Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 24

New Lede

this section was archived before it was done. In particular, the last paragraph:

Many members of the movement are ethnically Jewish, and some of them argue that Messianic Judaism is a sect of Judaism. Jewish organizations and religious movements reject this, stating that Messianic Judaism is a Christian sect. Mainstream Christian groups generally also accept Messianic Judaism as a form of Christianity.

My edit removes the sentence "The Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that the Law of Return should treat Jews who convert to Messianic Judaism the same way it treats Jews who convert to Christianity" because that is discussion on the topic, proof to the point, and not summary material. That sentence more properly belongs in the controversy section.--DeknMike (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It's pertinent as part of the definition and not only as controversy. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I figured you would object, but I'm looking to make this a NPOV article about the movement.--DeknMike (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that so long as you're calling it Messianic Judaism, it's already POV. It requires balance in order to not be just a PR piece for your movement. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the great lies of the Inquisition was that one can be faithful to Jesus only by totally repudiating one’s Jewishness. That position was wrong then and is wrong now. Jesus and all early followers were Jewish, and everything about belief in Jesus was and is Jewish, in the purest and most biblical sense of the word. Messianic Judaism seeks to remove the heretical Catholic additions to the original faith and return to a first-century understanding. To argue against a neutral reporting of the movement by citing anti-Messianic opinion pieces is disingenuous. (Note: It's not "my" movement. Rather, I have used my social sciences degree to research its origins and belief.) --DeknMike (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

However, DeknMike, the opinion you describe above is actually the minority opinion in most sources, and pretty much unheld of outside the Messianic community. As Lisa says, the very name of the article promotes the Messianic point-of-view over that of the majority of non-Messianics in the world. That would be a WP:UNDUE violation everywhere in wikipedia outside of this article, which is why it is named as it is. It is given more than its representative weight in this article, as this is the eponymous article, but that does not mean it becomes the "only" opinion, and in order to maintain NPOV (which does not mean "lobotomized point of view, but "representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias," to try and remove the naturally inherent Messianic bias we must maintain balance in the lede. -- Avi (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is it? The NPOV would be to remove the inflamatory phrase. And what part of what I wrote was wrong? That Jesus wasn't Jewish? That Paul stopped being Jewish when he accepted a spiritual revelation? That the Catholic church twisted authentic faith with self-serving practices (See Martin Luther on that one.) I get it that Lisa is anti-Messianic and works actively to discredit it. Although I attend a Messianic congregation I am not Jewish and know what I know through diligent research of multiple sources (not just one opinion website). My goal is to explain to those who read the article why a quarter million or more (in 400 congregations) choose to return to the roots of the Christian faith as described in Tenach and New Testament.--DeknMike (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What is inflammatory? There is a statement of fact, a very pertinent statement of fact in truth, about the Supreme Court of Israel and its rulings. As for "stopping being Jewish" that is somewhat misleading due to the unique conflation that Jews have regarding ethnicity and religion. This allows the concept of Jews believing in Christianity to make sense whereas Christians believing in Judaism does not. Christians are defined solely by their religion; Jews are defined simultaneously (and sometimes contradictorily) by religion and ethnicity (see Judaism#Distinction between Jews as a people and Judaism). So while it may be true to say that Paul remained ethnically Jewish after his epiphany and that Jesus was born Jewish, one can also safely say that they stopped practicing Judaism as we know it as well. Again, while 250,000 people is a lot, it is a tiny fraction of the 2,400,000,000 or so Christians and even the 16,000,000 or so Jews in the world (see Major religious groups#Religious demographics, which is why anywhere else, WP:UNDUE would apply. It gets much more weight here, but it must be balanced by predominant prevailing opinion that it is a form of Christianity that adds some Jewish terminology and rituals. -- Avi (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with it being in the article, but it's a point of explanation, not an executive summary statement. --DeknMike (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

As for the culture/religion, this is a spiritual article. It's about a brand of Judaism (a religion) of which most of the leadership and a good number of the members are culturally Jewish. I get the distinction. This is not about the 3/4 of the ethnically Jewish people that have no discernible religion. It is about the spiritual practice of a group of individuals who choose to worship with the same theology as Jewish followers of Jesus did in 45 CE, removing unbibical Christian syncretic practices that have crept in over time, and ignoring Jewish practices not supported by careful biblical scholarship or those added in the middle ages. My point on this board is to be the historian/social scientist describing a group of people and what they do and believe, in opposition to those who have a theological disagreement with how the Messianics worship. --DeknMike (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The article does state that "some of them argue that Messianic Judaism is a sect of Judaism." That is not an excuse to ignore the 99+% of the world that disagrees. -- Avi (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. That's all that needs to be said. I'm only objecting in the lede summary to the inclusion of the factoid about the Supreme Court of Israel ruling about law of return. Leave it in the body of the article, but it's a point of explanation, not a summary statement.--DeknMike (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Rambam was considered heretical and his teaching and writings weren't taken seriously until hundreds of years later. Just because mainstream Judaism doesn't accept Messianic Judaism, just like Orthodox barely and actually don't accept Reform Judaism. Just last year an Israeli judge of the rabbinate revoked a perfectly valid conversion because his father is a reform rabbi. Something he can't even control. So don't act like all Judaisms agree. I have heard it said that there are 12million Jews and 12 million Judaisms. Why must you constantly pick on the Jews that believe?--Teacherbrock (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Offshoots of Judaism

I propose that we change the title of this article to Offshoots of Judaism and add sections on Sabbateanism and Frankism and other fringe phenomena. MJ is barely notable, and presenting it as something special simply gives it undue weight. Thoughts? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There is already an Alternative Judaism page that covers that. Also, since this article has been cited as too long, adding non-messianic jewish offshoots would be counter-productive.--DeknMike (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The idea that the MJ's are "barely notable" is not at all supported by the evidence. They have been discussed repeatedly in any number of sources. While I can and do see that there would be a reasonable basis for an article on offshoots of Judaism, provided it mentioned the B-class Sabbateans article and the B-class article on Jacob Frank, and probably adding something about the "Hebrew Christianity" which appeared around the end of the 19th century. However, I cannot see any reason whatever to merge several articles which are already in fairly good and developed shape into one article, where they would all by nature have to be abridged. John Carter (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP REMOVING THE HEBREW NAME יהדות משיחי

The hebrew name יהדות משיחית is absolutely relevant and is uncontested. It is even the name in wikipedia's hebrew section. http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%99%D7%94%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%97%D7%99%D7%AA --Teacherbrock (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is it relevant? We all agree that it's not considered generally considered Judaism. I previously objected to the lede calling the movement "Christian"; I must also object to the lede calling the movement "Jewish". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it's services are held in hebrew, Torah reading is in Hebrew and the signs outside are in Hebrew in most Messianic Shuls. As a Hebrew movement it is absolutely relevant. Orthodox Judaism just 10 years ago didn't accept Reform or Conservative...just an example. You get so upset when Messianics and Christians update Judaism pages but you as an actor come on to our page and try to remove our Yiddishkeit. Shame on you. --Teacherbrock (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

יהדות משיחי

Is the name of the movement not 'Messianic Judaism' that is the english translation. --Teacherbrock (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the history of the movement, as reflected in the current article, doesn't reflect that it was orginally in Hebrew. If you can find reliable sources for that, please go ahead and add them. That still does not mean it's a Jewish movement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason, not even etymological, for the Hebrew to be here. The term was originally coined in English (Britain in the mid 1800s). The Hebrew is a modern Hebrew translation of an English term; irrelevant, and likely inappropriate, for English wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

When a group of Jews get together and form a movement it is a JEWISH MOVEMENT. Would you say that Chabada Messianism isn't a Jewish movement? --Teacherbrock (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the inevitable conflation of Judaism the religion and Jewish ethnicity appears. -- Avi (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Not "all" agree that it's not a branch of Judaism. It's certainly not mainstream. However, organizations such as Chosen People began as a study movement by a Jewish Rabbi to his Jewish neighbors, separate from but at the same time as Christians who were Jewish began to use the name Hebrew Christian, so in many respects it qualifies as a subgroup of Judaism, even though some members of the modern movement are not ethnically Jewish. However, I have to agree with the group's objection to Teacherbrock's insertion of Hebrew into the article. This is an English language reference site to be ready by many not trained in Hebrew. Adding in the Hebrew script is an affectation and should be avoided unless it materally contributes to general understanding of the topic.--DeknMike (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

All Jewish religious groups agree that MJ is not a branch of Judaism, and is merely a Christian tactic to convert Jews to Christianity. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

DeknMike—Judaism plays no theological role in "Messianic Judaism." In my opinion the name Messianic Judaism is misleading. Jesus is central to Christianity, and Jesus is nowhere to be found in Judaism. I think you reference early Christianity. Early Christianity is a very different religion from modern Christianity. Early Christianity was concerned with Jews becoming Christians. Christianity later became concerned with everyone becoming a Christian. And Christianity was very successful in this regard. Christianity absorbed many religions. The modern day Christianity reflects the input of the variety of spiritual backgrounds of the peoples it absorbed. Bus stop (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahem. Lisa and Bus stop are both wrong here, although I'm not intending to say that Teacherbrock or even DeknMike is correct. All religious groups agree that MJ is not a branch of Judaism, but not all agree that it's Christian. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin—you say, "All religious groups agree that MJ is not a branch of Judaism, but not all agree that it's Christian." Which religious group (or groups) does not regard Messianic Judaism as Christian and for what reason (or reasons)? Bus stop (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Most religious groups don't regard it at all, so we cannot say unequivocally that MJ is Christian, nor can we say that it's Jewish. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew translation in the lede.

I note that the following have only English in the lede,thus translations into a foreign language is unnecessary here too:

• Catholic Church
• Methodism
• Anglicanism
• Lutheranism
• Baptists
• Calvinism
• Adventism
• Jehovah's Witnesses
• Unitarianism
• Eastern Orthodox Church
• Syriac Orthodox Church
• Orthodox Judaism
• Modern Orthodox Judaism
• Haredi Judaism
• Conservative Judaism
• Reform Judaism

-- Avi (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

We do not add translations for no reason, Teacherbrock. This is the English wikipedia, and unless there is something special about the etymolgy, there is no reason for it. Especially here, where the Modern Hebrew name is itself a translation of the English name given to the movement in the 1800s. -- Avi (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Why didn't you answer the question over Chabad Messianism and its yiddishkeit versus Messianic Judaism and its yiddishkeit. I want to see how NPOV you are. --Teacherbrock (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Even Maimonides was considering a heretic in his day and most of his life but today is celebrated by the mitnagdim and chassidim. While they put up a good public front, Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism are also consdidered heretical and outside the bounds of what the Heradi and Hasidim concider normative Judaism. --Teacherbrock (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant, Chabad messianism does not have Hebrew in the lede. You are exhibiting the fallacy of Ignoratio elenchi. -- Avi (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You couldn't even entertain me and answer the question? Let me guess you are Chabad Messianist doing everything you can to try to remove yiddishkeit from Messianic Judaism? If not, just tell me that Chabad Messianism is not a Jewish movement. And it was you that brought up "movements" --Teacherbrock (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This argument is pointless. It has been had on these pages for several years. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad does have the hebrew in the lede. --Teacherbrock (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

But Chabad messianism does not, which is what you asked. We have some Chabadskers on wiki, although I don't think there are any active meshichists here. Regadless, once again, irrelevant and fallacious. If your argument is so weak that you must resort to ad hominem and ignoratio elenchi, I think that makes the point for me. -- Avi (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

So Jewish Messianism [[1]] gets to have its Hebrew but Messianic Judaism can't? I don't think so. --Teacherbrock (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The word "Messiah" is an English word whose etymology comes from the Ancient Hebrew. The term יהדות משיחי is a Modern Hebrew translation of an English term (coined in the mid 1800s). There is neither historical nor etymological reason to have the foreign term in this article. There is valid etymological reason for Jewish messianism. At this point, your edits are bordering on the disruptive. Multiple people have tried to explain to you here why your suggestion is not appropriate, and, truthfully, I fear it is a not-so-well hidden ploy to ascribe faux "Jewishness" to this movement, which would be a violation of wikipedia's nuetral point of view policies. On your own website you may do as you please; here there are specific policies and guidelines that must be followed. -- Avi (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"for the purpose of maintaining righteousness"

I've removed the following bolded material that was recently inserted in the lede by DeknMike:

Any Jewish laws or customs that are followed are for the purpose of maintaining righteousness and do not contribute to attaining salvation.

The phrase "for the purpose of maintaining righteousness" replaced the previous consensus word "cultural", and is is sourced to this. Questions:

1. Why would this specific source be reliable?
2. What does the phrase "purpose of maintaining righteousness" even mean?

Please don't re-insert this unclear prose without consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There is much discussion on this board about the difference between Jewish "culture" and Judaism. MJ is Judaism with a different conclusion in the theology. If those on this board want to make that distinction in one instance, it should be carried forth throughout.

The phrase "purpose of maintaining righteousness" means Scripture is given for man to know the will and rules of God. It is clear from Scripture (Micah 6:6-8) that God desires relationship with man more than man's keeping the rules, but that the rules are given to remove barriers to that fellowship. God's followers keep those practices to remain righteous before him.--DeknMike (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

DeknMike, the phrase is still unclear, except perhaps to those who share your own particular theology. Also, please use the article talk page to discuss article content, not promote your own theological views. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Jewish opinion on Messianic Judaism theology

I cannot see how the material User:Lisa has reverted, without sourcing, is really relevant to the section in which it was placed. Also, I believe the question of Jewish opinion of MJ is discussed in the section "Jewish Objections". Before engaging in an edit war about the material, however, I would be interested in seeing why this information already mentioned in the article must be added to that section as well. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more interested in hearing why it was taken out. And so long as the J in MJ stands for Judaism, the Jewish view is more relevant than just something to find in "Jewish objections". - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced material can be removed at any time, and it was unreferenced. Now, please indicate why you think the same material must be included in the article twice. Thank you. Also, while you have very clearly expressed your own POV as per WP:POV on this matter, I am myself not sure that your personal opinions on the matter are themselves grounds for the duplicated material you added. If you believe the section should be raised, retitled, expanded, etc., those are probably more relevant than the reason you give above. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Material should be referenced, and well-known matters should be very easy to reference. That said, I think it is obvious that any claims here made about "Judais" or "Jewish history" be consistent with mainstream Jewish views or mainstream scholarship on Judaism and Jewish history. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope all parties to the current conflict can take the following as constructive criticism. I think the key problem with this article (one that should not be unsurmountable, but which requires a litle thought and creativity as well as adherence to policy) is that "Messianic Judaism" refers to a contemporary movement, but it also makes claims that early Christian Jews made at the time that they broke with Judaism. Throught much of the following two thousand years, Christians claimed that their were the heirs of the Abrhamaic covenant with God and that their interpretations of Hebrew Scripture were authoritative. And during much of that time Jewish authorities developed detailed responses (e.g. The Kuzari, and records of Church sponsored debates between Christian and Jewish notables during the middle ages). What this means is that "Jewish responses" fall into two historically distinct (but substantively overlapping) groups, "responses" that were formulated and articulated over a thousand years ago, and "responses" articulated today.

I think the article has to make clear the extent to which Messianic Judaism is a 20th century phenomenon, and to what extent it makes claims Christians have ben making since the early Church fathers.

And I think Jewish responses also logically fall into two kinds: responses to the religious and social movement founded in the 20th century - and it seems reasonable to put responses by 20th century Jews in a section at the end - versus responses to claims that happen to be made about Judaism by messianic Jews that Judaism responded to in the Middle Ages or Rabbinic Period. I think these responses, which come from an earlier period, belong earlier in the article.

So I have two cncrete proposals: first, shortly after the introduction have one secion that summarizes MJ beliefs that are shared with Christians going back to the time when the NT was canonized - along with Jewish responses to those bliefs that come from Medieval and Rabbinic sources. The article should then go into detail about how MJ departs from Christianity and in what ways it is properly speaking a 20th century phenomenonm and then have a section on Jewish responses that are specifically 20th century Jewish responses to a 20th century movement.

But it is fair to ask the article to be clear about which MJ beliefs predate the 20th century, and if Jewish authorities commented on those beliefs prior to the 20th (or even 19th or 18th) century, for NPOV sake those pre-modern Jewish responses to -premodern Christian views arising in the article must be included.

I am sure we all agree that for NPOV purposes Jewish views belong here. What I am trying to add is that some conflicts will be resolved if we distinguish between pre-modern beliefs meaning beliefs debated before the modern period even if they are still believed by people today, and modern beliefs meaning beliefs debated by 20th century people in the 20th century. I think the article should distinguish between the two and handle them in different sections. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Good points. My own opinion, for what little it might be worth, would be to make Jewish Christians, perhaps under that name, perhaps under another, the main article for this belief system, phenomenon, or whatever we call it, and make this article primarily, if not exclusively, about the existing movement. That seems to be the way the Template:Jewish Christianity is arranged, and I think that would probably be the most consistent, as well as the most neutral, approach. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that some object to the name that MJs have adopted for themselves, arguing that Messianic Judaism is not really Judaism at all. But Jewish Christians are not MJs. JCs are ethnic Jews who worship in Christian churches in Christian ways, and MJ are Jews who worship in MJ synagogues in Jewish ways. In most cases MJs worship the way Reform Jews, Conservative Jews and Orthodox Jews worship, with a variation of theology that holds to a past/current messiah instead of only a future one; MJ worship focus and style is fundamentally different from most Presbyterians, Catholics and Baptists.--DeknMike (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no reservations about how some individuals, with their own points of view, can object to the name. I don't even have any objections to saying in the lead, if we can produce a reliable source, that Jews in general object to the name. And I wasn't saying that Jewish Christians are MJs, but it does seem to be the case that MJs are considered as falling within the broad grouping of Jewish Christians. Granted, there is no real clear definition as to what a Jewish Christian is, but if the term is used by outside sources, and based on the articles I pulled up from ProQuest, Gale, JSTOR, and elsewhere yesterday, it is, I think we can say that MJs can be described by that term. And none of the groups you mentioned are considered Jewish Christians. There is a lot of variation within the broad field of Christianity, as can be seen by Arianism and other nontrinitarian branches of Christianity, Iglesia ni Cristo, Mormonism and the various other "Christian" new religious movements which can be found in the List of new religious movements. The fact that they are a rather different form of Christianity than the most common forms does not make them any less Christian. John Carter (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving Music to Religious practices section

In the context of Messianic Judaism, the music is most often associated with use for private and corporate worship, rather than being a cultural expression. I simply moved the section into the Religious practices section, and then eliminated the empty Culture heading.--DeknMike (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Messianic Judaism

Articles of the type named above are common for most religious groups. Please notice however that it is a red link, meaning it does not exist for this group yet. Is there any reason the bulk of the material regarding Christian and Jewish opinions of the MJs shouldn't be moved to such an article? John Carter (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. As has been pointed out to you by other editors, the very name of the group is controversial. Co-opting the name of an already existing group and then going 180 against that already existing group isn't something that should reasonably be presented without qualification in situ.

The name consists of two parts. The first, "Messianic", is essentially a translation of "Christian". MJ sources state that they prefer to use "Messiah" rather than "Christ" and "Messianic" rather than "Christian", because it makes things more palatable to potential converts. Judaism itself is messianic. Belief in the coming of the Messiah is one of the Thirteen principles of faith. But they aren't using it that way. They are using it to reflect a religious belief which is utterly foreign to Judaism.

The second part, "Judaism", is itself problematic, since rejection of MJ as a form of Judaism may possibly be the single thing uniting all branches of Judaism. They don't even all agree on the existence of God, but they agree that MJ is Christianity and not Judaism.

There have been debates in the past about whether this article should be entitled Messianic Judaism at all, or whether that name should simply redirect to Jewish Christians. They are a fringe movement which doesn't really merit an article of its own. A section in Alternative Judaism would certainly be enough.

The title was accepted as part of a compromise, which involved the lede including the statement that MJ is a Christian group. Later, that situation was considered to be the status quo, and debate started on the label "Christian", which was eventually removed.

It seems to me that there is a concerted effort by MJs to push the envelope here, one step at at time. First create a compromise. Then, when people have forgotten that it's a compromise, demand something else and compromise on that. In this way, progress can be made. And it irks me that editors such as yourself consider any attempt to stand against this process to be a "conflict of interest" (as you've claimed on my talk page).

Because of the controversial name, and the likelihood that the article will (a) be misunderstood, and (b) be used as a source elsewhere, it is proper that Jewish objections be very prominently featured in this article.

If you want to start an RfC, feel free. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

And it seems to me that for all the language used above, there was no response raised to the question raised. And, in response to the question of name, please see WP:NAME, which indicates that the name used by the group, which is also in this case the most commonly used name given it, is the name to be used. Also, the allegations that it is "barely notable" seem to be rather clearly counterindicated by the fact that the article has existed for several years, and possibly except for the editor above, I don't see any serious question about whether it should be deleted. And I do hope other editors who might choose to comment adhere to WP:IDHT and actually address the question raised. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the reason for a "Criticism of ..." article is the fact that a main article has a "Criticism" section that has grown out of proportion to the rest of the article. That isn't the case here. Further, one of the central, salient facts of MJ is that it is very controversial in the Jewish community. Breaking that part of it out into a separate article would be sort of like trying to write a bio of Muhammed Ali that avoids mention of the controversies and conflicts surrounding him. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

To the first point, that it isn't yet too long, perhaps, I honestly don't know. And the fact that it is very controversial in the Jewish community is relevant, but, honestly, only to the Jewish community involved, and in the US, where I think a lot of the MJs are based, the Jewish opinion of them is probably not that big a problem or concern. In Israel, of course, it is dramatically different. I should also note that there are quite a few Christians who somewhat challenge their status as Christians as well. I would have to check the history to see if any relevant section is particularly longer than the GA version's sections were, but I do think that it might be reasonable in any event to make "Jewish objections" one of the subheadings of a "Criticism of JWs" section. John Carter (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Trinity as seen by Judaism

This is in regard to a series of edits the last of which is this.

In "Maimonides' political thought: studies in ethics, law, and the human ideal", by Howard Theodore Kreisel, I find:

"It should not be inferred from what has been said that Maimonides felt that the threat of idol worship had vanished. This is not the case. Idolatry had assumed in his view new, more subtle forms. Christianity is regarded by Maimonides not only as a defective imitation of Judaism, but also as an idolatrous religion. The belief in the Trinity, with a human being regarded as the Son of god, is a form of polytheism in his view. Christian worship is thus considered by him to be idolatry in a technical legal sense. It should be added that this view stands in sharp contrast to his appraisal of Islam. Islam too is considered to be a defective imitation of Judaism, but nevertheless is a monotheistic religion. Maimonides goes so far as to refrain from labeling Moslem worship at the Kaaba as idolatrous. He views the worship as being directed not to the stone itself but to the one true God"[2]

Based on the above I am reverting that last edit. Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

And I once again have to question why the material is of such overwhelming importance that the matter needs to be included twice in the same article. It is already mentioned in the "Judaism" section of "Comparisons" which says, and I quote, "Judaism considers the worship of a compound/trinitarian God to be idolatrous, holding that God is One without any multiplicity whatsoever. Jewish theology also rejects the idea that the messiah, or any human being, is a divinity, and such an idea has always been regarded as idolatrous." In all honesty, I cannot see why the article must necessarily make the claim that Judaism holds this belief as idolatrous twice in the same article. It very much gives the impression of POV-pushing. Please decide which section should contain the material, and remove it from the other one. If no one else does it, I will be forced to make the decision myself later. And I do regret that this change was made without addressing the issues raised in the section immediately above. John Carter (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

John—I think the answer is the relevance of the point being made by Maimonides in respect to the theology of Christianity. Obviously "Messianic Judaism" is confusingly named. Maimonides lived in a time after which Christianity had fully adopted the concept of the Trinity into its theology, thus his comments are relevant. "Messianic Judaism," confusingly, is called "Judaism"—it is in the name. Thus I think it is completely relevant to point out the salient point that the theology of the two religions are virtual opposites, according to Maimonides at least. By the way Maimonides is regarded with reverence by today's Jews. His views represent the opinion of a significant segment of the contemporary thinking of Jews. Given that Messianic Judaism, by its name, implies that it is related to Judaism, it has to be pointed out in whatever sections of the article that this comes up in, that "Messianic Judaism" is anything but Judaism. Judaism importantly rejects idol worship. This would definitely be relevant in a "Theology" section of our article, but it also may be relevant in other sections as well. Bus stop (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Relevant, maybe. Overkill to have the word "idolatrous" three times in the same article, definitely. The point has been made in the section above that it isn't Judaism, which I think everybody accepts. Perhaps it should be mentioned explicitly in the lead, I don't know. But I have to repeat that I cannot see why this single opinion of outsiders is so staggeringly important to get across that the "idolatrous", which is probably also reasonably one of the words to avoid as per WP:AVOID, is not only not avoided, but repeated three times in the article. Again, there may be cause to expand the material in the lead, but I cannot see how this insistence on labelling this group by a term used only by one small group of outsiders three times in the article cannot be anything but POV pushing. On this basis, I am now raising the point at WP:NPOVN. John Carter (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no limit on the number of times a word can be used in an article. WP:AVOID does not suggest limiting the frequency of use of a word. And WP:AVOID is not dogmatic—certain words are not intrinsically "off-limits." WP:AVOID is aimed at the avoidance of using certain terms which may characterize or pigeonhole subject matter in ways that are anything but illuminating. "Idolatry" and its related forms arises naturally in this article because "Messianic Judaism" incorporates the term "Judaism," which it is not—"Messianic Judaism" is not "Judaism." That is an inbuilt problem with which this article has to contend. The terminology is inherently confusing. When speaking of the theology of "Messianic Judaism" one must point out the distinction with "Jewish" theology. Judaism by and large takes exception to such notions as are normal in Christianity. Bus stop (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So now people are removing sourced and relevant material because they have a problem with it stylistically? That is just ridiculous. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not relevant to overall anthropologic understanding of the movement in the paragraph it was placed. The source is from an opinion piece on a single detractor's website, so it most properly belongs in the objections section.--DeknMike (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The source for it being idolatrous for Jews is thousands of years of tradition, mishnaic teachings, and eventual further explanation in halakhic texts and responsa, not one person's website; the sources quoted are synopsizing 3000 years of Jewish law and tradition that is much older than Jesus himself. -- Avi (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It is still a modern objection by traditionalist Judaism, not a description of MJ. It belongs in the objections section.--DeknMike (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Only if by "modern" you mean around 2,000 years old. The discussions of the trinity date back to the foundation of Christianity, and the injunction against polytheism is biblical, which makes it about 3,322 and one half years old. -- Avi (talk) 06:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You may want to read Jewish_view_of_Jesus#Indivisibility_of_God, and note that Halakha was a solely oral tradition until the Mishnah so although the Jerusalem Talmud was compiled into its written form between 350-400 CE (which would make it 1600 or so years old) it, with the Babylonian Talmud and the Mishna are repositories of the Oral Law which was contemperaneous with the written law, so, once again, 3000+ years old. -- Avi (talk) 06:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad point, unfortunately, it probably has WP:SYNTH problems if the word itself or an effective equivalent is not used to directly refer to the MJs themselves. But I could see how something like, as a rough example, "Jews rejects the Judaism of the MJs. Their belief in the indivisibility of God leads them to see the trinitarian MJs, and Christians in general, as engaging in a form of unacceptable idolatry," might be both more substantive while also placing less emphasis on the loaded word. Just an idea, anyway. John Carter (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Normally, "idolatrous" would be a word to avoid, but given the specific religious connotations of a Trinity within "traditional" Jewish theology, I think it would be okay. Having said that, I question why we need to rehash the same material in both comparison to Judaism and "Jewish objections". I might even suggest removing the former section, because Messianic Jews do consider themselves as such. That might be a radical suggestion, but I do ask why we need two paragraphs with largely the same material. Kansan (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Documented History

A number of editors on this page, clearly in opposition to the existence of the article, continue to push a POV that MJ is a modern invention by crafty Christians to mislead "ignorant Jews" (Lisa's words) Their "source materials" are opinion pieces from anti-missionary blog sites. They impugn my honor by ignoring original source materials and documented external eyewitness accounts of the movement.

It's not about how old Judaism is. Comments like the one from Brewcrewer that "non-messianic judaism is way older then 100 years. so beat that!" prove it's digressed to blustering and name calling. We all have a point of view, a worldview. I'm trying earnestly to leave mine out of this to provide an informed description of those that call themselves Messianic Judaism. If only others would do the same, and quit trying to 'tag' every other paragraph with anti-MJ slander.

We can agree it began when God created Adam and Eve some 6000 years ago, confirmed to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and that the precepts were codified by Moses & his apprentice Joshua in the desert. We can agree on the accuracy of Tanakh, but not on interpretation. These editors and their sources prooftext the Prophets' writings to say Jesus was a non-event in history, and the sources I read disagree. The sources I read say there were well-meaning Jews in the 1800s who came to the same conclusions that Hus & Zwingli did a few hundred years earlier, that Jesus really was Messiah, and then Cohn & others sought to tell whoever would listen what they believed. It took a while - and modern technology - to reach a tipping point of growth, and after a century, they burst into general consciousness. As Gladwell said in 'Outliers' it takes a long time of preparation before a person (or movement) gets noticed.

What I wrote was not "revisionist" history. Just because it doesn't fit your pre-existing paradigm doesn't make it false. (The earth is not flat, nor does the sun revolve around it.) Try to open your mind to the option that what MJs say about themselves is true for them and those who earnestly want to learn. And leave it at that.--DeknMike (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Stick to the edits and not the editors. You may not be aware of your own POV - so perhaps take a large step back. Some of us have been editing this page for several years, and I don't think anyone is 'in opposition to the existence of the article'. You seem to be a lone POV wolf amidst edits that aren't going your way. Remember that this is an encyclopedia and not a tract full of self-referencing. And you're coming up to 3RR... Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Calling the 1960s a "time when many Jewish people were coming to faith in the Messiah" is textbook POV editing because it makes the assumption that Jesus was the messiah. They don't even pull that kind of crap at Jesus. The fact that you have trouble recognizing such obvious POV in your own editing brings into question your ability to edit within Wikipedia's policies. (Note: I am not against the existence of this article. The subject is clearly notable and clearly the group is known by the name that is the title of this article, as deceptive as that name may be. However, I'd like to do what I can to stop the article from asserting that black is white and water flows uphill. Such statements can't be asserted as fact in the article, regardless of whether they're part of MJ theology.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have 2 offending words, take them out. But the point of contention is the POV that MJ didn't exist until the 60s. However, if not for a rise in "conversions" in that decade, it would not still not have sources. I recognize my own POV and edit around it. The edits I've tried to correct WERE consensus; the quote you question pre-existed on the site and was in the footnote to the first sentence (which said something the source didn't).--DeknMike (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The lede of this article

DeknMike (talk · contribs) keeps adding material to the lede of this article, typically using unreliable and/or primary sources to promote a specific POV. DeknMike, the lede of this article is a consensus and delicate balance that was reached recently after lengthy discussion and compromise. The whole point was to avoid exactly the kind of thing you are doing, and the inevitable edit-wars that would subsequently result. Please do not add anything to it without first discussing it and achieving consensus here. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you read ANYTHING that didn't come from a counter-missionary site? I know Wikipedia is more about consensus than accuracy and scholarship, but let me suggest the following for you from the book History of Jewish Christianity,published 1936 by Hugh Schonfield:

this trend may best be described as the Rejudaissance of Christianity. ... It is being increasingly recognized how impossible is the attitude which would divorce Christianity from its Jewish origin and associations. (intro, p8)

Jesus did not take away or cancel the Jewish Law, in any sense whatsoever, (p145)

the Missions to the Jews. mainly founded in the nineteenth century, paved the way directly for the reconstitution of Jewish Christianity as an organic spiritual community ... a national Jewish witness for Jesus the Messiah that in the dark hour of almost universal unbelief would hold aloft the torch of faith, and fulfill the historic mission of Israel to the world by showing forth the pattern of a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. (p146)

the Hebrew Christian Testimony to Israel founded in 1893 ... Jewish Christians as such were bearing testimony that they had found in Jesus of Nazareth their Messiah and Savior. Their aim was not to convert Jews to a creed, but to bring as many as possible into living relationship with God, in Christ. (p149)

(during WWI, Spontaneous movements of a deeply spiritual character were to be noted expressing devotion to Jesus. but distinct from any missionary endeavor — the “Seekers after God in Russia,” the “Christ- Believing Jews” in Hungary. (p166)

It was also made quite clear that the I.H.C.A. would not come under the jurisdiction of any Christian denomination. From 1925 the history of Jewish Christianity becomes in effect, the history of the I.H.C.A. One of the immediate results of its constitution was that many secret Jewish believers in Jesus, including a number of rabbis, began to communicate with the Executive. It was the breath of life to them to learn of a Jewish Christian fellowship. To such a body they could confide their inmost convictions, where they had difficulty in approaching a Mission or a Gentile Church. (p179)

It is clear from the breadth of the literature that the movement is helped by evangelical Christians but is not a sub-denomination of Christianity. Hebrews Christianity (now called Messianic Judaism) is different from Gentile Christianity, in part because it involves Jews worshiping in a Jewish way with an understanding of Jesus as Messiah, which is the primary point of commonality with Christianity. That is not a message the counter-missionaries want the remnant of the Jewish population that still attends synagogue to hear, but it is in fact the truth, according to a prevalence of statements of faith of the hundreds of congregations and the published literature by practitioners.--DeknMike (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The confusion among some editors about what is Messianic Judaism is understandable. One source describes it with "Dozens of so-called 'Messianic synagogues' or 'congregations' exist where the majority are Gentiles practicing some form of modern day jive Christianity called Pentecostalism. ...The facts are that these “Messianic Congregations” are almost entirely made up of non-Jews, run by non-Jews, and their theology is even more non-Jewish." Perhaps they are reacting to an experience with one of the Christian churches that has overlaid Messianic words and music into a church congregation. Perhaps these editors are simply parroting propaganda from anti-messianic sites. But the leadership of the mainstream groups and much of the members are sincerely trying to worship in a Jewish style but with a first century CE understanding, '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." These definitions do not match the current lede, which needs to be changed to be an accurate description of the movement.--DeknMike (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

DeknMike, why would a book published in 1936 be relevant to a movement that effectively started in the 1960s? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, I refer you to the article, which clearly shows the modern movement began in the early 1800s, though it didn't become widespread until the 1960s (perhaps because of the growth of television news). The discussion in the source book from 1936 proves your objections are invalid.--DeknMike (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If you equate Messianic Judaism with the movement of the mid-1800s to early 1900s to convert Jews to Christianity, then your argument would make sense. These early "movements" were "Missions to the Jews". Is that what you're doing here? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If he is, then I would have to say that I would probably want some clarification regarding the sourcing, specifically regarding the language the sources in question use. Many of the sources I've read about the MJs say that it began in the 20th century. The other movements, which obviously did exist, appear to have become inactive before the modern MJs became active, and can probably on that basis be considered only tangentially related. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

As a young Hungarian rabbinical student, Leopold Cohn noticed that certain portions of Scripture spoke about the messiah in ways not explained by his schooling. In search for answers, he arrived in New York City, and became convinced of the truth of Yeshua's validity as the Messiah, and began teaching it within the Orthodox community. In 1894, Rabbi Cohen founded Chosen Peoples, which exist to this day. Further, Schonfield's history proves this was not started in the 1960s. It was not a Christian mission. Messianic Judaism is a movement of Jewish people who came to a reasoned understanding and belief that the Christians were right in theology but not in practice.--DeknMike (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Except that:

1. Cohn was in all likelihood not a "young Hungarian rabbinical student", but instead a Hungarian saloonkeeper named Itsak Leib Joszovics, who was arrested and sentenced for fraud in Hungary, and who fled to the U.S. and adopted the name of Cohn and the title of "rabbi".
2. More importantly, "Chosen People Ministries" started out as the "Brownsville Mission to the Jews", then "Williamsburg Mission to the Jews", then "American Board of Missions to the Jews". It was, in fact, a Christian mission to Jews, nearly identical to many other Christian missions to Jews at the time, intended to convert Jews to Christianity, as its founder Joszovics/Cohn had done. It was run by the Baptists, and was a formal Baptist mission. It did not purport to be Judaism, or use appropriated Jewish terms or rituals. It did not have "synagogues" where people wore skullcaps and prayer shawls, prayed in Hebrew, and read from the Torah on Saturday mornings. Its goal was to get Jews to convert to Christianity, and attend Baptist churches.
3. Schonfield writes about "Jewish Christianity": Jews who converted to Christianity, and the Jewish influences on Christianity. He does not pretend that what he is describing or what they are practicing is Judaism.
4. "Messianic Judaism" emerged as a movement in the 1960s, and was essentially the result of Marty Rosen's innovation. Marty Rosen converted to Christianity in the mid-1950s, became a Baptist minister, and in the late 1950s/early 1960s had the brainstorm of how Christianity could be better marketed to Jews, by presenting it as Judaism, "completed" Judaism. Until then there was no such thing as "Messianic Judaism"; in fact, he broke with the American Board of Missions to the Jews over these innovations, though they would later come to adopt them.

When using sources about "Messianic Judaism", please stick to sources that are actually about "Messianic Judaism". Just as the early Jerusalem Church of the 1st century CE was not modern "Messianic Judaism" (despite revisionist and anachronistic attempts by MJ to portray it as such), so too "Jewish Christianity" of the 1850s to 1950s was not the modern "Messianic Judaism". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Reading again through the whole of the article, I read the quote from George Berkley's "And Collapse…and Collapse (note 72). He described Messianic Judaism as a movement that "seeks to incorporate many of the trappings of Judaism with the tenets of Christianity. Its congregants assemble on Friday evening and Saturday morning, recite Hebrew prayers, and sometimes even wear talliot (prayer shawls)." This works as a consise lead statement with minimum of controversy.--DeknMike (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It ignores the missionary aims and the deceptive practices and term switching. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Because you don't agree with the conclusions of a carefully researched book does not invalidate the research. There is nothing "deceptive" in the presentation of the information. It is evangelistic (what you call missionary) the way God directed Abraham and the Children of Israel to be evangelistic and be a light to the nations. It appears you are still confusing Messianic Judaism with Jews who are Christian (Hebrew Christianity)--DeknMike (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

When I was growing up, the dark-skinned citizens of the USA called themselves 'negros' and 'colored persons'. They were part of an organization - formed Feb 12, 1909 - called the National Association for the Advancement of Colored Persons (NAACP). We don't call them coloreds any more. Instead we call them African-Americans and Blacks, terms which emerged in the 60s and 70s. By the definition of Messianic Judaism by some on this board, however, there were no African-Americans in the USA in the 1950s. Popularizing the name Messianic Jews instead of some other designation does not mean the movement sprang out of thin air, but simply reflects a name change to match theological strengthening and cultural understanding.--DeknMike (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that MJs and Christian Jews and Hebrew Christians are the same thing. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 05:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that some Jewish people that were formerly known as Hebrew Christians, and were not welcome in churches, changed their name to be more accurate in who they were and what they did, and are now known as Messianic Jews. Organizations composed of Jews formerly known as Hebrew Christians may have had HC in their name before, but were not and are not mainstream Christian, and do not gear their theological marketing to non-Jews. These are different from Jews who abandoned their roots in Judaism to assimilate fully into Christian churches (Jewish Christians); they are ethnically Jewish but not Messianic in practice. Organizations of Christians who seek to encourage Jews to abandon their roots ('convert') are not within the Messianic camp. --DeknMike (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

If you can produce reliable independent sourcing to that effect which also serves to directly link those Hebrew Christians to the modern Messianic Judaism movement, then I don't think there would be any real objections. Without that source, however, there does seem to be perhaps a bit of unacceptable WP:SYNTH in drawing a clear connection between the two. John Carter (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Trinity as seen by Christianity

I think we need to be careful to correctly state the doctrine itself. I edited out a statement that Jesus was "part of the Trinity." Strictly speaking, Christianity teaches that God has no parts. The Trinity isn't a "compound unity" (tritheism) or a "partnership" (arianism, or shituf), but rather a simplex unity.

There was another problem with the statement, though, in that it had "Jesus" as part of the Trinity. The person of Jesus is a different doctrine, somewhat related, which is the incarnation and the dual nature of Christ.

The dual nature posits that Jesus is fully human and fully divine (or fully man and fully God) -- not half man and half God, but fully man and fully God. The reason for the distinction is that, again, God has no parts. An infinite being cannot by definition have parts. Either the "parts" would be finite (in which God would be finite) or infinite (in which you would have multiple infinities -- or multiple gods).

But this doctrine of the dual nature is a DIFFERENT doctrine from the doctrine of the Trinity. Jews teach that the Torah is both physical and spiritual. It's ink on animal skin, but it's also considered to be the word of God. This is a dual nature to the Torah scroll -- but it has nothing to do with whether God is one or not. That's a different subject.

And to close the loop here, the doctrine of the Trinity isn't a multiplication of beings, but the statement of the infinitude of a single being. While both Jews and Christians treat God as both "infinite" and "person" the understanding of those two terms is treated differently in the two religions. Jews treat "infinite" and "person" separately, while Christians attempt to consider both together. Thus I (first person) could speak to you (second person) about Jesus (third person). But if the "you" I was speaking to was "God" I'd have the problem that God is also WITHIN me and participating in my own spiritual functions (first person), as well as the one I was speaking to (second person) in an attempt to draw closer to someone incomprehensible (third person). Because God is infinite, God is all three.

Jews don't necessarily reject such a grammatical consideration, but they certainly don't draw any kind of formulas with it either.

That being said -- there is a final consideration: Messianics don't always treat the doctrine of the "Trinity" in Christian ways. Writers like David Stern are mainstream Christian in their understanding, but there are other writers in the Messianic movement who use terms like "compound unity" which is rejected by both mainstream Christians AND mainstream Jews.

So, to recap:

1. There is the Christian understanding of the Trinity (simplex unity).
2. There is the Jewish understanding of the Trinity (partnership of separate beings).
3. There is the Messianic understanding of the Trinity (sometimes same as Christian but sometimes a "compound unity").

While we have no need to arbitrate who is "right" per se -- documenting the differences, or at least being aware of them, would make for a better article.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into a long back-and-forth about this because every discussion of the trinity I've seen (like this one) amounts to incomprehensible gibberish. However, I disagree with you when you say that "(t)here is a Jewish understanding of the Trinity". So far as I know, there isn't one, except that it's shituf and forbidden. Having said that, I don't have any particular objection to the edit you made. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steven -- we're agreed. I merely translated "shituf" into something English by "partnership of separate beings." Both Christianity and Judaism forbid a belief in God as a partnership of separate beings. The only difference is that Christianity defines such a partnership as Arianism, while Jews describe it as the Trinity. In other words -- Jews and Christians mean different things when they use the term "Trinity."SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi SkyWriter, can you please explain EXACTLY the difference between MJ's beliefs about the relationship between Jesus and the Trinity, and Christianity's beliefs in the relationship between Jesus and the Trinity, and exactly why this difference would allow the opening sentence of the article Trinity to state "The Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead", but disallow the statement that Jesus is "one of three persons of the Trinity" in this article. This difference, if there is one, is not explained clearly enough to allow your removal of this statement to stand. I read the reference "What are the Standards of the UMJC?", the reference now cited for your edit, and it does not appear that this reference supports replacing the statement that Jesus is "one of three persons of the Trinity". Thanks. 69.249.104.253 (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi -- the reason for the change isn't because of a difference between Christianity and Messianic Judaism, but rather because of a difference in the two doctrines of 1) the Trinity and 2) the Incarnation. These are two separate doctrines, and the previous sentence confuses the two. While "God the Son" is one of the persons of the Trinity, "Jesus" is not per se. "Jesus" is not merely "God the Son" but is also the "Son of Man." Since "Jesus" is both, and since "Man" is not included in the meaning of "Trinity" then it is incorrect to use the term "Jesus" when speaking of the Trinity because it makes it appear that Christians think there is something physical about God, which they do not.

One could correctly say that Jesus is seen as both "God the Son" and the "Son of Man", but only "God the Son" is one person of the Trinity.

The confusion of the two may be why Jews apply the concept of "Shituf" to Christianity, while the concept itself only applies to Arianism.

Regardless, this article isn't about Jewish misconceptions of Christianity, but instead about Messianic conceptions of itself. While I'm sure it's possible to find a sloppily worded source that would say something like "Jesus is one person of the Trinity" if you looked hard enough, it still wouldn't be representative of the actual doctrines as they were formulated within Christianity and subsequently adopted by Messianic Judaism. It would be akin to a citation of an Arminian in favor of limited atonement -- while possible to find, perhaps, it would not be representative of Arminianism itself.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Tim, in Christian/MJ theology, the "Son of God" is Jesus. You are making what is, for all practical purposes, a distinction without a difference. Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia written for laypeople, not a specialized journal of Christian theology. We need to stick to terminology people understand. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The page Son of God seems to bear out Jayjg on this one. While that page, or perhaps God the Son might be a good place for drawing differentiations, I don't think this page is. If good reliable sources don't make that differentiation regarding this subject, then I don't think that we necessarily have to either. John Carter (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I (IP 69.249.104.253, I just wasn't logged in before) am in agreement with SkyWriter now. He made a convincing argument. Just because others get it wrong with inexact language in other places doesn't mean we have to get it wrong here as well. I will leave it to SkyWriter to handle the revert back himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zad68 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree completely with SkyWriter. He draws the unfounded assumption that there is one "Christian" view of Jesus, and there is not. By so doing, he is, basically, pushing the POV which conforms to what he said, and ignoring the numerous Christians who hold different views on the matter, including Nontrinitarians. We cannot take one Christian view of Jesus as authoritative over any others, and his statement seems very clearly in my eyes to do exactly that. There is no uniform opinion on the nature of Jesus or the Son of God in Christianity, never has been so far as I know, and probably never will be. John Carter (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly so. With over 2.2 billion Christians comprising four major theological movements, dozens of smaller ones, and hundreds of significant churches, each with its own unique theological views, it's absurd to imagine that there is one Christian view on anything at all. Furthermore, Tim's argument may make sense in rarefied theological circles, but its irrelevant to Wikipedia and Wikipedia policy. The lede of an article on Messianic Judaism is not the place in which to use exacting, specific and unclear-to-the-layperson Christian theological terminology, distinctions, and arguments. Save it for the body of the Son of God and Trinity articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that I agree and disagree with Tim. First, my disagreements:

"(T)his article isn't about Jewish misconceptions of Christianity, but instead about Messianic conceptions of itself." Completely wrong. It should be about neutral, verifiable facts about MJ that can be attributed to reliable sources.

". . . Jews apply the concept of "Shituf" to Christianity, while the concept itself only applies to Arianism." As far as I can tell, this is Tim's opinion, and his only. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Having said all that, I think perhaps his edit may be the best thing for the article. That is to say, leave mention of the Trinity entirely out of the sentence. This is closely related to what I said above about "incomprehensible gibberish". Since it's nearly impossible to say anything at all about the Trinity without someone else saying, "No, no, no, you clearly don't understand the concept. That's not what the Trinity is at all," perhaps best to leave it out completely. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

John Carter - Honestly, I find "one of the three parts of the Trinity" to be as equally opaque in meaning as "fully human and fully divine." They're equally meaningless to me. Given this, I'd rather the article have the "correct" meaningless (to me) wording rather than the "incorrect" wording, because to at least those people who know and care about this, it'll be the correct meaningless words. There's no point in leaving the incorrect meaningless words when other meaningless words are more acceptable. (Sorry SkyWriter if I'm goring your ox on this.) The goal of Wikipedia isn't to have 'dumbed down' articles that have incorrect content because more people get things wrong than get them right. The whole point to an Encyclopedia, which Wikipedia aspires to be, is to get things right, and academically so. Either way, I have no dog in this hunt, so I'm out. SkyWriter has higher Wikipedia privileges and more experience than I do and I am sure he can handle this.Zad68 (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(e-c) Agree with Steven that WP:TRUTH would seem to apply here. If the sources say something, it isn't really our place to say that they are wrong. Having said that, maybe just saying something to the effect of "Jews have historically rejected the concept of the Trinity as unacceptable, and the MJs are Trinitarian" would be the least problematic way of addressing the issue. Regarding Zad's comments, if you can prove to me that there is only one conception of the Trinity prevalent in Christianity, then I would probably agree with you. Having said that, and having reviewed the subject for some time, I can say, I believe conclusively, that there is no single conception of the Trinity within Christianity. Therefore, it would be POV pushing if we were to try to indicate that there were; it would also, effectively, seem to assert that anyone who didn't agree wasn't Christian, and that is something we should avoid doing as POV pushing. If however you can produce sources which substantiate that there is only one notion of the Trinity universally accepted by all Christians, I will be more than willing to acknowledge my error. However, like I said, academically, I have no reason to believe that there is a single description or definition of the Trinity that would be acceptable to all academic sources, and that, on that basis, any attempts to assert there are would pretty much by definition be pushing the POV of those who hold to that definition. John Carter (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

John - so actually we should both be in favor of SkyWriter's edit, which removes mention of the Trinity altogether. You should be in favor of removing reference to it because in your view, its definition is too vague and variable to be useful.Zad68 (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't tell me how I should think, OK? I think going into the details of Jesus's person is probably excessive, certainly for this main article on the subject. I'm not really saying that I necessarily like the current version that much better, because it does to me single out the MJs for beliefs and actions which are common among a broad range of Christians, and I myself question the Ariel reference, because in several Christian denominations observance of religious tradition, even if it does not directly contribute to salvation, can and allegedly at least sometimes does indirectly make such more likely (more or less, that gets complicated too), but the current version which doesn't lay emphasis on a belief which is not universal even among Trinitarians is preferable to one that did. John Carter (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Geeze -- I didn't expect this much coming from the edit. First, is there a single view of the Trinity within "Christianity"? Depends on what you mean by "Christianity". But this article isn't that broad, fortunately. Messianics generally fall into two categories: 1) orthodox (Christian) evangelical views, such as David Stern, and 2) "compound unity"ists. In any case, neither is the subject of the doctrine of "Jesus" (i.e. Christology), but instead on the doctrine of "God" (i.e. Theology proper). The edit I made was minimal and conformed to the subject of the sentence, "Jesus" (i.e. Christology). Messianics generally believe in the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity, with the only exception being the "compound unity" Messianics who don't really have a formulated doctrine as such, and are probably just using sloppy wording. Messianics also generally believe in the orthodox Christian view of the two natures of Christ. They believe God is one being in three persons (Father, Son, Spirit), and they believe Jesus is one being with two natures (God and Man). If you HAD to compound the two doctrines in a single sentence it would be something like "Messianics believe that Jesus has two natures, fully God (one person of the Trinity) and fully Man." It's not a great sentence because it clumps two separate doctrines together, but that IS the standard doctrine.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Trinity and Incarnation are different doctrines

The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is one being in three persons: Father, Son, and Spirit.

The doctrine of the Incarnation teaches that Jesus is one being with two natures: God and Man.

These are two different doctrines -- often confused by Jews, and even sometimes by Christians. While it is correct to say that "God the Son is one of the three persons of the Trinity" it is not correct to say that "Jesus is one of the three persons of the Trinity" and it is flat out wrong to say that "Jesus is one of the three PARTS of the Trinity."

My computer is grey and uses electricity. Electricity in New York is partially generated by nuclear power. But my computer is not a nuclear device.

Lisa -- there's no need for an edit war to enforce a Jewish misunderstanding of Christian theology. You'll have to trust me that these are two entirely different doctrines.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Christian and MJ theology, "God the Son" is Jesus. Your theological distinction/hair-splitting is only of interest and meaning to expert theologians, and the previous wording is more clear to regular readers, which is Wikipedia's actual audience. Please don't change it again without consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Jayg, it's not hair splitting to keep the sentence on the topic of Jesus. Messianics believe he is BOTH God and Man. They do not believe that he is ONLY God.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Tim, just stop. We know your point of view already. What you said was not in either of the sources which appeared after it. That makes it original research. Stop with the Christian theology lessons, too. "Part" is absolutely legitimate in common parlance. Only a theologian would have a problem with it, which is why you're having a problem with it. So we made it "persons" instead of "parts". Which does appear in the sources which follow it. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Lisa -- it's not original research at all. I'll accept that you are unaware of the doctrine -- which means you need to step back and do some reading. God has no "parts". Perhaps you could check out the Westminster Confession of Faith for a pretty generic introduction "God has no body, parts, or passions" (chapter 2).SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll bow to the insistence of several editors here to cram BOTH doctrines in a single sentence, but only under protest. It's very inelegant.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Tim, do you know what Wikipedia defines as original research and/or synthesis? It's inserting content, no matter how well derived from other sources, which is not stated as such in the sources being cited. The sources being cited do not say what you are saying. You're simply going to have to allow your personal scholarly sentiments to be bruised this time. We are talking about the theology of a particular Christian movement. It may or may not have the same theology as the "mainstream Christian" views you are talking about. But if you want to say that they do, you need to source it. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Lisa -- this is absurd. The edits I made were in full agreement with the sources ALREADY attached to the sentence. What you are doing with them is synthesis. In note 8 there is a statement of the Trinity (one doctrine) and a DIFFERENT citation for the deity of Christ (a different doctrine). Your confounding the two is synthesis. READ NOTE 8, Lisa.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Lisa -- here is note 8: "June 2004. http://www.umjc.net/home-mainmenu-1/faqs-mainmenu-58/14-umjc-faq/19-what-are-the-standards-of-the-umjc. Retrieved Septemeber 13, 2010.

"1. We believe that there is one G-d, eternally existent in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

2. We believe in the deity of the L-RD Yeshua, the Messiah, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory."

These are TWO DIFFERENT DOCTRINES. You can't mix the two. It would be fair to write "Messianic Judaism teaches that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They also believe in the deity of the L-RD Yeshua." But you can't synthesize the two in the way you are doing it. Your wording is flat out wrong, and here's the reason: Jesus is ALSO human. The deity of Jesus is taught as one nature, but only one of two. He is ALSO human. Your wording negates that. Why on earth are you picking a fight over something you don't understand very well? You and I share the same religious convictions -- but some things you know better than I and some things I know better than you. Trust me, your wording doesn't work.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Lisa -- I see that you are continuing an edit war against the very notes embedded in the section. Those notes do NOT say that "Jesus is part of the Trinity." That's a synthesis that you or someone else invented. Messianic Judaism is not a docetist religion. They believe that Jesus is both human and divine. Also, most Messianics are quite orthodox in their Christian doctrines and do not believe that God has "parts". Your edit contradicts Christian doctrine (and by implication Messianic doctrine), it synthesizes the citations to say something they do not, and it creates the logical fallacies of God having "parts" and Jesus not being human (or rather it makes God part human -- which is NOT Messianic or Christian doctrine). They believe in the two natures of Christ, one divine and one human, each fully realized, and neither confounded or blended. My edit merely used the notes themselves without interpretation or synthesis. I suggest you leave your creativity to places other than Wikipedia.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Tim, you have a vested interest, for some reason, in arguing that Christian beliefs are monotheistic. You've gone on this particular warpath before, and I don't see why you insist on continuing it. Saying that JC is part of the Trinity does not say anything about "parts" in a theological sense. It is normal English, intelligible to a normal reader. Nor does the paragraph say that they don't think he's human. It doesn't address that issue at all. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Lisa -- Christians not only don't believe God has parts, they state it in numerous creeds and theological texts. The citations do NOT say that God has parts. Nor do they say that Jesus is ONLY divine. To state "Jesus is part of the Trinity" is both docetist and tritheist, and is NOT stated in the citations. You have a vested interest in presenting Christianity in a way that is explicitly rejected by its own adherents. Stick with the citations, don't synthesize, and you'll be okay.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"Jesus is part of the Trinity" does not mean "God has parts". Here's a definition for you to look at. There is a meaning of "part" which indicates separateness from a whole: a portion or division of a whole that is separate or distinct; piece, fragment, fraction, or section; constituent. But there's also a meaning of "part" which indicates an essential or integral attribute or quality.

Because you're a theologian, you insist on understanding the word "part" only according to the first meaning. But in common parlance -- and I think it's clear to anyone reading this article -- saying that X is a part of Y implies the second meaning. You're trying to make a theological point at the cost of clarity in this article. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Lisa -- I'm not trying to do anything but keep a bizarre synthesis from being forced onto the citations. They do not say "Jesus is part of the Trinity" because "Jesus" is ALSO human. You are not merely inserting tritheism, but docetism as well. Christians believe that Jesus is also human. They do NOT believe that humanity is an essential or integral attribute or quality of God. This is a SEPARATE nature in their theology. My last edit merely stated what the citations themselves stated, without adding or synthesizing. Your edit is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to explain, again -- mainstream Christians (and mainstream Messianics) believe God is one being in three persons, Father, Son, and Spirit. They also believe that Jesus is one being with two natures, Son of Man and God the Son. Only the divine nature is seen to be one person of the Trinity; the human nature is not. The only way to write the sentence you are trying to write would be something like "Messianic Judaism states that the divine nature of Jesus is one person of the Trinity" but even that would be mangling two separate doctrines together into a single sentence. While I'm sure you think that such distinction is merely a comparmentalization -- it remains THEIR doctrine. We are not supposed to state what we think they think, but rather what they say they think. They say they believe in one God. Disagree? Fine -- but don't butcher their doctrines into something unintelligible.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Lisa, it appears that you want to retain the term "Trinity" in a statement about Jesus. I've offered the simplest wording I can think of that conforms to the actual Messianic teaching and uses the terms you seem to want to use. Sorry, but can't use the term "part" without misrepresenting their religion.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Tim, as has been explained, this kind of theological hairsplitting belongs in the body of God the Son or Trinity, not the lede of this article. Here we just use simple language in common, non-technical ways. Also, the fact that someone believes a human being is "human" is not remarkable, so does not need to be included in the lede. Only the claim that a human being is also divine needs be remarked on. Again, this isn't an article about the intricacies of the Trinity, the lede is a description of what distinguishes MJ from other faiths. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Jay, something can be simple and correct at the same time, which is what I'm trying to do with the compromise wording. "Jesus is part of the Trinity" is wrong on numerous levels that I've identified. Being simple is of no value if it's wrong. But I think that Lisa wants to tie Jesus into the term Trinity to identify them as a Christian group -- which is fine. It just needs to be worded in a way that's not incorrect. Messianics DO believe that "God the Son" is one person of the Trinity and also one nature of Christ. Putting those CORRECTLY into simple terms is doable -- which is what I'm trying to help accomplish. I'm all for simplicity.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I knew it would only be a matter of time before you started telling people what I'm thinking or what I want to do. You always do that, and you're always wrong. What you don't seem to understand is the difference between Christian beliefs and Christian theology. Theologians can spin things. For example, if a Christian theologian doesn't want to deal with the fact that Christianity is fundamentally polytheistic, he may invent the idea of three equalling one, which is an offense to logic and mathematics. The bottom line is that they worship Jesus as a god. I don't care if they do so while saying that he's wholly human and wholly divine at the same time (yet another offense against logic) or whether they do so while eating a pizza. All Christians worship him as a deity. You know that. I know that. Everyone here knows that. But since your background is as a theologian, you can't look past the hair splitting, logic chopping, and the spin. And that's a shame. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That said, I'll accept your compromise of "Messianic Judaism states that Jesus is not merely a man, but also "God the Son" (one person of the Trinity)". - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

So, you DON'T want the word "Trinity" in there and you DON'T want to tie them into Christianity? My mistake.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

New Issue: Compound Unity

Although (I think most) Messianics hold to an orthodox Christian view of the Trinity (as a simplex unity), there certainly are Messianics who hold to a tritheistic compound unity. The question is -- in which proportions? How fringe is the compound unity Messianics, and how are they viewed by the orthodox Messianics?

Anyone know?SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You're probably the only one who thinks it matters. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Lisa may well be right here. This is a question about a rather fine point of the theology of the MJs, and may well not be so specifically significant that it needs to be made a point in this article, although it might be relevant to Messianic Jewish theology article. For what little it might be worth, the movement is comparatively new, not yet particularly uniformly organized, although there are a few groups or denominations that exist, and there is a very real chance that this rather fine point of theology may not be something that has gotten any particular attention yet. If that is the case, and I think it may well be, then the question might not be at all answerable, and might be best not addressed here at all on that basis. John Carter (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the other article, John. I didn't even know it existed. I suspect the "compound unity" issue is partially sloppy wording, but also partially an attempt to merge Christian theology with a Jewish paradigm -- which doesn't really work. In a Jewish paradigm ANY formulation of God becomes idolatrous, and trinitarianism appears to be downright polytheistic. Within a Christian paradigm those are not the case, but Messianics are -- to a certain extent -- trying to force a square peg down a round hole. That's not to condemn either the Christian theology or the Jewish conceptual framework -- but merely to recognize that they are somewhat exclusive of each other.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Revisionist history moved to Talk:

I've moved the following revisionist history to the Talk: page for further discussion:

The presence of congregations of Jewish Believers in Jesus worshiping in a Jewish manner goes back in modern times to the 1840's. This came in part because Jewish believers frequently found that they were not wanted in the Church. As Hebrew-Christian congregations began to emerge in England, the first of these was Beni Abraham, in London, which was founded by forty-one Hebrew-Christians. This led to a more general awareness of their Jewish identity for Christians with a Jewish background. In 1866, the Hebrew-Christian Alliance of Great Britain was organized, and then adding branches in several European countries and (in 1915) the United States. In 1894, Leopold Cohen founded Chosen People Ministries in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York. In 1925, the International Hebrew-Christian Alliance (IHCA) was formed, later to become known as the International Messianic Jewish Alliance. Additional groups were formed during subsequent decades.

If one examines the sources and material used they are either

1. proselytizing tracts written by MJs themselves, (e.g. the documents by Rosen, Maoz, Winer, Daveed and Sedaca),
2. pseudo-history written about "Jewish Christianity" and Christian missions to Jews, not about "Messianic Judaism" (e.g. the book by Schonfield).

Can those supporting this material please present which sources they believe are written by actual historians/academics (rather than various MJ converts, preachers, etc.), and what of this material is actually and explicitly about "Messianic Judaism", rather than about various Christian missions to Jews? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Your POV is showing! If thoroughly researched source material and primary source materials are removed, then let's also remove the opinion pieces from the anti-messianic sites. --DeknMike (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not "pseudo-history," just inconvenient truths. Just because the truth challenges your belief doesn't invalidate it. Have you not been reading? There have been two parallel movements at work here, one of Christians reaching out to everyone else (including the Jews) and one of Jews accepting Jesus within their existing Orthodox context.--DeknMike (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Your BS is showing. "Jews accepting Jesus within their existing Orthodox context" is about as possible as Christians accepting Muhammed as a prophet within their existing Christian context. Anyone who understands the slightest thing about Judaism knows this. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

And yet it happens. Frequently.--DeknMike (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Jews who get sucked into MJ are almost invariably from non-Orthodox homes. They tend to be very ignorant of Judaism and are thus easy pickings for MJ missionaries. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk to my rabbi. Or any of dozens other national leaders. Or the Holocaust survivor I met in Las Vegas. Your POV is clouding your mind.--DeknMike (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like both of you to back up what you're saying with facts. DeknMike claims Orthodox Jews join MJ. Lisa says it is mostly non-Orthodox Jews (which I find suspect - being religious or active in one's Jewish denomination doesn't equate how Orthodox one is). Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see, the Schonfield book is the primary question. That book, written in 1936, is, I acknowledge, a really excellent source which has been largely overlooked in recent years because the same author later converted and wrote The Passover Plot. Unfortunately, given that it was written in 1936, it can only address subjects up to that date. The sources I have seen basically trace the modern MJ movement to about the era of WWII, or the 1940s, and on that basis I can't see how a book written before then can draw a clear line to a subject which isn't recognized as having clearly existed until after that time. John Carter (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

John, by your admission, the movement existed before my detractors claim it started. Unfortunately, there aren't many primary sources from that era, short of the internal documents of 501(c)3-style organizations dedicated to the cause that were formed around turn of the century (CPM & HCAA). Anti-missionary movements didn't begin until a couple decades after synagogue attendance began to decline (from 60% of the Jewish population in the lat 50s to today's 20%), so their recognition of the movement doesn't extend much before 1970. I think Avi had it right a few weeks ago - most Jews don't care; the opposition comes from the few that want to shut down the MJ movement.--DeknMike (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the status of individuals who dispute the beginnings of the movement, I do have to think that we would probably best use only sources which have been printed which specifically refer to the MJs as the MJs, and have been written since their foundation, to indicate when the group began. Yeah, so far as I know, there isn't a separate article on the 19th century Hebrew Christian movement, although I think an article on Hebrew Christians or Hebrew Christianity would definitely be an appropriate and welcome one. But I think using Schonfield as a source is probably the primary problem. If a more current independent source can be found which also links the 19th Hebrew Christians to MJs can be found, that would probably be acceptable, but we probably would need a source which specifically discusses the group currently identified as MJs and says that these earlier movements were directly related to it in a sort of parental way to have the material in the article. John Carter (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

True, Schoenfeld is part of the problem, but the rest of the sources are self-serving primary sources written by MJ pastors. They don't really qualify as reliable sources for this sort of thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Every bit as reliable (even more-so) as unsourced blogs by Jewish anti-missionaries.--DeknMike (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What is your point? They're still not reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Most/all of the sources I use are from recognized Messianic sources, written to explain and not to inflame.--DeknMike (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean they meet the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Most works about Messianic Judaism (pro and con) are polemic in nature. The same could be said about Chabad Lubavitch. Sometimes RS can only be as reliable as possible (with a stress on "as possible"). Some years ago I was offered a chance to write a book on Messianic Jewish Theology, but I had to decline because of the mandates the publishing house wanted me to agree to -- to give main emphasis on appealing to Jews to convert and appealing to Gentile Christians to adopt certain practices and beliefs. My own goals were not polemic in nature, and I passed. The question for us, then, is which kinds of sources to use. While I agree with your point that we should strive for RS, Mike also has a point that such requirements should apply to all sides. Do you know of any Jewish sources which are actually NEUTRAL about Messianic Judaism? I seriously doubt it. And appealing to the prestige of a certain publishing house won't make said book any less biased. The sources for this subject are rather poor, then, on both sides. We need to do the best we can, but not cherry pick which side we're going to apply RS to.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't demand sources be neutral; none are anyway, on any topic. There are, however, sources that meet Wikipedia's WP:RS requirements. They would include Cohn-Sherbok, Feher, Harris-Shapiro, Kessler, and Ariel. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism as Jewish

Just thought that it might be worth pointing out, if it hasn't already been noted, that the 12th edition of Handbook of Denominations in the United States, here, includes Messianic Judaism (on page 44) as being a subgrouping within the larger Jewish grouping, which I guess is a somewhat reliable independent source which counts Messianic Judaism as a form of Judaism. John Carter (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That is because it lists per self-identification, not because of acceptance by the wider group. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The book is from Abingdon press, a respected publishing house, and now in its 13th edition. Christian Book Distributors, one of the largest catalog stores, describes it as "Accurate, objective, and comprehensive." --DeknMike (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but as I said: it relies on self-identifying and not on any rationale of acceptance from the wider group that Messianic Judaism is any sort of denomination within Judaism. Besides, a reference as to Messianic Judaism being Jewish from a United Methodist press isn't going to hold much sway... Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule of thumb all groups should be allowed to self identify, with the only exceptions being when a mainstream group self identifies exclusive of a smaller group. Mormons self identify as Christians, but Christianity self identifies exclusive of Mormon beliefs. Even more to the point, Jehovah's Witnesses self identify as Christians to the exclusion of mainstream Christianity (which they call Christendom instead of Christianity). Messianic Judaism, while self identifying as Jewish, also aims to convert Jews to Messianic Jewish beliefs. In other words, the group they SEEM to self identify within is at the same time seen by them to be defective. This is a contradiction, of course -- but fortunately we don't have to deal with it as editors because mainstream Jewish groups explicitly reject Messianic Judaism as representative of themselves.

So then, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses call themselves Christians but should not be classified as such by Wikipedia editors (even though they get hammered into doing so by a concerted and energetic effort), and Messianic Judaism calls itself Jewish but should not be identified as such for the same reason. And they don't have to be, since Christians freely acknowledge that Messianic Judaism is a Christian group that uses Hebrew terms.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Tim - once again, your contribution is wise and authoritative. Best, A Sniper (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Other equally authoritative works define them as Christian, and self-identity is allowed except when that self-identity is itself the focus of the main dispute regarding the organization; in other words, self-identity is fine except when it violates WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I read through Rabbi Kertzer's "What is a Jew?" to see what you were talking about. Kertzer says "there is no single authoritative body to which all Jews owe allegiance ...each congregation does what it thinks is best." (p28) He says Jewish spirituality differs from that of Christians in that the life of a Jew revolves around the study of Torah, whereas Christians have traditionally modeled themselves around Jesus." (p278). "Jewish sabbath is Saturday. Christian sabbath is Sunday." (p279) These statements, and others in that volume, suggest that if a congregation of people born Jewish focus their worship around Torah reverence and reading, and worships Friday after sundown or Saturday before, Kertzer's definition makes most Messianic congregations "Jewish." An Hassidic congregant may not recognize the authority of a female Reform rabbi, and you may not recognize the authority of a Messianic rabbi, but Rabbi Kertzer's book seems to.--DeknMike (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR. You can't draw conclusions that Kertzer doesn't draw. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Then please explain the quotes. Did he not mean what he said?--DeknMike (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Does the author explicitly write anything about "Messianic Judaism"? If so, please quote him. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't find anything about "messianic" in there, but I thought the discussion on whether MJs are consistent with definition of what is a Jew. If A=B, and C=B, then A=C, and can be sourced for C.--DeknMike (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Dead wrong, DeknMike. What you're describing is textbook synthesis. If you think the conclusion is that obvious, let some reliable source draw it, then reference them. You can't do it yourself as a Wikipedia editor. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mike -- you don't want to go the synthesis route, because there's more synthesis that would work against you. While Messianic Judaism does attempt to blend aspects of Christianity and Judaism together, it is accepted by Christians and rejected by Jews. Even more to the point, they try to convert Jews to their form of "salvation". You cannot logically self identify with a group that you believe to be damnably flawed. It's the same with Jehovah's Witnesses -- while they call themselves Christians they do so to the deliberate exclusion of Christianity, which they call instead "Christendom." It's something like the Tea Party calling themselves "Democrats" and calling the DNC "Falseocrats." It's not really a self identity that's happening, but rather a kind of replacement. While we can and should cite that Messianics call themselves a Jewish group, we must also do so in the context of their using the term as a replacement for those who are not "completed" Jews. Replacement is NOT identity, but quite the opposite.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Tim, I think you're confusing MJ with Jewish Christians. "Completed Jews" is a term used by Christians and Jews who worship in a Christian manner, but not Messianics. No mainstream Messianic agrees with Replacement Theology - quite the contrary. Pete Koziar, Vice President of the Association of Messianic Congregations says, "There is no place for us in the halls of any organization that adheres to this doctrine."[3] Similarly the Messianic Israel Alliance "stands directly opposed to any form of Replacement Theology."[4] --DeknMike (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Mike -- I used the expression "completed Jews" deliberately. While I understand that Messianics state an opposition to traditional replacement theology, calling their own religion "Jewish" negates the religious distinction of Judaism (as distinct from other religions, including Christianity). I've noted that even in your own edits you've changed "Jewish leaders" to "Rabbinic leaders." That is -- in order for Messianic "Judaism" to be "Jewish", "Jewish" has to become "Rabbinic"! And that's my point: a group can't claim membership in another group when they have to erase the other group's distinction in the process. This is exactly the same as Jehovah's Witnesses having to change "Christianity" to "Christendom" so that they can co-opt the name for themselves.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 11:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The point of saying Rabbinic is to distinguish variants within Judaism. All this discussion has driven me deeper into the literature, which shows that of the varieties available during Roman occupation, only Rabbinic and Messianic (and its Christian offshoot) survived. I still disagree with those who deny the Jewishness of the leaders of the MJ movement, based on a rabbinical interpretation that emerged in the middle ages.--DeknMike (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Mike -- the only existing variants within Judaism recognize each other as Jewish. They do not recognize Messianic Judaism as Jewish. And, in fact, Christianity recognizes Messianic Judaism as Christian. Again, you are trying to redefine "Jewish" in order to say Messianic Judaism is Jewish, as evidenced by your changing "Jewish" to "Rabbinic." I know -- I've been there and done it myself in decades past. But you're going to have to get to the point that you define groups by terms that don't have to be REdefined first. If the term has to change, maybe it's the wrong term.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Steven, why do you answer inquiry questions with personal attacks? Kertzer says "a Jew is defined thus" and the Jewish people within MJ match that definition. It's not synthesis to ask why "A" is not "A" when the language is clear that it is.--DeknMike (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What was that? Personal attack? If memory serves this is not the first time you've made this accusation toward me, DeknMike, and it's still groundless. Please point out to me what it is you're calling a personal attack. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any "personal attack" in your comment either. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I assumed that Kertzer WAS authorative, and asked the question on the TALK page before attempting an edit. I did check the synthesis definition, and still don't see it. If you had used your authority to explain how you thought it was synthesis, that would be appreciated as cooperative discussion. (Perhaps I've become overly sensitive - or have learned the wrong lessons from - from my dealings wtih Jayjg & Lisa.) --DeknMike (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

- - - -

I don't get why DeknMike thinks Kertzer's definition is exhaustive. Jesus is so low on Jewish radar that it simply wouldn't occur to someone to say, "Oh, and belief in Jesus disqualifies you." No more than "Also, you have to be human. Goats can't be Jewish." - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say exhaustive, I said authoritative. It describes in general terms what it is to be Jewish, and how a Jewish person can celebrate that identity.--DeknMike (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This particular section of discussion is on whether MJs are Jewish. (Note that not all in MJ congregations are Jewish.) I have been reminded many times on this board there is a difference between being Jewish and the religion Judaism. It is true - barely one quarter of the American Jewish population attends synagogue more than once or twice a year. My "synthesis" is that those who practice Judaism are a subset of the Jewish population, and there are Jews who worship otherwise, or not at all. I know those inside Rabbinic-style Judaism (the other sect that survived Roman oppression) think Messianic is heresy, but to slant discussion to negate the self-identification of a statistically significant portion of the Jewish community is itself POV.--DeknMike (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is about "Messianic Judaism". Kertzer says nothing about "Messianic Jews" or "Messianic Judaism". Please review WP:NOR and stop wasting time here. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It does seem like a waste, having to combat POV with reason and plain language.--DeknMike (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOR is one of Wikipedia's three main content policies. Please find reliable sources that explicitly mention "Messianic Judaism" in "plain language". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is pretty simple. You can't use Kertzer as a source that MJ is Judaism unless Kertzer says that MJ is Judaism. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Related See alsos

DeknMike, you keep removing links to related and relevant See alsos; specifically, Chrislam and Frankism. As reliable sources in the lede point out, MJ is a religion that mixes Christian theology with some Jewish practices and terminology, views Jesus as its Messiah/God, and considers both the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Testament to be holy texts. Chrislam is a movement that mixes Christian and Muslim theology, and considers both the Bible and Qur'an to be holy texts. Frankism was a movement of Jews who believed Jacob Frank was the Messiah. I've also added Sabbateans, groups of Jews who believed Sabbatai Zevi to be the Messiah, and mixed elements of Judaism and Islam in their faith. Can you please explain your objections to these obviously relevant See alsos? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said when I removed them, they are similar only from a syncretic Jewish perspective, and they belong in that section on the Judaism page. But there is no correlation between any other reputed messiah and Messianic Judaism. As the header says 'for the messiah in Judaism, see Jewish messianism. For specific messianic claimants, see Jewish Messiah claimants'--DeknMike (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "only from a syncretic perspective"? That makes them highly relevant as a "See also", as does the fact that at least two were movements of Jews who decided they had found their Messiah. I've restored them to the page, in the appropriate sub-sections. Please don't remove them again. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Jayg -- thanks for helping clean up the See Alsos -- your final edit was much better than the first one I tried today.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability

I hate to bring this up again, but I've noticed a little dispute over the question of allowing the use of MJ websites to serve as reliable sources for this article. In fact, if we get rid of all such references, which seems to be proper in terms of Wikipedia procedures and rules, there's precious little left here.

Every time I've suggested that MJ may not be notable for an article of its own, and should rather be limited to a section in the "Alternative movements outside Judaism" section of Alternative Judaism, one of the main responses has been that the length of the present article shows it to be worthy of its own article. But if that length is comprised, substantially, of unreliable sources -- websites from MJ churches which are more PR than anything else -- I think we should revisit the question of notability. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Using these congregational websites isn't simply a matter of different sites disagreeing. Trying to reconcile them, or even to present their variant views, seems like it would be a textbook case of original research, no? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think it's time to remove parts of the article that are only supported by church websites. Those are not reliable sources by any stretch of the imagination. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, your conclusion that "Most of the time when a congregational site is used, it states a position common to the mainstream associations" is absolutely original research. Or synthesis. Or both. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I tend to lean towards Lisa's position. I think unless a reference is specific to a particular congregation's beliefs, the remaining self-promotion should be wiped. I have no doubt there are a number of folks internationally who self-identify as Messianic Jews, and that these people have congregations and some sort of infrastructure. But, just like anyone else, there has to be bona fide refs to keep the article afloat. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:N. To quote the nutshell summary there, "Wikipedia covers notable topics—those that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources. A topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion if it complies with WP:NOT and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence." WorldCat here lists over 1,000 sources, many of which, like Cohn-Sherbok's books, are clearly independent of the MJs themselves. I really think that the reason the idea has been shot down is, ultimately, that the claim that the MJs are not notable enough for a separate article seems to clearly run contrary to the available evidence. If certain parties wish to nominate the page for deletion or merger, they are free to do so, but I believe that, in addition to the amount of reliably-sourced material from independent sources which is available, as well as the significant weight of evidence which I believe proves notability beyond any doubt. Generally, in practice, two RS's are sometimes judged enough for a separate article - about 1,000 is certainly enough for a separate article. John Carter (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Lisa, the variances are generally no less than between other Jewish denominations. Most of the time when a congregational site is used, it states a position common to the mainstream associations. --DeknMike (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The argument that MJ is or is not actually a Jewish denomination aside, I believe a cursory check shows that the major Jewish denominations all have sites that can be mined for details specific to that denomination (urj.org, ou.org, uscj.org, chabad.org come to mind). Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

DeknMike—you say, "the variances are generally no less than between other Jewish denominations." Messianic Judaism is not an "other" Jewish denomination. Messianic Judaism is theologically Christian. The name is confusing because the name implies a relationship to Judaism, but other than having "Judaism" in the name, Messianic Judaism has nothing theologically to do with Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a cheap shot. You say not I say yes. ("nothing theologically" is particularly uninformed.) But I get your point. I'll go easy--DeknMike (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps those who feel MJ isn't notable shouldn't waste their time here. Why spend so much of your life on trivia?SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 11:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

DeknMike—sources are saying that theologically Messianic Judaism has nothing to do with Judaism. Consider the following:

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

The above is a Christian source. It is "Old Testament ethics for the people of God" by Christopher J. H. Wright. It states that Jewish law is not "linked to salvation." Salvation is attained through "witnessing to Jesus." Bus stop (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think a better question would be which groups are the most influential within the Messianic movement. How big is MJAA? What are the other groups? Their theologies will generally agree, but they will be more notable than a single congregation.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well said, Bus Stop. To the Messianic Jew, it is "a matter of ethnic and cultural identity" and "to live a Jewish lifestyle within a Jewish context in order to avoid unnecessary offence while witnessing to Jesus" (putting full faith and trust in Jesus).

This source does not say MJs do not share points theologically, but only that following Jewish custom is not sufficient for salvation. But as I was advised on the Judaism's View of Jesus talk page, there is no comparable context of salvation between Messianism and Orthodox Judaism.--DeknMike (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)