Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

An outsider's view

I passed the GA originally, but haven't been following the debate. As I see it, there are two questions:

1. Is MJ Christian?
2. Is MJ Jewish?

The answer to the first question is a resounding "yes" from every quarter. The answer to the second question is much more contentious. Offhand, I'd call MJ a denomination of Christians seeking to follow Jewish religious traditions. That sort of summary emphasizes the undisputed facts--whether MJ's really are Jewish or not is a religious question under dispute, and it should be our effort as Wikipedians to accurately report that controversy through reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

that seems like a very clever wording. I'd support it, and I wish i had thought of it. DGG (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And I. That's a good idea. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, it is deceptive and assumptive. NoTsuris (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Bad form on my part I disagree with Jclemens statement and definition, but that should be painfully aware from my previous comments.NoTsuris (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

We followed you. I was only agreeing that there was deception going on, not with the identity of the deceiver. But I was also granting (after reading 20 pages of Stern's Messianic Jewish Manifesto on the subject) that there could be self deception going on. Look, I think we're all aware that there is a Jewish use of the word "Christian" that often assumes "Gentile Christian". I have a dear friend who STILL makes the mistake of saying "belief in Jesus is okay for Christians, but not for Jews." As always, I correct him by pointing out there are Jews who believe in Jesus. When he restates, he says "belief in Jesus is okay for Gentiles, but not for Jews." Notice the unconscious equation Christian = Gentile. Jewish Messianics seem to have adopted this unconscious connotation with a vengeance and turned it into a deliberate use of the term. Nevertheless, Wikipedia deals with denotations, and not connotations (though they may be noted). By denotation, Messianics are Christians, just as Christ is Greek/English denotation for the Hebrew/English Messiah. To Messianics, the first disciples were Jews. Yeshua isn't Jesus name in Hebrew, but rather Jesus' name, period -- and Jesus is the Hellenized substitute. But the problem is that the NT was written in Greek. Even Peter, that bastion of early "Jewish Christianity" spoke in his letter of people suffering "as a Christian" and not "as a Messianic." We can't deal in theoretical reconstructions built off of unconscious cultural connotations. We have to deal with real definitions. Thus, regardless of the ethnicity of the original Christians, they wrote in Greek and Christian is the word they used even of themselves in their letters -- even the supposedly Jewish leaning ones. Christ is the word they used. Jesus (or rather Iesous) is the name they used. They broke down barriers between Jew and Greek in Galatians 3, etc. etc. We can't throw 2 billion Christians aside just to make a smattering of Messianics more comfortable with their rejected mother faith. If we were to operate that way, it would be utter editorial chaos -- because Jehovah's Witnesses believe they are the only Christians and that 2 billion others aren't. And that is just one more of many many other fringe groups -- like yours -- who want to push history and a third of the population around. Even if those 2 billion Christians are wrong, and 15 million Jews are wrong too -- we can't push them all aside. We have to work with normative frames of reference, and not create some kind of truth that suits your fancy. To do so would be confusing, deceptive, and assumptive. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining what you see as deceptive and/or assumptive about it? Do you disagree with the fact that there is a controversy over whether MJ is Jewish? Do you disagree with the fact that there is no controversy over whether MJ is Christian? If we're going to reach some sort of consensus, it would be helpful if you could explain your objections. Maybe you've noticed something that no one else has. -LisaLiel (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree that Messianism is deceptive and assumptive, is it so even to itself? There are plenty of sources out there that would assert so, but would this belong in the article? Here's the rub, and Inigmatus is demonstrating it here: although Messianics grant that they believe in Jesus and the New Testament, they reject the Greek synonym "Christian" by inverting set and superset. Instead of seeing themselves as a denomination of Christianity, they instead believe that Christianity is a Gentile denomination of Messianism. To give an example: all Orthodox Jews are Jews, but not all Jews are Orthodox. Or another, all Southern Baptists are Christians, but not all Christians are Southern Baptists. Messianics don't believe they are Christians, but they DO believe that Christians are part of the Messianic superset. I think it may be helpful and encyclopedic to document the self deception being practiced in this very talk page, because it is a universal experience in dealing with this group. It may take some research, however. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

While it may make a good thesis for someone studying Messianism, it would be an original research violation to use anything gleaned from editor actions on this talkpage in the article itself, regardless of how true it may be. However, if you find the above thesis in a reliable and verifiable source, then it would be an appropriate addition to the article. -- Avi (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Avi -- that's 101 -- hence my "it may take some research." I have no intention of turning Wikipedia into a thesis. However, if disruptive editor actions bring something to our attention, it may be something that is documented elsewhere. That was my only point. In other words -- we Wikipedia editors can't be the only people who've noticed this. Maybe someone else has -- someone who's reliable and verifiable. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Back on topic, I too would find Jclemens's wording acceptable. -- Avi (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we end the war and move on to Improve this article?

Thank you Arthur Rubin and Ludwigs2 As that is basically what I had suggested above. My objection is that I believe religious sect is a more accurate rendering, (references above to wiki citation, posted previously).

It seems that the lead for the Messianic Judaism Portal is fine and untouched for over a year with no edit warring and it states clearly what needs stated here, and basically was the same lead used when nominated for GA. If it comes under edit war attack it will prove that, that attack and these here were deliberate sabotage and vandalism due to bias.

Messianic Judaism

And previous dismissal of inigmatus inclusion of Rabban Gamliel II's commentary in the Siddur By Avraham is ludicrous, one as it was not a matter of WP:OR or, WP:SYNTH , nor was there an attempt to string multiple sources together to make a single verifiable reference, as the Siddur was not penned by him, so in the case listed it was 1) a verifiable source, and 2) the content used was verified by a second source already on wikipedia roughly stating the same thing inigmatus stated is located here Minuth and it qualified under WP:BURDEN and Wikipedia:Verifiability , per wiki policy just because one does not agree with the source does not make it open season for removal.

There is a serious double standard in place here. So if the Orthodox/Judaism folks want to post objections or the Christianity folks, let them post them Under Controversies. And leave the rest alone. If either has an issue with it let it be in there.

Now as for the lead;

A) 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]

Compare the suggestion above and the current lead to the revision which at the time was acceptable B) (Revision as of 2008-05-05T12:26:53 ) by Avraham (Talk | contribs). Now Avraham (Talk | contribs), if that is not acceptable now, then it was not acceptable when you reverted to it on 2008-05-05. And evidently you all agreed to that revision. From what I can gather from the talk and reverts. You can not have it both ways. Settle for one of the two suggestions above ie A) or back to the revert B) Then if there are any controversies then place them in the appropriate areas. As exampled below in (Controversy (With out lashon hara of course.) )

NoTsuris (talk) 20:30, October 22, 2008 (UTC)

I personally would like to see just one quote from a Messianic Jewish source that claims it is a Christian movement. inigmatus (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that should be necessary, really. If someone says "I believe that all sources of production should be in the hands of the government, but I'm not a socialist; I'm a capitalist," the claim might be notable, but it would still be correct to state that they're socialist. If someone says, "I'm attracted only to members of the same sex, but I'm heterosexual", the claim might be notable, but it would still be correct to state that they're homosexual. If someone says, "I believe that Jesus was the messiah and deity, but I'm not a Christian", the claim might be notable, but it would still be correct that state that they're Christian.

Tim has pointed out, in exhaustive detail, that your attempts (you and NoTsuris, if you are two different people) to claim that Christianity is merely an offshoot of Messianism and that you're the "pure Messianism" that they broke off from is baseless. Again, if there are a lot of MJs who make that claim, the claim might be notable. If it's just you and a possible sock puppet, it isn't. But either way, there is no non-fringe definition of "Christian" that does not include MJ. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you I am no sock puppet of anyone, contact some one to check the ip log. NoTsuris (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Controversy (discussed respectfully)

Jewish Objections - Opinions

In general Judaism rejects Messianic Judaism as a valid sect or movement. State reasons. (placed for effect/example ONLY)

Christian Objections - Opinions

In general Christianity agrees in principal with the views of the Messiah while rejecting Torah Obedience and/or any Judaic traditions. (placed for effect/example ONLY)

It is not a violation of wiki policies to show opposing views of any topic. It is a violation of wiki policy to vandalize or sabotage an article just because we/you do not agree with it. So with that said, Would it be too much to ask that everyone at least attempt to try and get along. NoTsuris (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

there is nothing unsigned from "Can we end the war and move on to Improve this article?" to here. It is one post. NoTsuris (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As there is a subsection that breaks the flow, it is prudent to sign the first section, I have removed the unsigned template as it seems to have bothered you. -- Avi (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No I assumed editors would understand the "Controversy (With out lashon hara of course.)" was an example. Stupid of me to assume that after reading miles of reverts and talk. Thanks no bother nor offense was taken. NoTsuris (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(<-) NoTsuris, please review the Halachos of Lashon Hara. Lashon Hara is not forbidden regarding apikorsim, which Messianics are according to all denominations of Judaism. Note, the Halacha is clear that one should not denigrate anyone unnecessarily, but to prevent the spread of heresy and apikorsus, Lashon Hara is allowed. to protect the community against the influence of what is deemed heretical. Therefore, while no one is suggesting that Jews or Christians call Messianics names or excoriate them unnecessarily, and vice versa of course, to claim that there is an inyan of Lashon Hara here is incorrect accroding to halacha. I do not know what the Messianic religious practice counterpart is, so I am not able to state if the converse is true. -- Avi (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the halacha is pretty restrictive on who is called an apikorus, and one must act on the side of assuming that a person is not and apikorus, but a publicly proclaimed believer in Jesus is pretty much an iron-clad example, I believe. -- Avi (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, hello? This is Wikipedia. The categories of lashon hara and apikorsut aren't relevant to this article. In my opinion, NoTsuris is raising these issues to draw you into a discussion of Jewish law so that he can later on claim that you're editing based on Jewish law and not on Wikipedia principles. Please don't fall into his trap.

But for the record, a Jew who publically professes belief in Jesus is not an apikorus; he's a meshumad and an oved avodah zarah. He should only wish he was an apikorus. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct. By disregarding the Oral Law, Messianics would classify as apikorsum, and by worshipping Jesus they would be classified as meshumadim. But this is irrelevant to the article, except, perhaps, under the "Jewish objections" section. -- Avi (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

So like me and the majority of other Messianics who keep the Oral Law, we are not heretics at all. inigmatus (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No, according to Halacha you are disregarding the Oral Law by believing that Jesus is divine. So implicit in the apostasy is the dispensation with the Oral Law, and moreover, by trying to couch it in terms of Judaism, there may be the inyan of Maysis U'Maydiach. However, this is neither the venue nor the time to discuss Judaism's view of Messianism, this is the venue and time to discuss this particular article. In both the Jewish objections and External links:Criticism sections, you can find better expositions than I can offer. -- Avi (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't claim Jesus is divine. I believe he is the Word of HaShem, and thus the Messiah. Does that make him divine, and thus place me outside of Oral Torah? inigmatus (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, inigmatus, this is not the time or place for this discussion. -- Avi (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Avi, your use of apikorus (heretic) towards Messianic editors could almost be construed as an ad homenim. Surely you would expect us not to call you apikorus and say Lashon Hara against you, now would you? Such would not be constructive to any dialog on this article, and if you feel you must bad mouth us in talk since you believe we're heretics, then you've shown your true reasons for being here. inigmatus (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Inigmatus, I really do not care what you call me, as long as you abide by wikipedia principles and guidelines, as I do. I was merely correcting a factual error on NoTsuris's part. Furthermore, it is not an ad hominem attack to repeat what is already well-sourced in the article as well as all over that Judaism views Messianism as a heresy and a form of Christianity. If that makes you uncomfortable, I apologize, but that is not an opinion, but a fact. Perhaps Messianism views Judaism as a heresy, and views all Jews, of which I am one, as apostates too. So be it. Your and my personal views are irrelevant here; it is wikipedia policy and guideline which governs. Please recall that. -- Avi (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I said. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Inigmatus, or NoTsuris -- I'm not sure who I'm answering any more... it is not insulting to state that by a certain group's designation another group has a certain status. As Avi pointed out, Messianics regard Jews as unsaved, and Jews regard Messianics as being outside of their preferred state as well. It's a simple matter of recognition of groups and their self definitions. That said, if Messianism is Judaism, then Judaism isn't Judaism, and thus the problem. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Messianic Objections - Opinions

Currently I do not know of a single Messianic Jewish source that claims it is a "Christian movement." Please post a citation that says such. Or else the current "Christian movement" citation is dishonest with the source currently quoted since the source itself says Messianic Judaism is a "Jewish/Christian movement." If we must, I will bring this up with WP:MEDCAB. In the meantime, the lede should say "religious movement" until a more neutral cite can be quoted (and it appears other editors are in agreement with the lede saying "religious movement" for now anyways). I would be happy with just one Messianic Jewish citation that claims it is only a Christian movement. I do not view this request as unreasonable or protracting any "edit war" but simply a request for solid facts. I would think what a Messianic says about themselves should have some weight in the lede if other editors feel it should include some sort of "Christian" disclaimer for 'unsuspecting vulerable Jews who need to know it's Christian and not Jewish' (which if you look at the article's history, a "Christian" disclaimer by the non-messianic Jewish editing community has been desired since almost this article's foundation). We need to work on consensus-building, not POV pushing, and "religious movement" is the most NPOV of all ledes that have stood the test of time - and I do not recommend changing away from it. Or else to stay true to the cited source, it must say "Jewish/Christian movement." inigmatus (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that "Jewish/Christian" is possibly better wording for our lead. We've stayed with "religious movement" for a long time as being the best compromise, but it's a little vague (it could include Buddhism). It has the advantage that it's an explicit quote from the reference. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that should be necessary, really. If someone says "I believe that all sources of production should be in the hands of the government, but I'm not a socialist; I'm a capitalist," the claim might be notable, but it would still be correct to state that they're socialist. If someone says, "I'm attracted only to members of the same sex, but I'm heterosexual", the claim might be notable, but it would still be correct to state that they're homosexual. If someone says, "I believe that Jesus was the messiah and deity, but I'm not a Christian", the claim might be notable, but it would still be correct that state that they're Christian.

Tim has pointed out, in exhaustive detail, that Inigmatus' and NoTsuris' attempts to claim that Christianity is merely an offshoot of Messianism and that MJ the "pure Messianism" that they broke off from is baseless. Again, if there are a lot of MJs who make that claim, the claim might be notable. If it's just Inigmatus and NoTsuris, it isn't. But either way, there is no non-fringe definition of "Christian" that does not include MJ.

If the issue is the phrasing in the reference, then perhaps the reference needs to be removed. To repeat, MJ is Christian by all non-fringe definitions of "Christian". MJ does claim to believe in Jesus as messiah and deity, and that's called "Christian". It's "Jewishness" is a matter of major controversy, and is rejected completely by all Jewish groups. So it hardly belongs in the lead. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, you said "Again, if there are a lot of MJs who make that claim, the claim might be notable" - so then why can't you find just one Messianic Jewish source that says it's a "Christian movement" and not a "Jewish/Christian movement?" And why in Early Christianity does it say that Christianity arose out of the "Jewish sect" that made up the followers of Jesus? So then when MJ claims to be this same "Jewish sect" in beliefs and practice, then why do you find it so difficult to accept that? Even if one accepts your version of logic, in that Christianity came from the "sect of Judaism" and later modern MJ came from Christianity, then the reasoning is still sound that MJ came out of Early Christianity that was called a "sect of Judaism" and the MJ claim is thus still valid as claiming to be a sect of Judaism - even more so when it can trace its root directly to it (even if it has to go through "Christianity" to do it)! It's as if Christianity became an apostate form of the "Jewish sect" of Jesus-believers, and then today's modern MJ movement made teshuvah, and now is no longer apostate since it has returned to to the non-apostate form of the "Jewish sect" of Jesus-believers. inigmatus (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Christianity came out of an early Jewish sect. Which no longer exists. The fact that you and yours claim to have reestablished it doesn't make it so. It means that you look to it as a model. It didn't exist for the better part of two thousand years. You aren't them. You're something new that models itself on them. If someone starts worshipping Ashur and Ninhursag, they aren't actually Ancient Assyrians and Sumerians; they're people copying what they believe to have been the ways of the ancient Assyrians and Sumerians. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, Lisa, your "non-fringe definitions of Christian" would make the Mormons Christian. inigmatus (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that should matter. As a matter of fact, I believe that Mormons do identify as Christian. But I don't actually care all that much whether they are or not. If I was editing a page where that was relevant, I suppose I'd have to look at the sources and see what's what. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints claims to be Christian. Other, self-proclaimed orthodox Christians dispute this claim on particular religious grounds. How is this different from the issues with Messianic Judaism? Jclemens (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't have a position on it. But I don't see why it should matter here. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Your demand is unreasonable. There are no Jehovah's Witness texts that state they are NOT Christian. But they cannot rationally be labelled a Christian group because of that self deception. We have to deal with normative definitions, not fringe claims. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I would posit to the non-Messianic Jewish editors on this article that they have a choice to agree and move consensus forward: either "religious movement" or "Jewish/Christian movement." I know No Tsuris would have it say "sect" but that's a discussion perhaps for another time. So which is it, Lisa, Avi, and SkyWriter? Which do you prefer if given only those two options: "religious movement," or "Jewish/Christian movement" ? inigmatus (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither. It isn't a Jewish movement. Judaism doesn't sponsor it or accept it. It is a Christian movement, both sponsored and accepted by Christians. Neither is it a sect. It is firmly within the theological grouping of Christianity -- with the exception of the "compound unity" heretics. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, given those choices, I'd go with "religious". But I'm not convinced that those are the only legitimate choices. All you have as a basis for claiming that MJ isn't Christian is the very idiosyncratic views of yourself and NoTsuris. Everyone else in the world defines believers in JC as messiah and deity as "Christian". Since MJ fits that definition, it seems to me that not stating that MJ is Christian -- in the lead -- is highly POV.

In the past, you've posted really poor references to back up your position. A book called "Messianic Judaism is Not Christian" is actually an argument against the MJ position that they are Christian. And in fact, if you look at the cover of the book, which is posted here, you can see that it says "Some Messianic Jews Say, 'Messianic Judaism is Not Christianity'." In other words, the source Inigmatus wants to bring is a Christian opponent of MJ, who states that some MJs say MJ isn't Christianity. And this is supposed to be a reliable source for Wikipedia to say that MJ isn't Christianity? -LisaLiel (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Obviously, given those choices, I'd go with "religious"." Then why not end this dispute with that alone? This has been the lede for over a year. Why change it now and cause this whole dispute by forcing your POV on the matter? The currently cited source says "Jewish/Christian movement" not just "Christian movement" and as such is dishonest with the source. inigmatus (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't agree that those are the only choices. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I posted in agreement with DJ Clayworth suggestion earlier, it is a compromise that is acceptable in my opinion. NoTsuris (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead length?

Per WP:LEAD, an article of this size should have a lead of "3 or 4" paragraphs. As of now, there are about 2.5 paragraphs--barely adequate for GA requirements. Would it help reach consensus if we used a bit more of the allowable lead space to cover the controversies? Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the shorter lede which only had "religious movement" satisfied all parties for well over a year, with the various sections designed to flesh out differences. As I keep saying in so many different ways, if it wasn't broke, why attempt to fix it and cause more controversy? A shorter lede and "religious movement" were just fine - and as noted above by Lisa and others, it's agreeable to all parties. inigmatus (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Religious movement is absolutely NOT agreeable to all parties. It is not an independent movement, but a Christian one. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's agreeable to Lisa. inigmatus (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Par for the course, Inigmatus. Why should we trust your use of sources when you can't even cite someone here on Wikipedia correctly? I said that given the false dichotomy you set up, I preferred "religious" to "Jewish/Christian". But I also said that I reject your false dichotomy. So no, it isn't agreeable to me.

And not for nothing, but why do you insist on calling the lead a "lede"? There's no such word. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Lisa, there is. Please see Lede_(news)#Terms and structure. -- Avi (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks, Avi. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A pleasure -- Avi (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Once again I'm a bit unclear where we are after a flurry of activity. Does anyone have an idea what the closest thing to a consensus here is? I think it's fair to say that Messianics object to the term "Christian," which basically everyone else sees them as. They don't have an objection to the term "Messianic" which seems practically synonymous. Other than that... I'm up to my eyeballs right now in NT Greek variant edits (offline), and am so unsure of what the consensus is supposed to be that I'm a bit afraid to edit. Can we make a catalogue of what people want and what readers need? It's self apparent that Messianic Judaism fits the parameters of Christianity and violates the parameters of Judaism as expressed in those articles. It's also painfully apparent that Messianics object to terms drawn from the Greek of the New Testament, like Christ, Christian, Jesus, etc. It would be easier if the thing had been written in Hebrew, but that's another subject. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

JerusalemCouncil.org - a reliable source?

Why does this article cite material to http://jerusalemcouncil.org/ ? It appears to be a personal bulletin board. How does it satisfy WP:V? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't think so. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Any reason why these cites, and the material they support, shouldn't be removed? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Good faith. The material cited to this Jerusalem Council isn't unreasonable, and could probably be re-cited to another source. I agree that this source in particular should probably go based on a cursory examination of the site, but the material should stay for a week or so with a tag until (and if) it can be re-cited. No point in immediately stripping out a lot of work because of one questionable source, especially when the material isn't really very contestable from within MJ.

If it can't be re-cited within a reasonable amount of time, though, the material should go. Daniel^C/_T+ 11:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

On second examination, it seems like most of the in-article references explicitly mention the cited positions as being associated with this Jerusalem Council organization rather than with MJ as a whole. This may indicate that an expanded section under "Organizations" would be appropriate with all of the relevant information moved there, rather than being referenced from sections discussing the MJ movement.

If that was done the references could be kept, as they are official statements from the described organization. Otherwise they should probably be removed from the main article straight away as they constitute statements from an independent body that isn't necessarily representative. Daniel^C/_T+ 15:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's the most represented organization I know of within MJ - in that it is inclusive of Messianics from all divisions, however it does lean heavily on what might be called an "orthodox Messianic" bent in its writings and decisions. I think the references should be kept since they are the clearest statements from any Messianic organization concerning various topics found within the article. inigmatus (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

How can the statements on it represent "official statements from the described organization"? It's still just a personal bulletin board, as far as I can tell. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(<-)We would need a reliable and verifable source showing how this group is representative (I'm sorry, Inigmatus, but our own opinions are almost always considered WP:OR), otherwise, I think Dbratton's idea is OK, in that it can be described as an organization, but care must be taken not to give undue weight to any one organization above and beyond its status in the real world. -- Avi (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to compile a list of notable authors in the movement. Although I've given a lot of my Messianic books away, I still have some of David Stern's writings. He's technically self published, but accepted by Christians/Messianics as representative of the movement. He gives 20 pages in his manifesto explaining why Messianics don't like Greek based terms like "Christian" or "Jesus". Zola Levitt is more Hebrew Christian, I think. But those two writers are well known and accessibly written. Some of the other writers are too argumentative to be well appreciated in the market. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Classification in reliable sources

How do the most reliable and objective sources, especially textbooks and other academic works, classify Messianic Judaism? Please avoid arguments based on deductive logic, self-identification, partisan sources, or so on and focus exclusively on what is explicitly stated by "top shelf"/academic works. Vassyana (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Top shelf academic works generally ignore Messianic Judaism because their beliefs do not differ from Christianity. The academic works are not concerned with terms, but meanings. The terms are simply ethnically tilted, Church/Assembly/Iglesia would be the Generic/Messianic/Hispanic terms, for instance. "Jesus" is also pronounced differently whether the group is Generic (Jesus)/Messianic (Yeshua)/Hispanic (whatever "Hesous" is spelled like in Spanish). Academics don't care about non-differences. There are too many real differences in the world. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Top shelf works which cite Early Christianity would classify it as a sect of Judaism - and it is this group that Messianic Judaism aligns itself with more than today's Christianity. inigmatus (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Top shelf works do cite Early Christianity as a sect which came from Judaism. But "of Judaism" would require a redefinition of Judaism itself. Not impossible for an individual work to do, but not allowable for us by NPOV standards. I think, instead, we should agree on which works we would all accept, since top shelf can only apply to Messianics via the synthesis that Inigmatus is practicing above. The movement is too fringe in numbers and too mainstream in Christian beliefs to qualify for top shelf notice, but there are plenty of good works available. Also, I think it would be helpful to list everything we DO agree on so that we can limit the scope of the discussion to those areas we do NOT agree on. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Inigmatus, I think it's important that we avoid such arguments. I doubt the editors of this article would agree applying the same standard to other articles. For example, I doubt the editors here would agree with the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, and/or Christadelphians articles classifying their subjects as "primitive" or "original" Christianity, despite those groups claims to such a classification. Vassyana (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Torah-observant Sabbath-keeping Christianity has been well documented throughout the centuries, even in top-shelf works, and the claims of JWs, LDS, and Christadelphians to being related to early Christianity fall completely in light of this definition of top-shelf definition of early Christianity being Torah-observant, and Sabbath-keeping. Certainly we see well-documented top-shelf cited anathemas against such Torah-observant and Sabbath-keeping Christian groups in every single century to the present day, and it is to this heritage that Messianic Judaism claims relation to, not some fabricated jump of 2000 years of Christian mainstream tradition which JWs, the LDS, and Christadelphians have to invent from scratch or pretend the truth was somehow "lost" in order to justify their "restored" position. MJ claims no such "restoration" other than Torah observance - and this practice has been around and taught by various and scattered Christian groups for centuries. Only in the 20th has the advent of communications brought many of us together on the same platform in order for our message to be recognized. That is why MJ is currently the most fractured of all Christian and Jewish denominations - we each started out doing our own thing, only to realize others think the same as we do, and some band together to form cliques. Eventually we will become more unified, but one unifying constant has always remained from the 1st Century to today: Torah observance and Sabbath-keeping, and belief that Yeshua (Jesus) is the Messiah. It is this universal constant and definition that is undeniable in history which links us all directly to "Early Christianity" a "sect of Judaism." We don't have to invent anything to get from point A to B. It already exists in your top-shelf textbooks. There is no WP:OR. The facts speak for themselves. That wikipedia MJ representation is practically nill, doesn't help in the general presentation of the facts, and conclusions are made before facts are even presented - so far as to push a "Christian" disclaimer agenda on the Messianic Judaism article (a label that for a Jew means "idolater" and that MJs worship Jesus as God (which is not true - we believe Yeshua is the Word of HaShem and is our tzaddik (righteous one between us and HaShem), which is a BIG difference than Christianity that believes he is God existing somehow as a trinity - on this alone we can not rightly be called "Christian" any more than Hassidic Judaism can be called Christian for believing their tzaddik is their interface between God and man)). There is no blurring of the lines. This is the hard and cold fact. That some here would have you conclude beforehand other wise, is actually the real work of blurring the lines (between MJ and Christianity) - something that should be opposed, and this article made more NPOV by removing such a POV statement from the very intro line "MJ is a Christian..." when it has no basis in the fact that it is intended (and later explained falsely in a later paragraph that MJ's believe Jesus is God). inigmatus (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Aside: It certainly seems odd to me, at least, to define your movement's heritage as the quality of being rejected by others. (you wrote: "Certainly we see well-documented top-shelf cited anathemas against such Torah-observant and Sabbath-keeping Christian groups in every single century to the present day, and it is to this heritage that Messianic Judaism claims relation to ...") --Rpresser 19:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Being rejected by traditional Christianity is the proof point we're making in showing that the intro statement "Messianic Judaism is a Christian movement" is NPOV at best, utterly false at worst. That our heritage is of the quality of those rejected by others is not new to any Jew on the face of the earth. inigmatus (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This from David Stern's "Jewish New Testament Commentary" (Stern is essential reading for internal Messianic beliefs): John 1:1 "The Tanakh lays the groundwork for Yochanan's statement that the Word was with God and was God. In v. 14 we learn that this Word is Yeshua the Messiah himself...We learn in these verses that the Word was not a created being, as the fourth-century heretic Arius taught and as Jehovah's Witnesses teach today." In Stern's "Messianic Jewish Manifesto" he teaches the standard Christian belief as a Messianic belief: that Yeshua is both human and God, cf. pp 64-65, 68-69, 92, 94, 107. This is just standard Christian doctrine. It is also Messianic belief, according to Stern in both these works. You can't make up a fantasy religion and call it Messianic. You have to go by established sources, which is the subject of this thread. I've offered Stern's writings. I would also suggest the MJAA website. And you? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I could cite FFOZ, and their magazine article on "Christology" which clearly says that to make the leap to call Yeshua as God is outside the bounds of scripture which limits describing Yeshua the Word of God, no matter how dogmatic one may wish to be about calling Yeshua, God. I could also cite JerusalemCouncil.org, which subscribes to the FFOZ position on the matter as well. I could also cite CTOMC, and various other smaller organization and congregational websites belief statements as well. Stern may be required reading for having laid the groundwork for the modern revival of Messianic Judaism, however his work is not representative of all Messianic Jewish views and perspectives, especially since his work was published decades ago, and you can contact Stern today and ask him if he holds to some of the views he published in his book (which he will tell you no). It is obvious that there are those claiming to be Messianic Jews, and that there are those that are actually Messianic Jews. Perhaps this article needs to clarify the difference. (In fact, I've been contacted by numerous Messianics asking why they still want to associate with MJism when the term has been hijacked by Jews for Jesus and anti-Torah and anti-Rabbinic Christians). Heh, perhaps a new article called Torah-Observant Halakha-Keeping Orthodox Non-Trinitarian Non-Idolworshipping Non-Pagan Pro-Rabbinic Pro-Hassidic Messianic Judaism is needed. Oh wait, maybe we should just stick with Hassidic Judaism then... maybe I should do what others have done and just label myself a Hassidic Jew. Thank you Tim and others for showing me and others just how much we are not a part of Messianic Judaism (is a Christian movement). inigmatus (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I know of no normative Messianic organizations that deny John 1:1 applies to Jesus. I just did a cursory look on the net for belief statements of Messianic congregations, and the ones I find do affirm the deity of Christ. I'm starting to think that you're not a Messianic, but an Arian of some sort. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Diety? No. God? No. Word of HaShem, and the Word became flesh, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God? Yes. I don't see a contradiction in terms as some do. Good shabbos. I'll pick this up after Shabbat. inigmatus (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, before shabbat I did a simple web search for Messianic beliefs. The sites I found at random agreed with the reliable sources that I have. Even though my reliable sources are 5-15 years old, they agree with the current sites, and they teach Christian doctrines. Now, if you are NOT a Messianic but something else, fine. But don't try to misrepresent Messianism here. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that Wikipedia is not about ultimate "truth." We are merely documenting here, not inventing. And we aren't trying to document the "best" but rather the more common. Let's say that you have discovered the one and only true faith. Fine. You still aren't representing EXISTING ones, like Christianity/Messianism. Your spins are more fringe than anything else. On an ultimate truth level, fringe is fine. That's how the human race advances. Something starts off as fringe and then is tried, test, reviewed, etc. Over time it spreads -- and as it does so it falls under the scope of Wikipedia. But until then, we're stuck with standard Messianic views, which are entirely Christian with a specific ethnic appeal. Do they want to be called by a Greek based term? No. They want a Hebraic synonym. Fine. It's still a synonym. We need to stick with reliable and verifiable sources for the most mainstream (i.e. notable) views and terms. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There are MJs who do not make the claim that Jesus is God, but is divine (HaShem). The problem with the article is that it needs to be inclusive of even those "fringe" groups (since they aren't fringe enough to be not notable) - at least in the introduction, and only share that which is truly shared by all who claim to be "Messianic Jews" - namely that it's a "religious movement whose adherents believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah" - that much at least everyone (including MJs of various doctrines) agree on. Let the individual sections then flesh out what is and is not believed by various groups within MJism. inigmatus (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You've not yet given me any indication that Messianics as a movement reject John 1:1's application to Jesus. My notable and reliable sources say it does apply. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, what does it mean "not God, but divine"? That's an oxymoron, unless they're talking about outright polytheism, in which case it certainly goes without saying that it's not Judaism in any way.

And no, Inigmatus, it does not need to be inclusive of such fringe groups. MJ is just barely notable itself. You're trying to use it as a gateway to include fringe notions that most certainly are not notable. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Stereotypical, not accurate!

This article only describes the beliefs and practices of one or two sects of Messianics. It would be like an article on Christianity only describing Catholic and Protestant information and none of the smaller groups. Some Messianics, myself included do not believe in the deity of Yeshua, nor do they consider themselves to be Christians. There are varying views on rabbinical authority, Torah observance and ritual practice. I think it ought to be clear about the groups it is describing or to include the beliefs of the smaller sects as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.165.177.237 (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I think that this article pushes the stereoptypical Messianic "Christian" viewpoint far too much, with non-Messianic Jewish editors insisting on labeling it (and thus all Messianics) as Christian. Please bring your case to the MEDCAB dispute, we could use anything you could bring to the table - see top of this talk page for the link. inigmatus (talk)

History

I also think the article could give more information on the history of the MJs. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! Indeed, that would answer many questions, in a practical way, that might be obscured by current, more theoretical treatment. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

We could go back to the beginning of it -- the journal of Bonar and McCheyne's "Mission of Inquiry" in 1839. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow! That sounds good. Independent sources can confirm that's more or less the beginning, in more or less most people's point of view? ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream Christian views

I think a bit more should be given in the article on the views of mainstream Christians toward Messianic Jews. For instance the section about Saint Paul doesn't present the mainstream Christian view.Steve Dufour (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It probably doesn't even represent the mainstream Messianic view. It's unsourced original research, that mostly reflects the views of the author of that section. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Is that the Jewish Paul section? It certainly could do with sourcing, but it doesn't look outlandish to me. Perhaps the contributer who provided it would welcome others refining it.

I do like Steve's idea of providing some sourced opinions from mainstream Christianity. A quality Catholic source would be helpful, and possibly slightly different to any of a range of representative Protestant views. I would guess three main Christian views could be located.

1. Catholic: MJ is Christian but not Catholic.
2. Prot-A: MJ is authentic Protestant Christianity.
3. Prot-B: some MJ is more "Catholic" than Protestant.

Can't see those views treading on any toes, and it would help take pressure off the "them-and-us" official Judaism v MJ kind of thing. Good thinking, Steve, imo. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Alastair -- I'm agreed on your points, and I think you were right to leave out Eastern Orthodox. Messianic Judaism is a Western Christian (Protestant) phenomenon. The Eastern Christians won't find this worth noting. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Tim, and you guessed correctly, I was quite deliberate in leaving out Orthodoxy. It is simply not an issue, sources would be hard (or impossible) to find, definitely if we're restricted to English language. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know no Christian has said that MJ is Jewish. However most Christians would not consider them to be mainstream Christians, but maybe part of the Christian family, along with Mormans and some other groups. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if asking the right questions might help with this. For example, "Why do Christians think Messianic Jews organise their own independent organisations, separate from others?" The answer to that question might be the same, whoever asks it—"legal" Jew, Orthodox Christian, neutral commentator, or extreme Christian cult member.

If it's any help, my old New Testament lecturer, a Presbyterian minister, is married to a Christian lady of Jewish background. She's a Presbyterian, not a Messianic Jew, but in casual conversation, she, her husband, other lecturers and students use language implying the belief that she is both Christian and Jewish from different perspectives. At the very least, these same people would (and I've heard some express) the belief that Messianic Jews are exactly the same, only differing in that they belong to a denomination, namely Messianic Judaism, that is not Presbyterian—Scots not being known for a large, indigenous Jewish population. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer to the question of why they form independent organizations is they do not believe the same as mainstream Christians. That is they do not believe in salvation by faith alone. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that merely being born Jewish and accepting Jesus (converting to Christianity) does not make a person a Messianic Jew. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Steve, to answer your question, they worship in different services from Baptists for the same reason Presbyterians and Pentecostals do, with a little ethnic identity thrown in (like Hispanics or Koreans would do). They DO have different practices, ethnicity, and beliefs -- but the beliefs do not cross the boundary you mentioned (at least not mainstream Messianics like MJAA). Most Messianics I've researched believe in Sola Fide, and the one I guest preached in had a Messianic Gentile pastor who shared his theological materials with me (that unfortunately are boxed up somewhere so I can't quote them at the moment). Those materials were theologically Protestant. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case I may be suffering from a great misunderstanding of the whole topic. Is it possible that two distinct theologies are being lumped together under the same name? Steve Dufour (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Steve, the problem is a reflection of the obfuscation of a single editor -- Inigmatus, who is espousing an Arian/Pelagian hybrid that he claims to be Messianic. There do seem to be some outlying websites he's found to buttress his presentation, but no major publications that I'm aware of. That said, it may be possible that a theological rift is in the early stages of forming within Messianism. On its broadest level, Messianism belives that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, and as such should be worshipped in Jewish ways. I've seen some emphasis on the necessity of Torah observance in Messianic publications, but these are no more unChristian than the Calvinistic emphasis on the necessity of good works -- not as a necessary pre-requisite for salvation, but rather a necessary result. A person who converts to Christianity and then becomes an axe murderer probably has some flaw in his character that would not reflect a life transformed by the Spirit, and as such cannot be called a Christian. In the same way, a Jewish person who believes Jesus is the Jewish Messiah and then turns his back completely on Jewish observance probably has a flaw in his understanding of the word "Jewish" in the "Jewish-Messiah." But I'm not aware of mainstream Messianic groups like the MJAA or major Messianic writers like Stern presenting anything other than Sola Fide, as per Melancthon's dictum: "it is faith, alone, which saves; but the faith which saves is not alone." If Inigmatus really does represent some fringe Messianics, then it will be up to Messianics to define their theology in such a way that would exclude such heretics before Messianics find themselves excluded from the Church itself. Granted, we live in something of a post-theological age, but the pendulum will eventually swing back to greater emphasis on orthodoxy -- and Messianics will have to clarify their position in a way that excludes Inigmatus by that time. Right now I think it is fair to say that Messianics do not as a group promote the views Inigmatus is insisting upon, but they have not come together to formally kick such heretics out of the group. The same could be said, for that matter, about Southern Baptist tolerance of antinomianism in their ranks. Southern Baptist doctrine is NOT antinomian, but they haven't formally kicked the antinomians out. Again, this is a reflection of the times and not a reflection of formal doctrinal positions. Stern has sketched out the kernel of Messianic doctrine in his Manifesto, and MJAA teaches doctrinal positions, but no major "Messianic Theology" has yet been published. I was once offered a publishing deal to do so, but that was ten years ago, and I had my own theological issues to clarify before I could do it justice... and after my personal clarifications I had to pass on the offer. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I see that I need to know more about the whole thing. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

SkyWriter, your assumptions about me and other Messianic Jews are just beyond the pale. "On its broadest level, Messianism belives that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, and as such should be worshipped in Jewish ways" - I know of not a single Messianic Jew that worships Jesus. "Inigmatus, who is espousing an Arian/Pelagian hybrid that he claims to be Messianic." This is about as patently false as you can be - obviously you don't care to listen to what I believe and instead make assumptions that really make you look stupid. I believe Yeshua is HaShem, and I believe the Father is HaShem. Arianism believes the Son is not echad with the Father, which on the contrary, the Torah teaches that the Word of HaShem is HaShem. I believe that when Adam and Eve sinned, they lost eternal life for the rest of us, and it is only through the Promised Seed's righteousness do we get it back. Pelagianism does not believe in original sin, and that the original sin didn't affect the rest of mankind, which is contrary to what the Torah teaches concerning that all mankind must call upon the name of HaShem in order to be saved. So please don't label me a Pelagian/Arian since you apparently don't know what Arianism and Pelagianism is, or you don't seem to understand (nor care to understand) what it is I and many other Messianic Jews believe. You seem to be taking such assumptive positions about what Messianic Judaism should be (original research) when you make statements like "Messianics will have to clarify their position in a way that excludes Inigmatus by that time" which quite frankly is your own opinion and your own personal attempt to make Messianic Judaism according to your own image of it - which you seem to be doing by forcing the label "Christian" in the lede. It would be a serious matter if it weren't for the fact that you are emotionally reacting rather than debating the issues concerning Messianic Jewish identity. In classic style, you attempt to undermine the character of a person without dealing with the substance. And since you can't undermine my character, you have nothing left to argue against except to make up your own idea of what Messianic Judaism should be - you, who aren't even a Messianic Jew. So if you want to talk substance, then let's talk substance. I represent Orthodox Chassidic Messianic Judaism and although non-kosher keeping MJs are still part of the movement, I can tell you as one who is actually on the inside of Messianic Judaism, that the non-kosher MJs are what are excluded (by their own choice of behavior) from Messianic Judaism. Either MJ is aka Christianity with a kippah (Jews for Jesus), or MJ is Judaism with an acceptance of Yeshua as the Messiah and the Word of HaShem. This is the battle that is going on in MJ at the moment, and yes I represent a minority of those claiming to be MJs at this point - but I represent the majority of those who claim to be MJ and are frum. inigmatus (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

←

"I believe that when Adam and Eve sinned, they lost eternal life for the rest of us, and it is only through the Promised Seed's righteousness do we get it back." That's not mainstream Christianity, Judiasm, or MJ. I think inigmatus may have founded his own religion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream Christianity believes in original sin, which is what losing eternal life due to the first sin is. Judaism believes that Jewish identity guarantees a place in the World to Come, yet still acknowledges the need for a tzaddik to give himself for all Israel. So this isn't a new religion at all. It's Torah observant Messianic Judaism, and I created nothing new. I joined those who believe such, after I tested the claims of Messianic Jews, and found them to true according to the Torah, and have accepted them. That you don't believe this is Messianic Judaism at all shows you are simply ignorant, and willfully desirous of a Messianic Judaism to be made and defined according to your stereotype Jews for Jesus (Christian converting Jews to Christianity), and not according to the facts on the ground (Jews converting Christians and Jews to Judaism). inigmatus (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It might be nice if you had some references that your beliefs (as stated above) are part of MJ. Your beliefs are not, in any way, part of Judaism or Christianity. If it's part of MJ, we need to change the lede back to "religious sect" or "religious movement", rather than making any claim that it's related to Judaism or Christianity. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's logically possible for a Jew to recognize Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, although it requires some strained translations. It's not logically possible for a Jew to recognize Jesus of Nazerith as being the "son of God". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. "It might be nice if you had some references that your beliefs (as stated above) are part of MJ" Ok, [1], suite101.com/article.cfm/messianic_judaism/118111, and [2] to name a few. Do a search for messianic statement of faith and you will indeed find the belief on many Messianic sites that eternal life was lost by Adam and Eve for all mankind, and is restored by the faithful righteousness of the Messiah. If you're saying this is not Jewish or Christian, then by all means remove "Christian" from the lede and replace it with "religious." inigmatus (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

By this point I'm not sure WHAT Inigmatus is. The statement about original sin is within the parameters of Christianity. The statement that "Yeshua IS HaShem" is certainly within the parameters of Christiantiy. The statement that Messianic Jews don't worship Jesus isn't anything but a contradiction to the statement that "Yeshua IS HaShem." In other words, Arthur, don't bother yourself trying to pin Inigmatus down to a coherent theology. About the only acceptable point from him is his own admission that he doesn't represent mainstream Messianism, and we should let it go at that. This article is about mainstream Messianism, not some finge website that Inigmatus likes. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You truly are the master of selective reading and assumption. I said I represent the majority of MJs that are frum (Torah observant, shomer Shabbat), which is a minority of those who claim to be Messianic Jews. Your attempt at marginalization of orthodox Messianic Jews shows your true agenda for this article in that you want this article to reflect what you, a non Messianic Jew, think Messianic Jews are. Also, there is no contradiction in saying that we believe that Yeshua is HaShem, and that we do not worship Jesus. We worship God. If you know anything of Hebraic hermeneutics, A = B and B = C, but A may not necessarily = C. We believe Yeshua is HaShem. We believe HaShem is God. We do not believe Yeshua is God (in all his fullness), for "Elohim" is not a man. We accept what the scriptures say and add nothing to them by adding on some philosophic or even "logical" conclusion that "Jesus is God, and since we worship God, we must worship Jesus." By straying from the exacting boundaries of scripture, one begins to espouse heresy as defined by the Torah. The Torah teaches that the Messiah is the Word of HaShem, called HaShem; and the Torah also teaches that HaShem is God; and the Torah teaches that God is not a man. You take all three pieces and attempt to rationalize them. We take all three pieces and just accept them. So why are you attempting to force a definition of belief on Messianic Judaism when you yourself are not a Messianic Jew, nor are familiar with what we teach? Perhaps now you and others with an open mind will see why your "Christian" label for this article is ridiculous and an attempt at a POV-push whose intent is the marginalization of orthodox Messianic Judaism which itself does not accept the Christian label nor does it apply. Messianic Judaism is a religious movement, not a Christian movement or Jewish movement only. Shalom. inigmatus (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I would remind you that this page is not a forum. Good faith seems to have gone out the window for both of you. Reflect on the simple fact that Wikipedia is all about what can be adequately sourced, not on what an editor believes to be true. Take a breather - take a step back. Evaluate the article from the standpoint of what can be properly referenced. Respectfully, A Sniper (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest we stick with mainstream sources. I have several Stern volumes and another on the first history of evangelism to Jews in 1839. I'd also suggest we exclude fringe websites and POV with an agenda.

Messianic Judaism is the logical conclusion of Christianity. If Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, then he is most authentically understood in a context akin to that he lived and moved in. I get that, and even sympathize with that. I'd go even further and approve of that as a logical conclusion for an internal need of authenticity.

I also sympathize with Inigmatus' attempts to communicate Christian doctrines in a Jewish framework. But I cannot approve of his lack of admission that this is what he is trying to do. The whole distinction between Jesus=Word=God but not Man=God is classical Christianity, hence the doctrine of the two natures. The language he is using is similar to language I've used with my own Rabbi when trying to translate the concepts. But I admitted that this is what I was doing from the outset.

So where does this leave us? It leaves us with a need to use notable and verifiable sources. Go figure :-). Have a good Shabbat everyone. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Mainstream" by its very definition is POV. What you call mainstream, and what I call mainstream can yield two entirely different sets of data. I suggest sticking with the article as it was originally re-designed to let all parties have a say, in that you have the most neutral lede possible ("religious movement" as opposed to "Christian movement"), and let individual sections flesh out differences within MJ, its criticisms, and its issues. I don't see why you want to narrow the article to your POV of what MJ should or shouldn't be. Anyways, I appreciate your comments, which shows that you are attempting to reason with me on the matter. You wonder why I just don't come out and say that I'm communicating Christian doctrines in a Jewish framework - yet I wonder if you truly understand the paradigm I have. For me to say that Christian doctrines need to somehow fit back into a Jewish framework would be for me to go against the Jewish paradigm I was raised with, and for me to forget that it was my Jewish heritage and paradigm that led to understand Messianic Judaism within the boundaries of the Toarh - to understand in fact that the doctrines of early Christianity are the Jewish foundation and framework for Judaism, and thus causes me to view your question as one of an illogical proposition. Later Christian doctrines can not be forced to fit back into Judaism, except only if those doctrines themselves are originally Jewish, for if Christian doctrines have to be forced back in, then those Christianity doctrines are not Jewish, and one begins to walk down the path of pagan eisegesis. That is my paradigm, and the paradigm of my family, friends, rabbi, and the greater Torah observant Messianic Jewish communities worldwide. Anyways, I will take sniper's advice and take a breather. It's Erev. Shabbat shalom.inigmatus (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Fellas, it is all about consensus - a user puts forth a reference, and we mull it over. If it appears overtly fringe, then it is discussed; if it appears bona fide accurate and factual, we keep it. That's the process we've all followed in the past and we cannot allow emotion to have us deviate from it. Ponder Chayei Sarah and have a good Shabbat. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Inigmatus, mainstream is simply mainstream. We aren't making a value judgment about what Messianism should be, but only what it is -- or what it is stated to be in reputable sources. That's all. Heck, when I tried to grant that maybe you WERE something different from Christianity, viz -- that you seemed to be Arian-Pelagian, you were quick to defend your (Christian) orthodoxy! Historically, your movement grew out of evangelical contextualization -- reaching Jews in a frame of reference most native to Judaism, which in turn was seen to be more authentically Christian than normal modes of worship in generic Protestantism. Do you believe that Messianism is the superstructure and Christianity a Gentile subcategory? Sure. Do Christians generally regard you as one of them? Of course. It's not like you are Mormons, a group claiming to be Christian and universally condemned as non-Christian. You are hosted in Christian churches, funded by evangelicals, and Christian denominations structure their Jewish missions after your format. In the end it doesn't matter whether you are a subset of Christianity (my view) or a superset (your view) -- the fact is that we both agree that you are believers in Jesus and the New Testament, and believe you are saved by grace through faith, and that not of yourselves; not of works, lest anyone should boast; created in Messiah Yeshua for good works, that you should walk in them -- and the fact is that we both agree that you believe that you are just as saved by Yeshua as the Gentiles believe they are (yes, I'm inverting Peter's words to make my point). Christ=Messiah. Christian=Messianic. Jesus=Yeshua. You reject Gentile forms of worship that are not a part of the New Testament anyway, such as Christmas. You go further than the Protestants, who only went back to Augustine, but instead go back to Paul, Peter, James. I GET that. I APPROVE of that. No one is trying to condemn you by saying this is a Christian movement. We are only trying to be intelligible, and neutral. It's the cleanest, clearest, single word to use. "Religious" could mean anything. "Christian" means -- well -- you. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit protected

I would like to add a valid (and helpful) link to the Messianic Judaism article. The link request is for www.hebrew4christians.com, a site that provides a "living example" of Messianic Jewish interpretative strategies when reading the Tanakh and Torah. Thank you.

Parsonsj (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

www.hebrew4christians.com. It seems like a fairly informative and uncontroversial site to add to the page. However, to avoid any further conflict, I want to ensure it is uncontroversial before adding it. Does anyone have objections to the site being added to the list of external links? Vassyana (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No objections. Looks like an interesting website. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm also grateful for Parsonsj both alerting us to the site and politely asking our opinion. I can see no reason for anyone to be offended. I am slightly concerned on other grounds, however. There are advetisments on the page that may well appeal to a reader of an article like this one (I myself liked the look of "babylon"). I was fascinated by the authenticly Messianic discussion of the letter nun, though it's the sort of discussion that can only be found on quality web-sites rather than in journals or monographs. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No objections here. Please add it, as it is very useful, especially for neutral readers of the MJ article since it gives a perspective into Hebrew that is foundational to the practice of Messianic Judaism. I personally know many Christians who came into Messianic Judaism because of sites like hebrew4christians and h4c is the most popular of them all mentioned to me. I suggest also that the link be shared on other related Jewish+Christian articles. inigmatus (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Friend, I think you're jumping the gun a little here. I don't object to the inclusion of the site, but I very gently noted two mild concerns above: it contains advertising, and the discussion of nun is fascinating but questionable. So I was saying, very gently, that it looks authentic and worthwhile, but not entirely reliable. I'm sure there are other sites that would also be excellent representatives of Messianic thought, but without the mild issues that go with this one. Give us two links, but without advertising! Is it so much to ask for a site without advertising? Alastair Haines (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would concur for an ad-free MJ replacement, if one could be found. I am sure you too don't want the end of this article turning into another link farm, so whatever you think is best, please feel free to do it with my agreement with you on the matter. I simply added the link since there was a concurrence of opinion that it could be included. If you want to remove it, or modify how its presented, feel free. :) inigmatus (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Very nicely said. I am not disposed to remove it. I support your boldness in adding it. I only wish to register that I would not oppose its removal either. On balance, I prefer the page to have this useful link. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll go for its inclusion, too, though with slight reservations. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

See Talk:Messianic_Judaism/GA1

RfC: Classification of Messianic Judaism

Should Messianic Judaism be classified as a "Christian movement", "religious movement", or something else entirely? 09:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Please provide sources that support a particular classification. Do not engage in general discussion in this subsection. Please stick to short quotes or concise paraphrases accompanied by full citation information. 09:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

General discussion

• Comment: All groups, including MJ themselves, consider MJ to be fairly described as Christian. The issue is not about whether they are Christian, but about whether they are Jewish. On that point, MJ are clear that they think that they are Jewish. However, uncontroversially Jewish groups are effectively unanimous in agreeing that MJ is not Jewish. It seems to me our problem is that readers unfamiliar with the issue need sources that explain that MJ are very deliberate about calling themselves Messianic (Hebrew term) rather than Christian (Greek/Gentile/non-Jewish term). They are also deliberate about using this as an adjective to qualify their core identity, expressed by the noun Judaism. Hence, to call them a Christian movement is to violate their own, very deliberate and careful self-description. Here is a simple definition of MJ.

Messianic Judaism (MJ) is a movement largely for people of Jewish ancestry, who have come to consider Jesus of Nazareth to have been the Jewish Messiah. There are no Jewish groups, unless MJ's own claim to Jewishness is conceeded, who accept this as a legitimate expression of Judaism. On the other hand, almost all Christian groups would accept MJ as Christian, including MJ itself. Messianic Jews consider themselves to be Jews first, and Christians second.

I think language makes things difficult at this article. It is simply tedious to describe Judaism (other than MJ itself, if it is accepted as Judaism), rather than to simply say "Judaism". NPOV requires us to be sincerely neutral and to describe the neutral POV, it doesn't require us to use cumbersome language at every instance, labouring the point. A caveat like, "for the purpose of this article, 'MJ' will be used to refer to Messianic Judaism, 'Judaism' will refer to the consensus position of the vast majority of people of Jewish ancestry, religious conviction or both."

Apologies, not concise, no sources, but still short enough and helpful I hope. Alastair Haines (talk)

• Religious movement Stern writes on page 20 of his "Messianic Jewish Manifesto, the following:

"'Messianic' comes from Hebrew 'mashiach', which means 'anointed.' 'Christian' comes from Greek 'christos' which is the New Testament's translation of 'maschiach' and means the same thing. Messianic Jews prefer the the former for cultural reasons: for most Jews the term 'Messianic' creates less cognitive dissonance than 'Christian.' But a more compelling reason is that in the New Testament the term 'Christian,' which appears only three times (Acts 11:26, 26:28, 1 Kefa (Peter) 4:16), apparently denotes being a Gentile believer in Yeshua; if this is so, 'Jewish Christian' is a contradiction in terms."

Elsewhere on page 24:

"The premise of this book is that there is no conflict whatever between being Messianic and being Jewish."

Also if you're open for another source, that of Michael L. Brown, author of "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus" in Volume One on page 7 of 270 he writes:

"...Yeshua came... for his own Jewish people." "In time, there were so many Gentile believers in the Messiah...that it almost seemed as though Christianity was a new, foreign religion, something not for Jews at all. What made matters worse was that the emerging Rabbinic Jewish community began to disassociate itself from the many thousands of Jews who were followers of Jesus the Messiah. These Messianic Jews now found themselves between a rock (the increasingly Gentile church), and a hard place (the increasingly unfriendly rabbinic community). Over the course of the next thousand years, Gentile Christians began to welcome Jews into their midst only if they renounced all ties to their Jewishness, while the Rabbinic communities would only welcome them if they renounced all ties to Jesus."

Brown also states on page 10:

"Is it true that Jews who believe in Jesus call themselves Messianic Jews, Hebrew Christians, or Jews for Jesus because they don't want other Jews to now they are really Christians masquerading in Jewish garb? ... Of course not! We put our cards right on the table for everyone to see. We say that we are Jewish followers of Jesus the Messiah because that is who we are. We find being Jewish and believing in the Jewish Messiah to be compatible. As a result we make every effort to communicate this clearly."

And on page 12:

"While Christians frequently sing the same words from the Old Testament in English in their worship services, many Jewish believers enjoy singing them in Hebrew. One reason, among many, that Gentile Christians often form a large part of Messianic Jewish congregations is because they enjoy the Messianic Jewish style of worship."

It seems to me, from the references posted, that both Stern, and Brown, both state that a Christian is a Gentile believer in Yeshua, whereas a Messianic Jew is a Jewish believer in Messiah. The distinction is obvious, down to the very behaviors and expectations. Being Messianic Jewish is not related to Christianity (ie. a Gentile believer in Yeshua) as well - as Stern put it, a "Jewish Christian is a contradiction in terms," and as Brown puts it "Gentile Christians" vs "Messianic Jews" and "Jewish believers," the biggest proof of this usage, according to Stern, is the bible itself used to describe "Gentile believers" - and this only in a "derogatory sense." You will find this same sentiment universally applied by Messianic Jews worldwide. We are not Gentiles. We are not "Christian" - ie "Gentile believers in Yeshua."

Since this is ultimately a matter of POV to say that Messianic Jews are "Christian" according to any other definition (and trust me, defining "Christian" is certainly a matter of POV), at this point, I move that MEDCAB find "Christian" to be an overtly POV term describing Messianic Judaism since such a definition is not embraced nor used by the Messianic Jewish community to describe itself; and I therefore move that MEDCAB replace the term "Christian movement" with the more NPOV "religious movement" in the lede.

"Religious movement" is a true consensus since all parties have ultimately agreed to it at one time or another, and it existed as the lede for well over a year without dispute, and all parties agree that even when "Jewish sect" is offered up as the alternative, as Stern and Brown would assert (and the case from their writings and those of others can be made for it), "religious movement" becomes the more favored option. inigmatus (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on the other issues raised, MedCab is not the business of declaring a "winner" or otherwise declaring a solution. This same is true of formal mediation under the auspices of MedCom. Mediation is a voluntary process intended to help the participants reach an agreement, not to impose solutions. Vassyana (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Wiki articles are intended to inform readers about subjects with which they are not familiar. Because MJ is not simply described in few words, it must be recognized that a top level description can only be neutrally made with the most general terms. MJ cannot fairly be described as a Christian movement or a Jewish movement because the terms Christian and Jewish have very specific meanings to the general reader. The only sensible thing to do is to describe MJ as a religious movement and then use the rest of the article to explain the more complicated historical, theological and traditional underpinnings of the MJ faith. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 11:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Christian movement - as per Inigmatus' own citations. In fact, they were unambiguous enough to prove the point without his comment.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Religious movement - The Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations' Basic Statement on Defining Messianic Judaism reads in part:

"The [UMJC] envisions Messianic Judaism as a movement of Jewish congregations and groups committed to Yeshua the Messiah that embrace the covenantal responsibility of Jewish life and identity rooted in Torah, expressed in tradition, and renewed and applied in the context of the New Covenant. Messianic Jewish groups may also include those from non-Jewish backgrounds who have a confirmed call to participate fully in the life and destiny of the Jewish People. We are committed to embodying this definition in our constituent congregations and in our shared institutions.”

• Plunkett, John. "What is Messianic Judaism?", B'rit Hadasha Messianic Jewish Synagogue.

Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 02:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In Messianic Judaism by Dan Cohn-Sherbok, perhaps the most exhaustive study of the movement, the author refers to the group as originating from the Hebrew Christians of the nineteenth century. Cohn-Sherbok speaks of Jewish Christianity and how, despite current Messianic Judaism desiring to differentiate itself from Hebrew Christians, "Messianic Judaism has nonetheless borrowed a number of important features from both fundamentalist Christianity and the Hebrew Christian movement" (p. 170). This includes belief in the trinity (despite differing terminology), the New Testament, eschatology, etc. This is why the consensus of the article, for the good part of a year, had maintained that a) MJs consider themselves to be Jewish, b) Jews of all denominations do not consider Messianic Judaism to be Jewish, and c) Christians and Jews consider Messianic Judaism to be Christian. Only rather recently did the 'Christian movement' issue arise and the challenge to call it 'religious movement'. Frankly, I could care less which one is used - as long as the three points listed above remain as previously agreed by a host of users. Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Your a), b) and c) are a nice summary of verifiable facts confirmed from sources in the presence of many consenting witnesses without reasonable objection. Thank you. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: there's a lot of great points in discussion above. I think it's no shame, and quite proper for a neutral article to select wording that is not only accurate to sources, but sensitive to perceptions of the way it expresses reliable information. When I think about the hypothetical definition I provided, I think most would agree it is accurate, but perhaps it could be perceived to cater to Messianic sensitivities—way too much mention of Judaism before ever Christianity is mentioned. On balance, I think something showing more respect for rabbinic Judaism would be advisable, though I'm at a loss how to do this without showing disrespect to MJ itself. That's my limitation, but surely not a limitation for the formidable think-tank gathered here at this moment. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Forces which are hostile to Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah wish to COMPEL the designation 'Christian' on the movement, not out of any deeply-seated quest for accuracy, but because, in this context, they see it as a perjorative.

Your typical semi-religious or non-religious Jew cannot relate to being a Christian. To them, that's a term synonymous with being a gentile - something very different.

So tarring all Jewish believers as Christians (read Gentiles) is a rather transparent attempt by hostile elements to thwart the Messianic Jews attempts at evangelizing non-Messianic Jews.

That, more than anything related to preciseness or theology, explains why so many are INSISTENT that Messianic Jews be indelibly tagged as Christians...

• Weak preference for christian movement All sources but the MJ's own sources describe them this way. "Religious movement" seems like a reasonable compromise as long as the lead makes clear who thinks exactly what about that the MJs. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, that is what the lede had for years until it was changed by an editor who thought otherwise. It read "Messianic Judaism is a religious movement whose adherents believe that Jesus is the resurrected Jewish Messiah." and then some bit that MJs see themselves as being Jewish, and another bit that State of Israel does not, and then finally a bit on what some Christians think about MJs. The way it was designed was to present a neutral "religious movement" lede and let the rest of the article sections hash out differences of opinion - for that is truly what the differences are: opinions. inigmatus (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem, isn't it? :) Go with the group itself, or go with the majority? Awfully tricky. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this "all sources but MJ's own". Religious tolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/mess_jud.htm second hit on a google search for messianic judaism) describes messianic judaism as a religious movement. And I'm not so sure this is all that tricky. When it comes to religions, the natural, reasonable, tolerant and respectful way to describe them in an encyclopedic article is to describe them as they see themselves. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 05:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if that wasn't clear. What I meant was of all sources that label them either Christian or Jewish all that are not connected to them label them Christian. Of the sources not connected to them, most seem to in fact label them as Christian movement but that's not the main point I was making. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice find. I'm with you on self-definition ... but, would you call MJ a Jewish (rather than Christian or religious) organisation?

Is another problem here that the meaning of Jewish is understood differently by MJ as against others and needs disambiguation? Would "common usage" of English be a better way of thinking about part of the question, rather than "majority opinion" on religious dogma (whatever that is supposed to mean)? Alastair Haines (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Proposal:

"Messianic Judaism is a movement that claims to be both Christian and Jewish.^[1][2] The former claim is essentially accepted by all;^[3] however, the latter is rejected by all other groups that define themselves as Jewish.^[4] The term 'Messianic' is simply intended as a Jewish way of saying 'Christian'.^[5]"

We have cites for all five statements in this definition. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It states the obvious that "Messianic Judaism is a movement" which is better clarified by "religious" thus "Messianic Judaism is a religious movement." I think the neutrality of that statement is very obvious. I say then, let the rest of the article hash out the differences. I really don't see why if it wasn't broken, why someone had to go "fix it" and change the lede from 'religious movement' to 'Christian movement.' Furthermore, undue weight in proving MJ is not Jewish according to Judaism was added to the intro paragraph that further skews the article and forces the lede to say one thing or another. I suggest a revert back to what it was [3] before this whole controversy started. After all when a certain editor made the change [4] to the lede last month to say "Christian" he did so without reason, and without bringing it up in talk, and it seems to me nothing more than a POV push to "officially" label MJ as Christian, regardless of the dispute described in the article. The lede had remained unchanged for years until that editor made that change. His edit was to "revert" to an "earlier version" but what earlier version? From the record, there was no earlier version that contained "Christian" in the lede, and the editor just simply added "Christian" to push his POV. inigmatus (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Friend, I think you've just said some things you don't really need or want to say. I've seen SkyWriter a certain editor at other articles and he would have to be dangerously pro-Messianic from a Jewish perspective, if you ask me. He'd be a great man to have on your team. Messianics need all the friends they can find. ;) Please consider striking the more personal comments out. Feel free to delete this message of mine if you do so. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Modifications noted and appreciated. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

OK - I'll go on the record now. I don't like to reveal too much on here but I guess it has been obvious that I am not a Christian; in fact, as it hints at my profile, I am a member of the Union of Reform Judaism. As such, let me (finally) state for the record that I do not mind the term religious movement, as it is the most neutral of terms. I am scratching my head wondering where the latest controversy of "Christian movement" actually came from because it wasn't the term that was there originally, I believe. If it states religious movement, then the rest of the lede can remain as it has been, and as it is now. So there: a Jewish editor who seeks nothing but NPOV thinks religious movement is the best term, AS LONG AS the current wording of the lede (and references) remain. Agreed? Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Good for you being bold. I'll second you. Your argument seems fair. Your own personal convictions are icing on the cake, but no more than that. Being sceptical of the motives of sources is one thing. But we can't indulge in similar scepticism regarding fellow editors. Neutrality is easy and should be assumed. Thanks for demonstrating it. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. I think all the references thus far mentioned really go a long way in highlighting the dispute. I truly think "religious movement" is the best NPOV lede phrase of all. inigmatus (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• religious movement it seems this is the most neutral way to describe it. The reader can learn about the different opinions in the article. In my opinion, if they follow the Jewish traditions and they believe in a messiah then they would be Jews who are messianic, but if other Jews dispute this then maybe the easiest way to describe them is as a religious movement with the differences in opinion layed out in the article.Ltwin (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Final comment (from me) in this thread: I think the whole of the current lead reads very well indeed. I think either "Christian" or "religious" would read perfectly well in context. Omiting a designator would also be fine. I think those involved with producing the current lead have done a great service to readers on a touchy subject. I don't vote, but would abstain were I asked to do so on the current issue. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Second Sentence

Now that Christian has been taken out of the first sentence, are we going to take it out of the second as well? How about remove the name Jesus and only use Yeshua? Maybe we can hide the New Testament under a different name too? Folks, the lede still identifies Messianic "Judaism" as a Christian movement. If that's acceptable in the second sentence -- why the objection to the first? This was a completely unnecessary debate. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I think you were right before the discussion, and I think you are still right now. I think you are a lot faster than most of us to understand the issues. But, when the conflict comes, others getting involved allows time for everyone to notch a little closer to the facts. Now it's not just you defending the article from subtle bias, now there's a bunch of us who understand somewhat better. And a nice thing about all this is, you played a huge part in packaging the issues so they're easier to digest.

Yes, I agree the discussion was not necessary for you, but it was necessary for Wiki. This article now not only has text, but it has living people who will understand that text better. Consensus is not the thing here, education is the issue. Not merely about facts in sources, but about people's responses to those facts. You're not writing in the sky, you're writing on people's hearts.

I'm only telling you what you know. I feel your frustration. You're entitled to it. You'll get over it. And everyone here has a lot to thank you for ... but we won't actually do that though. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alastair -- and to everyone else... I apologize for my testiness just now. Thanks for all the participation on all sides. NPOV requires the oversight of all POVs, and each of us needs precisely the editors who annoy us most. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to thank all of you for working this out without animosity. I think we would agree that there are perhaps other users - silent lately - who wouldn't see the big picture and that a controversial article works best by a consensus of varying opinions working off each other. This business about the lede was indeed a collaborative effort, and thanks go to all of you. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)