the ancient Jews? inigmatus (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Specious argument, Inigmatus. No one denies that modern-day Judaism is the direct continuation of the Rabbinic Judaism of the Second Temple Era. Well, Orthodox Judaism is at least, and if I recall correctly, the remaining branches separated voluntarily from the traditional for well-documented reasons, and still hold themselves to be descendants of the Jewish Tradition. Prior to the Second Temple Era, we are all dealing with oral tradition, with the exception of Nevi'im and K'suvim, of course, and I believe no one claims that Rabbinic Judaism is anything but the primary branch of First Temple, and thus Exodus Judaism. The Essenes, Sadducees, Baitusim, Samaritans, etc. were all branches of Judaism that differed from the main branch (primarily about the primacy of the Oral Law vis-a-vis the Written Law).

Contrast that with Messianism, which for centuries, if not millenia, of recorded history was non-existant and only appeared in the past one to two hundred years. From the time of Peter until the late 19th century, if you believed in Jesus, you were a Christian. -- Avi (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Delisted GA, Sect of Judaism Part 2

There was serious work done to represent all sides' understanding of the relationship between Messianism, Judaism, and Christianity. There was at least one mistaken extrapolation/original research in the article now calling it an accepted sect of Judaism; there may be other inaccuracies in the article. It needs to be re-vetted before being relisted, I believe. -- Avi (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Avi, that's quite the power you have. First, I'm all for reverting to the original GA version of the article. Second, since that's practically impossible, then before disqualifying it for GA, please answer the simple question as to what is the difference between modern Messianic Judaism the "early Christianity" that is a sect of Judaism, albeit one called "heretical" at that? inigmatus (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Inigmatus, it doesn't matter if you see the two as being essentially the same. They are no more the same than modern Wicca is the same as ancient paganism. It's a modern phenomenon, and whether you think that it's a recreation of something that once existed or not is not relevant.

Beyond that, the fact is that you've made the same reversions several times already today. If you get busted for 3RR again, I suspect your block will be longer than it was last time. I don't recommend that you try it.

As far as your ridiculous use of Artscroll, of all things, to support the nonsensical claim that MJ is a sect of Judaism, you should be ashamed of yourself. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your revert reverted material that had nothing to do with the current discussion. I am curious as to why you reverted my changes to remove unsourced material in the Shapiro quote (which is undisputed as lacking in verifiability), the addition to the intro of alternative names for Messianic Judaism, and my additions of other names for Messianic Jews. Your revert is not a revert of anything you have yet brought up, and it is not at all related to this discussion. It appears you just reverted to just revert, which is not at all in line with an editor that assumes good faith. inigmatus (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. You keep claiming that MJ is a sect of Judaism. It is not. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, please show me in the version I just posted, (which you keep reverting without reading) where the words "sect of Judaism" show up anywhere in the article. :) inigmatus (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Cute. In that case, let's make it more precise. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice. "is a Christian sect" is just as POV as "is a sect of Judaism." I suggest removing "Christian" or "of Judaism" from the intro line and let the rest of the article sections designed to present sources for both viewpoints, help the reader deal with the dispute of the intro. What do you think? inigmatus (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(<-) I think leaving out both "Jewish" and "Christian" and just saying "is a sect…" was the consensus opinion. -- Avi (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Saying "is a movement" was the consensus opinion. You can be a movement without being a movement of something. You can't be a sect without being a sect of something. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

from Lisa:

Let's not forget Kwisatz Haderach. But no, it's not a common term. It's completely unknown except for a few places within the movement itself. This is like putting "Dat Moshe v'Yisrael" in to the lead of the article on Judaism as an alternative name.

Off the derech is a common Jewish term for someone who has left Orthodox Judaism. Derech Hashem is an important and widely studied book by Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto. There's no way MJ is going to co-opt that term like this. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Lisa, I think you are right that the term was "movement" and not "sect". How about "is a religious movement"? -- Avi (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This is way too much overhead. Messianism is a Christian movement that worships in Jewish overlays. Mainstream Christianity recognizes it as it's own, and even funds it and hosts it in their church buildings. Mainstream Judaism does not recognize it. This isn't a complicated issue. I don't know why inigmatus is trying to make it into one. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"HaDerech" - Leadworthy?

There are many items known as "Haderech". To name a few:

1. Tefillat HeDerech
2. Kfitzas HaDerech
3. Haderech Treatment Center for drugs and sexual abuse

The fact that a some branches of Messianism call themselves HaDerech does not seem to me to be leadworthy, and may be an WP:UNDUE violation. Many of the citations brought in the article itself say nothing about "HaDerech" such as http://rabbiyeshua.com/. I am also uncertain if Harris-Shapiro ever mentions the term, although I do not have access to the book right now. -- Avi (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I know the JC beit din does (its in one of the sources already on the article), as well know that other sources cite Messianic Judaism as "HaDerech" or "The Way." The Way is disambigous, and HaDerech as a disambig doesn't appear necessary yet since so few notable articles could use the same name. I'm up for anything you think would help perfect the lead. inigmatus (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget Kwisatz Haderach. But no, it's not a common term. It's completely unknown except for a few places within the movement itself. This is like putting "Dat Moshe v'Yisrael" in to the lead of the article on Judaism as an alternative name.

Off the derech is a common Jewish term for someone who has left Orthodox Judaism. Derech Hashem is an important and widely studied book by Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto. There's no way MJ is going to co-opt that term like this. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That was from Lisa -- and I concur. This is just going back to all that's problematic with the Messianic movement for mainstream Jews: coopting their own prayer book, telescoping historical and modern movements, term switching, and trying to use jewishese to hide the simple fact that this is a Christian movement that tries to worship in Jewish ways. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

New Intro "Christian funded?"

Why modify a GA Consensus-built intro, BEFORE bringing such a change here to the talk page, for an article that is hotly contested as this? Please explain. And please explain why a wiki admin would do this too, knowing full well the history of this article? What was lacking for months on end when the intro stood just fine without dispute? I do not support the current intro as modified, as it is patently false in its generalistic application to anyone claiming to be a Messianic Jew. My shul is certainly not supported by Christians, nor are those of many many others. If you're going to add a "Christian" disclaimer (sourced of course) to the intro, then please modify the phrase "various groups of Judaism to say " all other groups of Judaism..." and Ill happily provide that "source" too. If you want compromise, that's what's been agreed to for months. We remove "all other" you remove "Christian" since both are technically accurate with sources, and both are technically wrong with sources. Please keep the intro as-is. If it's not broke, don't fix it. And Chag Sameach to all. inigmatus (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, Inigmatus, I don't know why this edit bothers you. Surely you'll admit that the MJ movement receives funds from Christian organizations, even if individual congregations don't. If MJ is a movement, then it's relevant that the movement is Christian funded. If it isn't a movement, but only a scattered collection of individual congregations, then MJ shouldn't be called a movement, and possibly shouldn't have a Wikipedia article at all. Do you see the difference? -LisaLiel (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As an outside observer, I would say that the way this dispute is being handled demonstrates that article improvement has taken a back seat to point of view pushing. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 17:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Inigmatus, to begin with, the version of the intro you keep reverting to isn't the "GA Consensus-built intro" either,[1] so I'm not sure why you keep making this claim. In addition, as pointed out above, the reliable source which makes this statement explicitly is, well, reliable, and quoted in the first footnote. Also, the claim that you are arguing against is a straw man; the source doesn't say that your particular congregation receives funds from Christian organizations, but rather that the movement as a whole does. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please double check your source Jayjg and cite the exact page number and paragraph if possible. I have a friend that has a copy of the book - and it says no such thing at all as what you quote from it. Anyone can also look at page 1 of the Google book you posted and verify that your quote is no where to be found on page 1. Please post proof of your quote, please. inigmatus (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

More misrepresentation

The citations brought in the Scriptural commentary section nearly all agree that the rabbinic commentaries may not be followed where they differ with the messianic scriptures, which they do on various issues including the relevance, let alone the divinity, of Jesus, circumcsision, Shabbos, and things of that nature. It incorrect to characterize them as anything other than sources stating that the Talmud et. al. may have historical significance in messianism, but is not normative. -- Avi (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Even the council source was not represented properly. The operative sentence being "Accepted halakha follows the centrality of the written Torah as the final arbiter and standard for behavior and right living." Which goes against the entire nature and purpose of the Talmud. This was the main battle between the Pharisees and just about everyone else (Sadducees, Essnes, Karaites, Samaritans, etc.) which was how the Oral Law affected the Written Law. -- Avi (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Article Lead

I removed the following two sentences from the lead:

Although Messianic Jews consider themselves to be Jewish,[7] the various streams of Judaism are unanimous in their rejection of Messianism as a form of Judaism.[8][9] Christians and Jews consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Christianity.[10]

In my opinion, these two sentences are the cause of all the edit warring that has been taking place in this article. The reason I removed the material is that the lead is supposed to give a summary of the important aspects of the subject. I do not see anything in the article to suggest that what non-messianic jews think of messianic judaism is an important enough topic to be included in the lead. I do not even see any evidence to suggest that what non-messianic jews think of messianic judaism is notable enough to be included in the article at all.

Because A Sniper reverted my edit without explanation, I am going to re-do it. I'd like to request that the material remain out of the lead while a discussion ensues over its appropriateness here on the talk pages. If an editor is so invested in seeing this stuff in the lead that they choose to undo my edit, then I ask that they at least please explain why they feel the material is so crucial, and addresses the notability of the material to the article, as well as its notability to the lead. Thanks. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 16:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The religious identification of Messianic Judaism is not only notable, but it is quite arguably the most important issue regarding this movement. It is, by both Christian and Jewish assessment, a Christian movement -- which identifies itself by a Jewish name. Further, it attempts to convert Jews, and not Christians. It is funded by Christians and not Jews. Smaller Messianic congregations are hosted by Christian buildings, and not Jewish ones. Although many Jews regard it to be merely a tactic (which in many cases may well be true) there is at least a core of Messianics who believe they are making a more authentic Christianity. If it weren't called Messianic JUDAISM, this wouldn't be an issue. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that, and add that the very title of the article ("Messianic Judaism") would appear to give undue weight to the claim of this group to be a form of Judaism. It is an extraordinary claim, and the fact that not a single Jewish group on earth accepts it is relevant to create a balance. Inigmatus doesn't think the article should carry a disclaimer, but it really should.

Let me try and illustrate the issue. Say I start a group and call it Social Capitalism. And I say that Social Capitalism is about putting removing all capital from individuals and putting it into the hands of society. What I'm describing is, in point of fact, socialism, which is about as far from capitalism as it's possible to get. But using the term Social Capitalism might make it more palatable to people who (a) have a vested interest in seeing themselves as capitalistic and (b) would never want to be called socialists. It's a useful trick, and one which so-called Messianic Jews have been using for a few decades as a ploy to convert Jews to Christianity. I'm using the term "Christianity" to denote someone who views Jesus as a messiah and deity, btw, and not as Inigmatus would have me use it, as someone who views Jesus as a messiah and deity except for Messianic Jews.

If I were to create an article about Social Capitalism, there would first be an issue of notability. If I'd managed to get enough adherents that it was deemed notable, it would certainly be appropriate, in an encyclopedia, to clarify -- in the lead -- that Social Capitalism is not considered a form of capitalism by any economists. Not for the purpose of slamming Social Capitalists and saying, "Ha, ha, you guys aren't really capitalists", but because words, contrary to Humpty Dumpty, have a meaning, and capitalism does not include the possibility of taking all capital away from individuals and giving it to "society". It's not what the word means. Similarly, Judaism does not, according to any Jewish group anywhere, include the possibility of viewing Jesus as a messiah and deity. This was the case before the modern movement calling itself "Messianic Judaism" came into existence, and it hasn't changed since they did. An encyclopedia should not lend itself to being used as a tool to promulgate semantic tricks. So while the article apparently needs to be called "Messianic Judaism" because this is the self-labeling of the group, it needs to present a well sourced caveat in order to avoid being used for that purpose. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Your statement "It's a useful trick, and one which so-called Messianic Jews have been using for a few decades as a ploy to convert Jews to Christianity" is absolutely ridiculous Lisa, and reflects your deeply-held suspicions that Messianic Judaism identifies itself with Judaism for the sake of missionary activity - which is a bunch a bogus hogwash. Those claiming to be "Messianic Jews" may have in fact done so in order to proselytize, but I would hardly call such people Messianic Jewish. In my experience, Messianic Jews are those who make a return to Torah, and by doing so, find that the Messiah is Yeshua of Nazareth, the Word of HaShem - according to the Torah's description of the Word of HaShem; and not by any other qualification. inigmatus (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, that controversy is undoubtedly the most notable thing about the movement. Without the controversy, they would be just another small Christian movement with 100,000 or so members. WP:LEDE states "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." This is quite obviously an extremely important aspect of the article's topic. Please don't remove it again. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur with the above; please do not remove it again. -- Avi (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Amen. This issue is boring - it has been done to death and, as long as we all stick around, we should consider the lede as within proper consensus, crafted from various viewpoints into something factual, neutral and well-written. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

None of you has provided evidence to support your claim that the material questioning the legitimacy of the beliefs of Messianic Jews belongs in the lead. The comparisson to an article on social capitalism is a non-sequitor. Messianic Judaism is a religion, not a political movement. A proper comparisson would be to other articles on religion. There are many of them out there, and not one of them includes questions of the legitimacy of the faithful's beliefs from the perspective of outsiders anywhere in the article at all, let alone in the lead. The reason for this should be obvious. Such a discussion is not relevant to the subject of the article and, where editors try to insert it, the motivation is invariably rooted in POV pushing. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 12:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Look, Mmyotis, if you go back 50 years, there's no such group as "Messianic Judaism". The fact that some people came along and made such a group doesn't mean it's a form of Judaism. If I start making little clay idols and claim that worshipping them is "Idol Worshipping Judaism", it doesn't change the fact that Judaism is opposed to worshipping idols. I can't claim, "Well, I call it Idol Worshipping Judaism", so I have a right to claim that it's a form of Judaism. It's in the name, after all."

As Jayjg said, "that controversy is undoubtedly the most notable thing about the movement". Having the word "Judaism" in the article's title without noting that no Jewish group accepts the claim is POV pushing. More than POV pushing, actually. It's attempting to use Wikipedia as a PR tool for a fringe group pursuing an agenda. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Mmyotis, I'm not sure what evidence you are looking for. This is from the back cover of Stern's Messianic Jewish Manifesto:

• A challenge to...heal the split between the Church and the Jewish people.
• Simultaneously 100% Messianic and 100% Jewish, we reject the "either-or" demanded by many Christians and Jews.

I could bring up more examples -- but that's from the COVER of the book. "Messianic" is just a more prosaic way of saying "Christian". The entire movement sees itself as a challenge to bring Christianity and Judaism together. To hide that fact is to go against it's own stated goals. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry SkyWriter (Tim), but I think there must be some misunderstanding between us. What is your example evidence of? And also, why do you think removing the perspective of non-messianic jews from the lead is equivalent to hiding something that messianic jews believe? Thanks. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 15:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- but I can't play cat and mouse here. Messianic (i.e. Christian) Jews consider themselves both Messianic (i.e. Christian) and Jewish. They give the Christian New Testament Jewish flavors in several translations/paraphrases. They state their purpose to bring Christianity and Judaism together -- not just for themselves, but also for the larger bodies. Claiming identity in two bodies that each reject each other as members calls into question the views of those mainstream bodies themselves. The Messianics raise the issue. If there WERE no difference between Christianity and Judaism then the Messianics would have nothing to say and no purpose to accomplish -- by their own statements. The views of the mainstream bodies, therefore, are absolutely pertinent to the Messianics own stated goals. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Mmyotis, have you read WP:LEDE? Did you review my points? Notable controversies belong in the lede. By the way, regarding "comparison to other articles on religion" you might want to review the ledes of Ahmadiyya, Jehovah's Witnesses, The Way International, Society of St. Pius V, Society of St. Pius X, and Scientology. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's the thing. There is no controversy. Messianic Jews are Christians. They don't claim otherwise, and there is no controversy about that. The controversy lies in your conflating the concept of Jewish identity with the practice of Judaism and attempting to make it appear as if both Christians and Jews have and argument with the claims of Messianic Jews that they, as it says in the lead, "consider themselves to be Jewish". They don't have an argument with that and you have not presented any references that suggest that they do. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 22:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Would that you were right. But there's an MJ called Inigmatus who edits here, and who insists that they are not Christians. And in point of fact, the history of the MJs is primarily one of non-Jews pretending to be Jews, or claiming Jewish identity on the basis of quotes from the Christian Bible that they maintain grant them the identity of Israel by virtue of their belief in Jesus, and using these claims as a missionary tool. While there clearly are MJs who are Jewish, it is false to say that "Messianic Jews are Jewish". Some are; many aren't. Possibly most aren't. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I claim Jewish identity based on stated family identity, on quotes from the Torah, and the Talmud, not the "Christian Bible." You sadly misunderstand Messianic Judaism since you appear to wrestle against strawmen like "on the basis of quotes from the Christian Bible", which makes you look great to others, and perhaps assuages your own passions and ego on the matter, but in reality will make you look ridiculous the more you keep holding to such views. The Chofetz Chaim, may he rest in peace, would turn in his grave at some of the comments you and others keep making about us. inigmatus (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi LisaLiel. Let's focus our comments on the article as it reads today and how it can be improved. Could you please suggest some secondary references which support your contention that Messianic Judaism is comprised "primarily of non-Jews pretending to be Jews, or claiming Jewish identity" so that I may consider their validity? Thanks. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 23:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Mmyotis, we're getting sidetracked. There's a difference to being halakhically Jewish and being religiously so. In an earlier edit I covered that distinction, but Inigmatus wiped it out. In any case, we need to be clear that the religion being represented here is Christianity. In light of the discussion, I've restored the distinction. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I was asked by Mmyotis to comment here.

1. In our discussion, we would do well to avoid the word "pretend". In the article, we should avoid it except in quotations.
2. Even if a WPedian self identifies as a Messianic jew, our discussions here should be about the edits.
3. As I understand it, the really divisive question is not whether MJs are Jews, for essentially all religious groups except themselves thinks they are not. The real problem is whether the MJs are honest about their claim to be Jews, or not. There are good quotes that some Jews consider them dishonest in this regard, and perhaps even that most Jewish groups think this. But I think a charge such as this has to be limited to giving the quotes. Personally, I would find it usual, even viewing it in the most negative light, that some of the believers would be honest in the beliefs. We certainly could not say ourselves editorially that any particular ones, much less all of them, are not sincere. Whether the movement may have originated in a deceitful strategy of conversion is another matter, and must again be done by fair quotation.
4. SkyWriter, you are basically right but the way you express it is confusing. I do not see how any Messianic jew can be halakhically jewish. If they've been baptized as a Christian by their own choice, in any conceivable variant of Christianity, they are no longer jews from any religious perspective at all, especially Halacha. They may once have been halakhically Jewish, but that's another matter. Traditionally, the only way one could cease to be a Jew was to formally convert to another religion (some Orthodox groups now say it can also be done by ceasing Jewish practice and belief, but that's not the traditional view). A Jew (in the usual religious sense, who is halakhically Jewish according to Orthodox Jewish Halaka) may convert to what he calls Messianic Judaism. In this case, messianic Jews consider him a Jew, but other Jews would not. This is distinct from a person who may have been Jewish in some sense not recognized by orthodox law, such as having only a Jewish father, or being converted in a non-Orthodox ceremony, whom M.Jews (along with some Reform Jews) consider a Jew before he joined their group, and alsodistinct from someone not previously a Jew at all. DGG (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Please show me a single reference where the main denominations of Judaism, other than Reform, consider a Jew who has converted to another faith to be a non-Jew, religiously or otherwise. Apostate, yes. Non-Jew, no. As far as I am aware, only Reform has stated a policy that Jews having converted to another religion cease to be Jews, religiously or otherwise. The most logical statement to have in the article is what was there originally: that some MJs consider themselves to be Jewish, whereas all denominations of Judaism consider Messianic Judaism to be Christian. If someone wants to also state that Judaism considers Jews who have converted to be apostate (but Jews nonetheless), it would have to also note the Reform stance, and that begins to get too complicated for the lede. MJs can consider themselves Jews all they want - the point of the article is to articulate that Messianic Judaism is Christian, regardless of its membership. Best, A Sniper (talk) 07:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed halakhically to ethnically, since that would cover 99.99% of the halakhically Jewish individuals I was meaning. I'm not aware of examples of people with an Orthodox conversion who later became Messianics. I suppose it's possible, but probably not significant enough to need to keep the "halakhically" wording. "Ethnically" pretty much covers what I meant. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Halachically speaking, halachically-born Jews who follow any other religion , including Messianism, are considered apostates. While they remian Jewish (in the sense that they can become baalei teshuva and do not need a new conversion ceremony, and that halakha believes that they will have to answer for their actions as Jews in the next world, and not as gentiles) they are treated as non-Jews in the sense that they cannot form a minyan, their cooking is not considered kosher without supervision, etc. -- Avi (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The latter is true for any Jew who doesn't keep Shabbat, though. I'm also a bit stunned at DGG's claims about Jews becoming non-Jews. It can't happen. "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave." Even Aaron Lustiger remains Jewish. I like Tim's use of "ethnically".

Lisa, the Shabbos violation has to be public, as, IIRC, only a Mechalel Shabbos B’Farhesya is in that class (with ovdei Avoda Zara, etc.) There are other violations as well, I agree, but what is germane here is the Avodas Elilim element. -- Avi (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If I may, to not obey the Messiah, the one who has the name of HaShem on him, is to profane the Sabbath. One can't keep Sabbath as long as they are rebelling against him. inigmatus (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That may be true in your religion, Inigmatus, but not in Judaism, since Judaism believes that the eventual messiah is a human, non-divine (chas V'Shalom) flesh-and-blood descendant of the House of David. One cannot rebel against the Messiah in Judaism; only in Christianity is there a concept of a divine Messiah, so you have just proven Lisa and Sky's point. -- Avi (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

We are not dealing in absolute truth on Wikipedia. We are merely dealing with matters of understanding relative to certain groups as those groups document them. Even if you were 100% correct, it's still not Judaism as it is normatively defined. That is, if you are right, then Judaism isn't -- but that still makes your religion something other than Judaism as that term is normatively understood. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Belief in a Messiah is "Normative" Judaism. Belief in a Messiah that can rise from the dead is still "Normative" Judaism. Belief that the Messiah is our tzaddik, the interface between his talmidim and HaShem, is "Normative" Judaism, though certainly more narrowed on the Chassidic approach. Belief that HaShem alone is our Savior, King, and Redeemer is "Normative" Judaism. So then, since Messianic Judaism claims this, and nothing more (though some who claim to be MJs probably do), makes Messianic Judaism a "Normative" Judaism by all definitions when one looks at it honestly and without bias. Somehow believing the Yeshua is the Messiah, and is also the Word of HaShem, is somehow no longer "Normative" Judaism (or not even Judaism according to you), but when the same thing is believed of anyone else in "Normative" Judaism, those groups that cling to this Messiah or that Messiah (Schneerson being the most recent example) that somehow a double-standard is applied, often based on a strawman (idolatrous man-god polytheism) for justification. Messianic Judaism, when its adherents remove the man-god, polytheistic, idolatrous world-view from their walk, fits the definition in most cases of an ultra-orthodox, Chassidic, Jewish sect - one that is still shunned by the majority of Jews, but meets the definition of a "Normative" Judaism to any unbiased examiner.

The claim that we claim Jewish identity in order to proselytize Jews is absolutely bogus, and ignores the primary motivation of anyone joining Messianic Judaism - that of making teshuvah, a return to the Torah as the foundation for all doctrine, halacha, and more. inigmatus (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Inigmatus. Judaism believes in the coming of the scion of the House of David who will start the process of the ingathering of the exiles and the building of the Third Temple. Judaism also believes in the eventual judgement and resurrection of the dead. Whether the two are coterminous is a long-standing argument between various reshonim. NO ONE believes that the Messiah will rise from the dead in Judaism. Whether his soul keeps returning to a new person each generation or whether it remains unfleshed in the Heavens waiting for the proper time is another machlokes, but to say that Judaism believes that the Messiah will rise from the dead is an indication of either gross ignorance or outright disingenuousness. Now as for other religions, such as Christianity, I cannot claim as much knowledge so I will have to defer to my Christian colleagues here on wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Found this: on JPost.com "Messianic Jews believe that Yeshua (Jesus) is their Messiah, but still consider themselves to be Jewish. Jews of other denominations do not consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Judaism, but a form of Christianity." [2]

Seems to me that if one is looking for a Jewish source that says "Jews of other denominations" this is certainly one. As I said, support for wording the lead one way or the other depending on one's POV can be found. This is why we have all compromised on the current lead as-is and it has remained stable for months. Please don't change it from "Although many Messianic Jews are ethnically Jewish,[7] the various streams of Judaism are unanimous in their rejection of Messianism as a form of Judaism.[8][9] Christians and Jews consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Christianity.[10]", or please remove it entirely. As long as this remains, and "Messianic Judaism is a religious movement whose adherents..." then I'm happy, and I hope all of us are happy with the compromise. inigmatus (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It's against Wikipedia policy to compromise with a misleading POV agenda. Sorry. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Does hypocrisy mean anything to you? Why did you delete the changes to the quoted source? The quote as-is is inconsistent with the source, go look at the Google book yourself and prove me wrong. You need to prove your source changes since you appear to be editing it and making the source say something that it is not in order to further your POV agenda. The Shapiro source clearly says:

'"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 supports who adopt a "Jewish lifestyle."

Please don't modify the quoted material in the article. As a side note, since this source says "Jewish/Christian movement" then shouldn't the lead say "Jewish/Christian movement" too? Since you probably find quoting the source as exactly as it states it, offensive, that is why I edited it to say only "Messianic Judaism is a religious movement whose adherents..." If you're going to use the source to prove "Christian movement" then be honest with the source and post "Jewish/Christian movement" or else use the consensus-built NPOV neutral "religious movement" phraseology. inigmatus (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As to why the lead shouldn't match the quote, I've answered it below. It's a fringe source, and while it's legitimate in the subsection on such views, it doesn't belong in the lede. I'd be happy to pull it from the lead altogether, if you like.

And no, a Messiah who rises from the dead is absolutely not Normative Judaism. That's why there's such a huge controversy about Chabad meshichistim. And while I realize that you want to duck the issue of your deification of a human being, it's still an absolute no-go in Judaism, and always will be. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please pull it from the lede then, or else quote the source exactly, but please don't piecemeal a quote to presenting your POV on whether or not MJ is "Christian" or "Jewish." inigmatus (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As I explain more at length above, Lisa is correct. Moshiach Tzidkaynu is never described as being resurrected. He will be a man, born of the natural union of woman and man, who is a scion of the House of David. -- Avi (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Then you have some explaining to do with Gen 3:15 that clearly says he's the seed of the woman, not man; as well as the portion concerning the Sotah and the woman who is promised a seed if she is found not guilty of adultery. But I digress, these discussions don't belong on talk. inigmatus (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, gross. None of that has anything to do with the messiah. The woman suspected of adultery is promised children if she's innocent. Eve's seed is all of mankind. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As we say in Yiddish, oy vey. Genesis 3:15 is talking to Chavah (Eve), the mother of all mankind, so yes we are all her seed, as was Jesus, Muhammad, and Mother Theresa for that matter as well. As for the Sotah, I understand you are completely ignorant as to Judaism's Oral Law, but even a reading of the biblical text Numbers 5:28 is painfully obvious that she will be rewarded for her fidelity with children, not that she will spontaneously conceive. Sheesh. -- Avi (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

More Edit Warring

This edit warring is getting tedious. I'm heading out for a while before I get dragged into it. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

May this Post Be Proof Of My Intent to Reach Out and Dialogue Before Making Changes So That No Administrator Will See That I Am the One Attempting to Honestly Work On the Article, Discuss Its Changes First, And Make Sourced Corrections That Are Being Reverted By You Without Cause, Discussion, Or Dispute:

SkyWriter, just because I make a correction to a source, you assume it's an edit war and revert the changes without reading the changes, nor responding to Talk the reasons the changes were made. You are not showing good faith, and are assuming an edit war when there is none. Why do you keep deleting the correction to the Shapiro source? According to [3], the source clearly says:

"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 supports who adopt a "Jewish lifestyle.""

Tell me, for sake of clarity, and source accuracy, where do you find this exact quote:

"Messianic Judaism is a 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 those same decades. Messianic Jewish congregations comprise those born Jewish who accept Jesus as their Savior, as well as Gentiles who convert to Messianic Judaism. Worldwide the Messianic Jewish Movement can be traced to the London Society for the Promotion of Christianity among the Jews (now The Church's Ministry Among Jewish People), which was founded in 1809 and is the world's oldest extant Jewish Mission. In the United Kingdom there are a number of Messianic Congregations. They fall into 2 "camps". One, the British Messianic Jewish Alliance, is the world's oldest such Alliance, founded 1866. The other is the Union of British Messianic Jewish Congergations.""

Where is that quote found ANYWHERE in the source? Please give me page number as I am not finding it at all, and your modifications to a verified accurate source to one that is made up is nothing short of vandalism. For the record I have posted on your user page very clearly this intent to dialogue with you, and now you won't even answer the charge. [4] - classical avoidance that can only lead me to suspect that you intend to vandalize this document and not deal with the objection. I'm getting a WP:3O on this before correcting the source (and thus the intro) yet again. That way you can't say it's a revert or editing war. inigmatus (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Inigmatus, I made a couple of minor corrections to the quote from Harris's book. As far as I can see, the version you're putting in is correct. However, Harris is one lone Jewish view, and not a widely known, let alone accepted one. She's cited, appropriately, in the "Suggestions of Jewish legitimacy" subsection, but she hardly constitutes a legitimate source for a NPOV claim that MJ is Jewish/Christian. I considered being willing (reluctantly) to compromise on "religious", but I think I prefer "Christian", since it's Christian according to everyone (except for you, and you're using an idiosyncratic definition of Christian). I think that your insistence on removing "Christian" from the lead stems from your definition of "Christian" as believers in JC who aren't MJs. Which is a silly definition, and one which is clearly POV.

Go look at the Christian article. Go look anywhere you like. A believer in JC is Christian. That's what the word means. MJ believes in JC, so it's a Christian group. That's utterly NPOV. Whether it's also a Jewish group or not (it isn't according to any Jewish groups and it isn't according to many other Christian groups, but it is according to itself and some Christian groups) is a matter of dispute. You know where I stand and I know where you stand, and the article needs to present both views. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

MJ is not Christian. I believe changing the intro in order to be honest with the use of the Sharpiro source (or not use it at all), should be "Messianic Judaism is a Jewish/Christian movement..." but I don't think you will agree with that Shapiro phrase being in the intro, thus in which case I ask that for sake of consensus that we agree to just revert the intro phrase to just say "Messianic Judaism is a religious movement" and let the various sections flesh out the details on either POV (and yes, saying it's Christian is POV, and we debate that all day if you like, but I'm not here to do so). We have to compromise, or else this article will never have its end in its conflict. If you want to, we can wait for WP:3O and for other non-aligned editors to comment, but we can avoid that if you respond quickly to this request for consensus. inigmatus (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism is not an independent relgious movement. It is a Christian movement. You're using religious as a weasel word. And your claim that MJ is not Christian goes against plenty of MJ sources. I've already shown Stern in talk above. I really don't know why you want to disinherit other believers in Jesus. You should be proud of your own religion, and not embarrassed by it. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Saying Messianic Judaism is a "religious" movement does not fit the criteria of WP:Weasel, and is in fact more WP:NPOV than saying it's a "Christian movement" or "sect of Judaism" - and this is what I hope WP:3O comments on. MJ is not Christian according to [5], [6], [7], [8], and other sources. inigmatus (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Last post for the day: inigmatus, it's only NOT Christian if you define "Christianity" as "Gentile Messianism that doesn't pretend to be Jewish." Christianity self-defines as believers in Jesus Christ and the New Testament. Judaism self-defines in exclusion of those Christian beliefs. Messianic Judaism believes in Jesus and the New Testament. It doesn't matter that it calls those Yeshua and Brit Chadassa. Those are just jewishese terms for Christian beliefs. Regardless, I'll post some Messianic sources to support that if they are needed (and if they are lacking). But your point is tendentious. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You wrote "Judaism self-defines in exclusion of those Christian beliefs" - for sake of argument, since when logically can a definition of distinction be a negative? The positive definition for Judaism includes the definition for Messianic Judaism. Just saying "Judaism is NOT Messianic Judaism" doesn't define Judaism at all, and you wind up with nothing that positively identifies Judaism. In short, your objection is nonsense. inigmatus (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Inigmatus keeps saying that MJ isn't Christian. I think he should support that claim with sources. I'd like to see a source that defines "Christian" in such a way that MJ isn't Christian. So far, all we have is Inigmatus saying "MJ is not Christian." Which is a bit like saying that water isn't wet, in my opinion. It's an extraordinary claim, and not only are we not being offered extraordinary evidence for it, we're being offered nothing at all but Inigmatus' bald assertion. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As appears to be your habit, you didn't read my post above did you? MJ is not Christian according to [9], [10], [11], [12], and other sources. And do you reall need me to go on a fact-hunt to prove Jewish definitions that Christianity is "pagan," "idolatrous," and "man-god idol worshipping" "Gentile" religion - of which MJ most certainly is not? Obviously believing that Jesus is the Messiah at one point was fully acceptable and "Jewish." Now one can believe anyone else is Messiah (like Bar Kochba, Schneerson, etc.) and still be considered Jewish and within the pale of even "normative Judaism," but the moment one believes Jesus is the Messiah, that's when such people and their religion ceases to be Jewish? What a double standard.inigmatus (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec x3) How about: MJ is a heretical sect, inspired by Christians, directed at Jews. (It's clearly heretical to both Judaism and Christianity.) It's clearly not Judaism, but it might be considered a sect of Judaism in the same way that Islam may be considered a sect of Christianity, and that Christianity may be considered a sect of Judaism. The relationship is not much closer than that.

If we can find sources for the statement, we've got a lede, but it's obviously accurate, unlike most of the versions proposed.

And I did read the above. You have some sources, possibly not reliable, that MJ is not Christian. I'm sure we can all find reliable sources to support the statement it's not Judaism. So we need to describe what it is in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The sources above are themselves not speaking for mainstream Christianity. It's easy to find sources saying that some people think MJ is not Christanity, just as I can find sources that some people think Billy Graham is a heretic. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. First, saying the sources are not "mainstream" certainly is a weasel description. Second, "Messianic Judaism is a religious movement..." has stood the test of time, and has been unchanged as a consensus-agreed-to lede for months if not years. Why change it now? I ask for any third party reading this to comment on this - that "Messianic Judaism is religious movement whose adherents believe..." is a perfectly neutral POV lede that resolves this dispute over whether or not Messianic Judaism actually is either a "sect of Judaism" or "Christian movement" entirely. inigmatus (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No objection to leaving the description as it is. Thanks for 'weasel', that really defused the tension. What I mean of course is that a group is not 'heretical' (or "not Christian") just because one person says so. Plenty of people raise that accusation at plenty of others, and Wikipedia shouldn't take their statements as factual. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Arthur Rubin has a few points, both regarding sources and regarding Messianisms relationship to Christianity and Judaism. Although, I would say that notwithstanding the term "heresy" perhaps being the most accurate, its negative connotation may not be the most encyclopedic, especially for the lead. Inside the article, perhaps is the proper place to describe Messianisms heresy (wiki definition: "Heresy is an introduced change to some system of belief, especially a religion, that conflicts with the previously established canon of that belief.") -- Avi (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If I may interject; There are Messianic Judaic members that follow the first century traditions, there are some who follow later forms, while there are yet modern Messianic's who are in fact Hebrew Christians.

With in Messianic Judaism which is a Sect of Judaism, there are multiple movements. (Sect by wiki definition), There is Hebrew Christianity which is a sect of Christianity, and within both of these are many movements and even sub-denominations.

It is obvious that there are messianists and anti-messianists on wikipedia.

My suggestion is to Revert the lead in to:

Messianic Judaism is a religious sect whose adherents believe that Jesus of Nazareth, whom they call Yeshua, is both the resurrected Jewish Messiah and their Divine Savior.[1][2]

Allowing for claims from mainstream Christianity and from Main stream Judaism to post their objections or opinions. After reasonable discussion in “talk”.

None of you treat the Chabad-Lubavitch sect this way and there are messianists and anti-messianists in that sect as well. As there are many who still claim that Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson (of blessed memory) is the coming messiah. And that fragmentation/split has not hampered the growth of the Chabad movement with in Judaism.

You do not treat Buddist Jews in this manner, nor do you treat secular Jews in this manner.

It seems that one of the biggest overlooked facts is that Christianity as it is known today did not come into being until the 3 and 4^th centuries. Prior to that was Torah Obedient Believers in Yeshua/Jesus.

Like Judaism and Islam, Christianity is classified as an Abrahamic religion (see also Judeo-Christian).[7][8][9] Christianity began as a Jewish sect[10][11] in the eastern Mediterranean, quickly grew in size and influence over a few decades, and by the 4th century had become the dominant religion within the Roman Empire. During the Middle Ages, most of the remainder of Europe was Christianized, with Christians also being a (sometimes large) religious minority in the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of India.[12] Following the Age of Discovery, through missionary work and colonization, Christianity spread to the Americas and the rest of the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

So to be accurate and correct, Messianic Judaism aka HaDerekh/The Way is a sect of an Abrahamic religion, or Judaism. Not a movement as it's actual beginnings date back to the first century. The various groups ie; Karaite, One Law, Two Law, Two House etc are movements.

If this explaination is not good enough then all references to Judaism, Christianity and Islam must also be removed or renamed as movements of religion.

Messianic Judaism predates Christianity as we know it. It's origin is from HaDerekh a direct sect of Judaism.

But in looking at the "dictionary" definition of movement you will see that Messianic Judaism does not qualify as a movement but as a sect as described in wikipedia's own definitions, other wise a serious re-write is in order.

Definition's

A:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sect ;

In the sociology of religion a sect is generally a smaller religious or political group that has broken off from a larger group; for example from a large, well-established religious group, like a denomination, usually due to a dispute about doctrinal matters.

In its historical usage in Christendom the term has a pejorative connotation and refers to a movement committed to heretical beliefs and that often deviated from orthodox practices.[1]

B:

movement n4. A group of people with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals; "he was a charter member of the movement"; "politicians have to respect a mass movement"; "he led the national liberation front".

[http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/movement]

Main Entry: move·mentPronunciation: \ˈmüv-mənt\ Function: noun Date: 14th century 2 a: tendency , trend <detected a movement toward fairer pricing> b: a series of organized activities working toward an objective ; also : an organized effort to promote or attain an end <the civil rights movement>

["movement." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008. Merriam-Webster Online. 16 October 2008 <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/movement>]

Messianic Judaism in general is for all intent and purpose is Orthodox Judaism that believes that Yeshua/Jesus was/is the coming messiah. And with in that sect are various movements ranging from ultra orthodox to Hebraic Christianity. These are facts that can not be denied and if not correctly cataloged on wikipedia, will get cataloged some where else and then later on become the citation and still end up in the Messianic Judaism article on Wikipedia.

So why not work together and not against each other. The lashon hara needs to stop. NoTsuris (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I popped back for a sec... lots of activity here. The lead has been changed again to the weasel "religious movement". Messianism is not a Christian heresy. It's just Christian, period. Granted, there ARE some "compound unity" Messianics who are heretical by Christian standards, but the movement as a whole is purely Evangelical -- with some Jewish words and forms thrown in. I have neither the time nor the patience at the moment to do a 3rr on inigmatus, but I believe he's violated that again with another edit war. Since most of us are taking two days off, it's pointless to press it -- he'd be back before most others are back anyway. In any case, good holiday to everyone. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"Religious movement" is not a weasel phrase by any stretch of the imagination. I'm observing both days since doing so is clearly commanded in Torah, and tradition. Chag Sameach to you too, and I'll see you on the flipside. Perhaps getting away from the article for awhile is what we all need right now. Shalom. inigmatus (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the "religious movement" formulation is probably best for the lead, although any claims that the adherents to the sect are considered Jews or not considered Christians (by Christian theology, if not by the Christian Churchs) should be moved to a contraversy section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) arrived here via 3O, and if I may I'd like to make an alternate suggestion. why not be right upfront and say that they are a movement that tries to unify the Christian and Jewish faiths, rather than trying to pin it into one or the other? something like (copying the current lead, but omitting the references for readability):

Messianic Judaism is a faith that merges Christian and Jewish religious traditions. The central belief of the faith is that Yeshua - a hebrew or aramaic name for Jesus of Nazareth - is both the resurrected Jewish Messiah and the Divine Savior. Its canon draws from Christain and Jewish sources, including the Old and New Testaments and the Torah. Adherents of the faith are primarily ethnic or cultural Jews, but Messianic Judaism is generally considered to be a form of Christianity, from its recognition of Yeshua as divine. As of 1993 there were 160,000 adherents of Messianic Judaism in the United States and 350,000 worldwide. As of 2003, there were at least 150 Messianic synagogues in the U.S. and over 400 worldwide. By 2008, the number of Messianics in the United States was around a quarter million. The number of Messianic Jews in Israel is reported to be anywhere between 6,000 and 15,000 members.

--Ludwigs2 02:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)