Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

wording of second sentence

Three options so far, would welcome other ideas:

"Like Christians, Messianic Jews believe Jesus to be the Messiah." "Like Christians and unlike other Jews, Messianic Jews believe Jesus to be the Messiah." "Like Christians and unlike other denominations who identify themselves as Jews, Messianic Jews believe Jesus to be the Messiah."

I think #3 is the most descriptive while still being NPOV. Any thoughts? TRWBW 04:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"Like Christians, Messianic Jews believe Jesus to be the Messiah."

This wording could work, but it might not be WP:NPOV as the adherents of MJ are Jews.

"Like Christians and unlike other Jews, Messianic Jews believe Jesus to be the Messiah."

This is better, as it acknowledges that MJ are Jews, though not adherents of Judaism.

"Like Christians and unlike other denominations who identify themselves as Jews, Messianic Jews believe Jesus to be the Messiah."

'Denomination' doesn't really apply as the differences between movements of Judaism are minute compared to the differences between different denominations of Christianity. Reform, Conservative, Orthodox or whatever, the Jewish religion is fairly cohesive in terms of basic theology. Messianic Judaism is a denomination of Christianity rather than a movement of Judaism. Moreover, there is another problem with this statement: You can't 'identify yourself as a Jew'. It doesn't matter what you identify yourself as; if you're not a Jew, you're not a Jew, that's all there is to it. I really don't see how this is WP:NPOV at all as it completely ignores the Jewish perspective, the Messianic perspective and probably also the Christian perspective too. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 11:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I should enter a debate, where actually articles of faith might have influenced some standpoints. However, I'll assume good faith (i.e., that all of you try very hard not to let your beliefs influence the formulations in this article), and proceed. Kari, you claimed that there is no question on who is a jew or who isn't; and in the history you referred to Who is a Jew. I don't understand. I followed the link, and it turned out that the article claims that jewishness is not well-defined, and proceeds to discuss the problems stemming from this (since e.g. the state of Israel needed procedures to decide whether a given person was a Jew, for legal purposes). Let me quote from the first paragraph of your reference: As Judaism shares some of the characteristics of an ethnicity and a religion, the definitions of a Jew may vary, depending on whether a religious, sociological, or ethnical approach to identity is used. Please reread the entire article you referred to; and if you still think that article supports the view that either you are a Jew or you aren't, then please explain how. JoergenB 19:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no question, in terms of Jewish law, if a person is a Jew even if he or she is practicing another religion. If I were to discover in my own family tree that my mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother happened to be Jewish, I would be a Jew, as would be my mother, and her mother, and her mother's mother, etc. even though we were all raised something else. You'll never hear any rabbinic source (from Orthodox to Reconstructionist) who will tell you differently. Where the question lies, which is the focus of the Who is a Jew article is whether or not people who are not matrilineally descended from a Jewish person are Jews. If you have a Jewish father but a Baptist mother, are you a Jew? Some will say yes, others will say no. If you have a Jewish grandfather on your dad's side, are you a Jew? I don't any rabbis will say yes, but it was still good enough for the Nazis to send you to the showers.

The point I'm trying to make is that Messianic Jews are, indeed, Jews according to the halakhic definition, which is the most stringent and is included as a subgroup in every other definition of "Jew". Moreover, as Messianic Judaism is a form of Christianity rather than Judaism, defining it relative to the movements of Judaism rather than to Judaism at large gives it a semblance of legitimacy as a Jewish religion that it is not due. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"Who is a Jew" by Jewish law depends on who is interpreting the Jewish law. Beyond that, whether Jewish law determines who is a Jew is itself disputed. There is significant disagreement over whether "who is a Jew" is determined by genetics, matrilineal descent, religious beliefs, Jewish law, or affirmation. Some people even claimed it was based on the shape of your skull. It's not just "who is a Jew", there is disagreement over who is Mormon (over polygamy), who is a Catholic (over celebrating the mass in latin), who is a Muslim (over a bunch of issues), who is black, who is a native american, who is white. "Who is a Jew" is POV. Who identifies themselves is a Jew is not. Or we could compromise on the current wording that doesn't mention it either way. TRWBW 01:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing the issue of who is a Jew according to Jewish law with how other religions determine such things. That's the wrong approach to take, because being a Jew is a matter of being a member of the Jewish people, not whether or not one is an adherent of the Jewish religion. If you're going to make that argument, the onus is on you to provide evidence. Trust me, though, you won't find any. The question therefore with "Who is a Jew" is who is a member of the Jewish people. The halakhic definition is the most strict and is inherited and expanded upon in all other answers to the question. Therefore, it Messianic Jews are halakhically Jews, they should be considered ethnic but not religious Jews for the purposes of this article as there would be no valid reason to say otherwise. It's a touchy subject, but the onus on you is to give a reason why they shouldn't be considered Jews and moreover why someone who is not a Jew has the right to be considered a Jew if he or she says they are. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 02:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Jew? Halakhal Jew? Jew according to the Israeli Supreme Court? Jew according to Messianic Jews? Jews according to a bunch of black guys dressed like the Fruit of Islam I met on the street 20 years ago and said that only black people were Jews (no joke)? There are different points of views on this. Even if the other points of view are wrong :), they are still points of view. NPOV is the law of the land. TRWBW 02:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is where WP:CON comes in. WP:NPOV naturally reflects consensus if people assume good faith. How is it to be said that 'one who identifies onself as a Jew' is NPOV? It's not neutral, as the statement by its very nature rejects the Jewish view. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 10:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this discussion. Are there objections to "the adherents of mainstream Judaism"? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will disagree with that. I thought 'identifies themselves as Jews' was the most NPOV, since there seemed to be consensus over who calls themselves a Jew, even if others disagree with them calling themselves Jews. I either can't follow Kari's reasoning or if she's saying what I think -- that the article can only be NPOV if it asserts MJ's are Jews despite those who say they aren't -- then I disagree her. That actually seems the opposite of NPOV to me. TRWBW 12:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a complicated thing to word because for many people who aren't Jews the word 'Jew' means a person who practices the religion called Judaism or is lapsed therefrom. For a Jew, it refers to a person who is a member of the Jewish people. If we affirm MJs are 'Jews' by wording it thus, it could be interpreted so as to give legitimacy to MJ as a form of Judaism, which is incorrect, at least from a Jewish POV. That said, denying that they are members of the Jewish people is also incorrect from the Jewish POV, even if their religion isn't really a form of Judaism and even if they're at odds with most religious Jewish people. I think Humus's wording works reasonably well, though. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 18:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even sure I like it myself. I think the matter is additionally complicated because MJ covers a variety of groups and ideologies. Also, there are many conflicting agendas. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Creation of a Messianic Judaism Portal (and whew, the article has survived so far!)

First I'm amazed. The article has actually survived. Sure the talk page has grown tremendously, as was to be expected, but I like how the new format is handling the issues of content now, more so than just handling issues only. (the prior version could only manage to do and often got locked up because of edit wars on the issues, rather than content). I encourage all editors to add their knowledge to the article, striving to keep it substantiated and referenced, so that one day we can submit this article for candidacy as a WP Featured Article.

On a second note, the article is beginning to bulge. Specifically the Theology section. I wish to begin the discussion of creating a seperate Messianic Judaism Theology article, by linking it to a new Messianic Judaism Portal to address the expansion of information within the realm of Messianic Judaism. A portal will be needed soon, and I invite fellow Messianics (and other editors who are not Messianic) to discuss if a portal at this point could be useful to expand the information about Messianic Judaism even further on Wikipedia. Please see the Messianic Judaism template's talk page to discuss what the template should include or exclude. inigmatus 04:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have created Template:Messianic Judaism to serve as our portal in the interim and help organize the various articles on Messianic Judaism. I have also renamed Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha in accordance to prior discussions regarding the necessity of doing so once a template/portal was created. Please feel free to help move the majority of the Theology section to Messianic Jewish theology, but please discuss here what should remain part of Messianic Judaism. inigmatus 05:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Inigmatus, I always agree with your ideas! After I have the baby perhaps I will have a little peace and quiet to help with these things... shalom! Rivka 21:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of "Yeshua" in this and related articles

I think it might be more appropriate to use "Jesus" rather than "Yeshua" this article as well as other articles. The reason I suggest this is that it's a name more people are familiar with. To the uninitiated reader, the question would be "Who the heck is Yeshua?" whereas if we used "Jesus" that question doesn't exist. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 12:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Kari -- I think that if people want to know who Yeshua is, they can click on the name Yeshua and be directed to the page that is about Yeshua. Because there are some Messianic Jews (perhaps a small faction; I don't know) that do not see "Jesus" and "Yeshua" as the same person. They believe that the name Jesus is a name that means nothing and is a slight to who the Messiah is in the first place. The only places I can cite for you as proof on such thinking are websites and so they are not viable, really -- but the name Yeshua encompasses the beliefs of the majority of MJs, as well as the "radical" beliefs of the aforementioned groups. Rivka 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the idea because, for example, the article on Moses is titled "Moses", not "Moshe" or "Moshe Rabbeinu". The article about Maimonides is titled thus, rather than "Rambam", "RaMBaM" or "Moshe ben Maimon". I think it may be a valid goal to make the article easier for the uninitiated to read by using the most commonly-used name of a given person (in this case, Jesus) wherever possible. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, use the standard English name Jesus on this page, ישוע on the Hebrew MJ page, Jezus on the Polish MJ page, etc. That seems to be the norm for wikipedia articles. TRWBW 01:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Kari -- You have a point, but perhaps the name choice should be quickly explained near the beginning of the article, and people then pointed over to the Yeshua page for further clarification. But, hey, we can have a consensus on this if anyone would like to. It just seems a slight to me, on behalf of more "orthodox" MJs. Rivka 17:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I will throw in my vote for consensus that the MJ article should refer to Jesus as Yeshua because Yeshua is the name for Jesus in the vast majority of Messianic circles, and it is fitting to use the name especially in refernce to Yeshua because there is a wiki article on Yeshua that is appropriate to be referenced wherever "Jesus" would have been, in a Messianic information article. In other words, I will only agree to seeing the name "Jesus" being used in the article as long as it links to Yeshua - but why bother changing the name? Just keep Yeshua and keep the reference alive - for the reference to Yeshua from Messianic Judaism is far more important in my mind, than a reference to Jesus. That is where I stand. inigmatus 17:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's important to remember that Messianic Jews do not own this article. This article belongs to the Wikipedia community and therefore must conform with WP:MOS. Moreover, using the name "Yeshua", which the vast majority of readers will be unfamiliar with, in contrast to Jesus, which the vast majority of readers will be familiar with, is against policy. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's premature to claim consensus, 4 people have spoken out on this, 2 for Jesus, 2 for Yeshua. I'd be willing to compromise at a clear exposition, up front, that MJ's use Yeshua to mean the same entity that other people call Jesus. After that, I don't have a strong opinion which way to go. TRWBW 21:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Theology section needs to be reduced

The Theology section of Messianic Judaism has exploded in content (inigmatus jumps up and shouts YES & amen!!!!) so much so that Messianic Jewish theology has been created siphon new content into it. From there, anything that is related to Messianic Halakha can be summarized and the majority of halakic content can be moved to the Messianic Halakha. Agreed? We also need a consensus to determine what information in the current Theology section needs to be parsed down. I would like to aim for a summary of content, with specifics provided in the main article. Can someone help wikify this concept? inigmatus 15:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The WikiProject: Messianic Judaism has been Created!

Ok after much contemplation, rather than trying to coodinate this growing category from Talk:Messianic Judaism how 'bout we do it from our own WikiProject page! Editors are encouraged to sign your name to the list and get active in driving content for Messianic Judaism on Wikipedia. Go check it out: Wikipedia:WikiProject Messianic Judaism inigmatus 19:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Pre-Candidacy Discussion

Do you think this article has what it takes to become a Wikipedia featured article? What should we do to improve it, what needs to be done, and what will you do to help it achieve Featured Article status (WP:FA?)? inigmatus 17:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Not at any point in the near future. FAs have to be really really well written under the current definitions, and this article just isn't up to the very high threshold that has been set by the FA committee. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? This article is neither very significant nor well written. No offense, but as far as religions go, there are dozens of small religions like Santeria or Baha'i or Druze or Sikhism that have 100-1000 times the membership. As an article, it is too wrapped up in POV conflict to be considered a good wikipedia article, let alone an exemplar. TRWBW 21:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Let's work on making it FA then. inigmatus 00:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You must be joking. :D This article has seen some improvement, but it is still extremely rough around the edges and needs plenty of improvement. Its factual accuracy is hardly sufficient. I would give the article a 2 out of 10. Hopefulyl, when I make changes to the article for its improvement (and they will be small and gradual), you will keep an open mind and your best interest wil be how well it serves the factual accuracy. Thanks & shalom. 12.65.216.68 20:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Please feel free to register a username with Wikipedia so you can make regularly noted contributions. Feel free to join the WikiProject for Messianic Judaism too! inigmatus 04:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

About the Naming

Some of my opinions about the naming. Well, first, it's good the article start to approach MJ as what it is: Judaism. And Jews for Jesus as what it is: just baptist Christianity with a kippot! Good to see it get a portal now. Some links that may help the editors. I may add some of these to the directories:

http://www.omjra.org/ A small group of theologically conservative/Orthodox Messianic Rabbis

http://www.tzitzitetc.com/ Cheap tzitzit and tallit.

http://www.nazarenekabbalah.net/index.htm An advanced mystical/Zoharistic/Kaballistic approach to MJ

http://www.utom.org/index8.htm Yet another Torah Observant association of MJ's

My vote on the name debate, BTW, is for compromise. Use the contemporary english name and the original and actual hebrew name interchangeably, alternating between Yeshua and "jesus", Miryam and "mary", Yochanan and "john", Sha'ul and "paul", and so on. Good idea? 12.64.234.224 04:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

MJ is not Judaism and it will never be Judaism. That fact however is irrelevant to the issue of having an acceptably complete article covering the subject. As for the portal or the wikiproject, I don't see why they can't exist besides the fact that there aren't that many subjects to cover that aren't already being handled similarly through other venues. Like Jubus, most of the subjects related to MJ would be handled either through a Jewish venue or through a Christian venue. What I mean when I say this is that on most of the related Jewish subjects there's little distinct about MJ and on most of the related Christian subjects there's also nothing distinct about MJ.

As for the links... I'm not sure if the first is even a real organisation; only 340 hits on Google and it's clearly not a professionally-done website. Either they're not notable or they don't actually exist. The second one is advertising and should not be included. The third... I don't know. WP:V much? Fourth... Same reasons as #1.

On the subject of naming, no, that compromise is unacceptable per WP:MOS due to the need of being consistent throughout the article. We either have to use one or the other. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 19:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If you would check their directories of affiliated congregations, you would see that they all have at least a handful of affiliated congragations/synagogues. They are definitely organizations, as far as I can tell. The second link probably shouldn't be there, I agree. The third one isn't "typical", but it is definitely Messianic Judaism. MJ isn't Judaism? That's your opinion. You've never given me a good reason why Messianic Judaism isn't Judaism, and I have plenty of hard theological evidence that asserts that it is, so there's that. Really, how does Yeshua of Nazeret, who Messianic Jews consider the ultimate human example of Torah as well as the Jewish Mossiach in his first of two appearances (Mossiah ben Yosef and then Mossiach ben David), change their Mitzvot-observant Judaism? An understanding of Torah leads you to the Mossiach, the ultimate human example of the Torah, and the Mossiah, the ultimate human example of Torah, will naturally lead you back to the Torah he represents. it is cyclical.

P.S. does the Christian Objections section really even belong? That section is mainstream Chrsitian opposition to assimilating Jews. Messianic Judaism is not therefore objected to because it is a denomination of Judaism. 12.65.216.68 19:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as a remember, WP is not a soapbox and Zorkfan (talk · contribs) is still blocked. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am still blocked? For how much longer, and how can I check this in the future? Thank you for your patience and concern, Humus. 12.64.108.225 23:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

See [1] and don't use WP:SOCKs to evade it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Many of the links in the Template:Messianic Judaism are to already existing articles. In the future, I hope to include in the task list for the WikiProject some tasks to either include the Messianic Jewish perspective in those articles, or seperately dedicated articles about the subject from a Messianic Jewish perspective. If you want to debate about the topics in the template or the content of Messianic Judaism in wikipedia, please visit the project's page here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Messianic Judaism inigmatus 20:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Further to comments above, MJ is neither Judaism nor Christianity. Like Islam, it is a distinct religious tradition that cannot correctly be placed within either group. Hence, its proper categorization is as an Abrahamic faith.

Since the movement claims independence, and acts independently, it's disingenuous and POV to continue trying to force it into either category. It's as independent as Islam, as Jewish as Islam, and as Christian as Islam. To future editors who want to debate the issue of MJ's Jewishness or Christianness, my advice is: Leave it alone. Or go pick on the Muslims and accuse THEM of being secretly Jewish or secretly Christian. See how far you get with THAT effort!

Bottom line, MJ's claims of and right to independence should be respected. I'm not affiliated with the movement, but I recognize its right to exist and to determine for itself what it is. It would be nice if every editor were to grant that same respect. TheEditrix2 20:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but Messianic Judaism is profoundly, if not entirely Jewish. Muslims and Christians don't cant the Shema (if they even know what it is). They don't call "Moses" Moshe, pronounce David "dah-veed", who the Biblical person Mordechai is ("Mark"), call the Jewish Moshiah by his actual name (Yeshua) or refer to any books as the Torah, Tanakh, Mishneh, and B'rit Chadasha. etc. a million examples. Muslims and Christians definitely DON'T observe the Torah. Usually, Muslims and Christians are NOT ethnic Jews, and most MJs are. Muslims and Christians don't go to the synagogue and carry the Torah scroll from out of the Ark. Christians and Muslims don't blow the shofar on Rosh Hashannah, pray with the rabbi on the Shabbat, or light the Menorah at Chanukkah time. Muslims and Christians certainly don't wear the tallit, tzitzit, or kipah. Christians and Muslims can't tell you why Tisha B'Av is important, why you shouldn't put the "o" in G-d, what "Baruch HaShem!" means, how the Chabad-Lubavitch calender is beautiful, or what kinds of seafood you should eat according to G-d's Torah. Messianic Jews generally do most or all of these things, and Christians and Muslims do none. I could potentially list a million examples for why Messianic Judaism is extremely Jewish; claiming that it is "its own thing" is incredibly cowardly. When my actual account (ZOrkfan) returns in a week, I will dedicate myself to comprehensive improvement and streamlining of the entire MJ wiki-project. Btw, Messianic Judaism does not claim independance: mainstream Jews view them as a non-movement in Judaism, even though Messianic Jews view themselves as very much a movement in Judaism. May the Moshiah and the Torah lead you to HaShem, the good and holy. Shalom. 12.65.114.103 02:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Confused

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but Is Messianic Judaism the same thing as or in any way affiliated with Jews for Jesus? And either way, I just read this article (semi-thoroughly) and found no explanation that could clear this up for someone who doesn't know anything about the subject and might have the two confused. Otherwise this is a very informative (perhaps overlong) article with pretty good npov. Feeeshboy 07:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus is simply a Christian organization that seeks to evangelize those of Judaism into a faith and practice of traditional evangelical Christianity apart for Judaism iteslf - which usually implies a general forsaking of Torah (like not keeping kosher, or changing Sabbath to Sunday), and celebrating "Christian" holidays of Easter and Christmas. It is for this reason that the link to Jews for Jesus is nicely tucked away at the bottom of the "Christian" section of the Messianic Judaism template. Most Messianics do not associate Jews for Jesus with the Messianic Movement, and many will outright disown them, but historically their role has been derived from the more evangelistic beginnings of the Movement. I should probably make a note somewhere in the Messianic Judaism article to help resolve this very unsupported objection that some Jews may have with the Movement - as we are NOT "Christian" Jews for Jesus. Shalom! inigmatus 07:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism is in no way affiliated, or in any way the same thing as Jews for Jesus. See Rabbi Bruce L. Cohen's article "We are NOT Jews for Jesus!". JfJ seeks to evangelize and assimilate Jews into evangelical Christianity, and are a sham. Most Messianic Jews disagree with most or all of JfJ's prosyletic actions. Thankfully, they have had little success whatsoever in attemting to take Judaism away from unassuming Jews. Also, this article is neither very informative (it is filled with wishful assumptions, half-truths, and even outright non-truths because it was mostly written by people that have very little familiarity with Messianic Judaism) or very NPOV (it was written 90% from the perspective of anti-Messianic Jews, rather than an actual neutral perspective). It as well as its corresponding halakha article will require some tremendous overhauls. Shalom. 12.64.108.155 13:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you refering to the current Messianic Judaism article here on wikipedia as not being NPOV and written mostly by people "who have very little familiarity with Messianic Judaism"? If so, I object, since I was the one who re-drafted the entire article from scratch, and about 75% of the material is still mine. I am a Torah-observant Messianic Jew, a member of Kehilat T'Nuvah http://www.graftedin.com . I had hoped that my presentation was NPOV, although in the beginning it lacked several source citations which many editors have graciously found and added. The prior article before I redrafted this whole thing was 90% slanted from the Jewish anti-missionary perspective, and was constantly locked up by edit wars. Forgive me for jumping on this, but I'm just defending myself and other Messianics who have worked hard to present a fair, honest, and NPOV article with as many references as the public demands. Back to the topic at hand though: I would love more Messianic references to Jews for Jesus as more proof-text of the desired seperation between adherents to Messianic Judaism and those who support Jews for Jesus. I just know personally that I don't mind J4J in their missionary outreach since at least they are actually engaging the anti-missionaries and other Jews about the truth of Messiah, but they shoot themselves in the foot by promoting a brand of Christianity that would be very foreign to Yeshua and the followers of his day. They come across as inconsistent in their theology and wind up getting tripped over the Torah and its application. As believers in Yeshua we shouldn't be totally against the primary mission of J4J - in that they seek to educate Jews about the Messiah; but we should also make it clear to those Jews who look at Messianic Judaism and be very clear that we are NOT J4J, and the reasons we object to most of their positions, as well as educate others taht we are not a Movement promoting a form of anti-Torah, anti-Sabbath, anti-Kosher, traditional evangelical Christianity. I say to my fellow Messianics, don't go the extreme and totally forsake J4J, as even though we may disagree with their ultimate aims, we are after all "on the same team", but rather let Messianics be the ones standing for the truth of God's word, the truth about Yeshua, and the truth that he is not only the Messiah but is a Sabbath-keeping, kosher-eating Messiah who wants us to follow him in those things, and so then let the Truth stand on its own merit to be judged by the hearers. Perhaps when J4J truly sees the value of Torah keeping will the wall that seperates us from them will also too be broken down. inigmatus 17:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism must seriously and totally abstain itself from the Jews for Jesus missionary organization. First, because Jews for Jesus, every day of the week (including the Shabbat, mind you), converts Jews to a different and foreign religion and removes them from their Judaism. Secondly, because Jews for Jesus, in the minds of many, is firmly tied to (if not the face of) Messianic Judaism, which is not only entirely false but is explicitly harmful to the Torah-observant, Mishnehic, and prophecy-originated Messianic identity MJ strives to achieve. Third, by abstaining from all ties with an organization counteractive to your very own goals, you will be sending a clear message that you have a policy of non-acceptance for the missionizing of Jews into other religions, which is clearly prohibited in the Torah. About the articles themselves, they are getting better especially that they are now being centralized with a project and a portal, but there is much revision and streamlining to be done, throughout. You presented to me quite an interesting Messianic Congregation (Charismatic, tho? That is a Christian term). In fact, some of the theology section is even based on your own congregation. However, the Statement of Faith really seemed more geared toward Hebrew Christianity, rather than Messianic Jewish principles of belief along Maimonedian lines such as along the following lines: http://www.omjra.org/Faith.html Also, it was strange that your congregation has "pastors"; Messianic Jews have rabbis (and it isn't necessarily a title of reverence either, no more than Doctor is). Messianic Jews also don't attempt to pronounce the Tetragrammaton, which HaShem allowed only the Levite Kohenim on the day of Yom Kippur to attempt to say once in the Temple, the only time of full prostration; they say Adonai, HaShem, or Eloheim instead.Some Messianic Jewish synagogues and congregations around my area include Beit Yeshua (http://www.beityeshua.org/first.html) and Beth Sar Shalom (http://www.bethsar.com/worship%20services.htm). Also, know that your Judaism must be cyclical: through observance and understanding of HaShem's Torah you understand who is the Mashiach, the ultimate human example of the Torah, and that ultimate example, the Mashiach, leads you back to the Torah that he represents. If in doubt, refer to your rabbi, your peers, your own understanding and life experiences, and the Talmud. Shalom. 12.64.108.155 18:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is the reason for this article. :) There are differences in Messianic Judaism as it is practiced, but the core ideology of Torah-observance is in my opinion what seperates us from Christianity as a whole, as well as any organization that does not engage in Torah-observance. In defense of my congregation, our leaders are called "pastors" because many of them are not ordained rabbis from a Messianic yeshiva yet. We are "Charismatic" in that we beleive in the laying on of hands for believers to "receive the Spirit" and the outward expressions of that empowerment known as the "gifts of the Spirit". The concept is Hebraic in that the writers of the Tanakh were "carried by the Spirit" when they wrote, or the "Spirit of God came upon" them to do something by supernatural means. In regards to using "Christian" terms, we understand "charismata" is Greek for "gifts," but so too is "synagogue" Greek for "meeting place". So some Greek terms are even accepted in the Jewish community at large. I personally think Messianic Judaism has done a great job in communicating the need to observe Torah, but is lacking in explaining the deep personal and spiritual experiences of believers as found in the Apostolic Writings. We would do much good if after we've built up the fortifications of safety within Torah observance that we also seek to decorate the inside of those foritifications with a good dose of the Spirit of God. inigmatus 19:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"Well, this is the reason for this article. :) There are differences in Messianic Judaism as it is practiced, but the core ideology of Torah-observance is in my opinion what seperates us from Christianity as a whole, as well as any organization that does not engage in Torah-observance."

Well, Torah observance as well as doing most of the following things: http://www.messianicworship.com/html/messianic.html Oh, and not being a trinitarian.

"In defense of my congregation, our leaders are called "pastors" because many of them are not ordained rabbis from a Messianic yeshiva yet."

Then they would call themselves congregational leaders, would they not?

"We are "Charismatic" in that we beleive in the laying on of hands for believers to "receive the Spirit" and the outward expressions of that empowerment known as the "gifts of the Spirit". The concept is Hebraic in that the writers of the Tanakh were "carried by the Spirit" when they wrote, or the "Spirit of God came upon" them to do something by supernatural means. In regards to using "Christian" terms, we understand "charismata" is Greek for "gifts," but so too is "synagogue" Greek for "meeting place". So some Greek terms are even accepted in the Jewish community at large. I personally think Messianic Judaism has done a great job in communicating the need to observe Torah, but is lacking in explaining the deep personal and spiritual experiences of believers as found in the Apostolic Writings. We would do much good if after we've built up the fortifications of safety within Torah observance that we also seek to decorate the inside of those foritifications with a good dose of the Spirit of God."

They way you describe it, it seems like your congregation places tremendously too much emphasis on such narrow concepts. No wonder so many people think of Messianic Judaism as Ev. Christianity decorated with a veneer of Judaism; that is how your congregation is displaying it, in a way that is socially hard-coded as fundamentalist Christianity! Just practice Messianic Judaism and let life flow, rather than allowing fundamentalism. 12.64.108.155 19:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It's funny, the orthodox Messianic Jews think we're too Christian, and the liberal Messianic Jews think we are too orthodox. I of course consider myself an orthodox Messianic, but though I may see the point of trying to "witness to Jews" by our order of service (which though it may seem a good idea as a whole, our services are just not really geared to - well, being specifically "Jewish" "seeker-friendly" services - or any other people group for that matter - we just worship as we believe we are to worship), I of course disagree with your assessment of my congregation as I am not sure what constitutes "tremendously too much emphasis on such narrow concepts" is about, but it would take too long here to go into a defense of our congregation's seperation from evangelical Christianity here, and the discussion would be perhaps better taken out of Wikipedia and off this talk page. The vast majority of the list you've shared at messianicworship.com can be checked off as being a description of Kehilat T'Nuvah, though more could always be taught. You must also be aware there is no such thing as a perfect body of believers, and trying to get people to do all the things on the list, especially since our membership is mostly made up of first-generation Messianics, can be like trying to herd cats. You are more than welcome to download and listen to our media sources to maybe perhaps change your mind about the matter; or email inigmatus at gmail dot com to continue this discourse from there. I consider issues like this to be internal debates, but they are proof that the Messianic Movement is alive and well and I encourage them all the time. I just don't think Wikipedia is the place to debate over the issues, only merely to inform about the different sides. Messianic Halakha is one of the greatest areas of debate within the Movement, and what upsets me most is the hurt feelings and congregational splits that occur because some of the issues can become divisive if people let them be divisive - when Torah isn't clear either way. I really wish followers would be humble enough to realize that there is no one perfect Messianic congregation - for if there were, Yeshua probably would already be here by now. Once we realize that God places us with a family of believers, and that it is our duty to contribute what God has given us for others, then congregations can grow, mature, and vigorously debate over issues for the good of all, rather than to the detriment of all. Halakha should never be a source of justification for congregation splits. Only the written Torah should be the line of such demarcation; and I will stand by it. Feel free to email if this issue intrigues you. inigmatus 01:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I do think, however, that theologically Conservative/Orthodox Messianic Judaism (along the lines of http://www.utom.org/index8.htm and http://www.omjra.org/ and perhaps evenhttp://www.nazarenekabbalah.net/index.htm) should really be the chief model for Messianic Judaism in general; there is really no other chance for Messianic Judaism to be recognized as legitimately Jewish by its Rabbinic counterparts, and to become totally seperated from the Christianity with which it is often associated. I'm antimissionary; I believe that the idea of sharing your fath should always come in a balanced, converstation-based, and peaceful dialogue, and that people really don't care what you know until they know that you care. You must, at some level, use the traditional Rabbinic method of testing someone interested in your Judaism. Adonai Eloheynu, Adonai Echad! 12.64.204.20 02:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that Orthodox Messianic Judaism should be a model for the rest of the Messianic Movement, but this article isn't setup to establish that or be a front in that mission. Please respect the NPOV nature of the current article, and attempt to honor all sides of the issues and debates that face the Movement. WP articles are meant to be informative, not fronts for agendas - antimissionary, missionary, or otherwise. inigmatus 22:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Identity

I would request that any major changes in the Identity section be discussed here first before having the changes be made in the article. Especially if the one making such a change isn't even a registered user, I would request that they would discuss it here. I will not revert the changes that have been made so far, but I personally take issue with the more Messianic POV the changes now read. It seems to me to be a rehash of anti-Christian and avoiding-the-issue-of-the-belief-in-the-divinity-of-Yeshua tactic and common phraseology that some Messianics take to avoid being specific in what they believe in the issues that truly seperate them from Christians, and other Jews. Not that I disagree with the content, I just believe now that it's lacking an informative description of Messianic Judaism to the rest of the world. After all, not only do Messianics believe Yeshua to be the Messiah, but so do many other groups. I believe instead there is a description for Messianic Judaism that in one statement can set it apart as not just a religion that believes Yeshua is the Messiah, but that such a description SHOULD include a description which would be familiar to the common reader: namely that Messianics DO believe in the essential salvific doctrines of Christianity, in addition to their Torah obedience. Thoughts? I think sometimes we as Messianics can go too far in seperating from the faith of our brothers and sisters in Messiah, even though they are ignorant of the truth of Torah. This article is not a missionizing article, and as long as I'm an editor here, I will see to it that this article's mission is to simply inform, not preach - for after all, if we do have the truth, then it will stand or fall on its own merit, and not just in how we present it. inigmatus 21:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I have strong suspicions that most of the 12.64.n.n/12.65.n.n anons are socks of User:Zorkfan. His edits and comments should be reverted on sight as he is blocked. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 23:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "essential salvific doctrines of Christianity". The concept of "salvation" in its original Jewish meaning is actually closer to the concept of healing (just like in Judaism the concept of "sin" is much closer to making a mistake or living with errors, rather than damnation; I wish most MJs knew that) and coming closer to G-d. The Moshiach, though, as he is partly Israel's suffering servant, bears the brunt of their iniquities in their stead. The Moshiach tends to the gateway of G-d's Kingdom. One way or the other, I have and always have had a major problem with the idea that there is something like a one-path, one-chance-or-no-chance concept of being with G-d. Is the Moshiach divine? Well, technically every human being from Adam on has a "divine soul". However, in this existance, it is always subservient to the demands of the body. Only the Moshiach is actually fully subservient to his "divine soul". Not that I'm really a unitarian or universalist, though...

Just one question to test you: Do you believe Yeshua is YHVH, the Torah made flesh, the Messiah? inigmatus 02:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Just one question to test you: Do you believe Yeshua is YHVH..."

No, I do not. G-d is infinite, omni-transcendant, omni-benevolant, and omni-potent. How we understand Him to reveal Himself to us in this lifetime, however, can be classified in three categories. The Mashiach is the ultimate physical likeness to G-d.

"...the Torah made flesh..."

If by Torah made flesh, you mean that he was the ultimate human example of the Torah (as the Mashiach is the ultimate human example of Torah in practice and principal and the nearest physical comparison to G-d, the two concepts of course very hand-in-hand), then my answer is a resounding yes!

"...the Messiah?"

Naturally, I do! Scriptural prophecy (and the Bible codes, see exodus2006.com) is WHY I have that understanding that he is the Mashiach.

To those of the more Western mind, what I am saying may sound like new-age blasphemy, but I assure you that it is not. I am approaching G-d not fundamentally differently than Moses Rambam (Maimonides) did so. Human beings should cherish reason, I think. 12.64.102.24 04:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well those beliefs would probably put you just outside the "mainstream" of Messianic Judaism then (but then again, since when is truth determined by popular opinion? lol), but you are of course welcome to always share your views. Just please, until you get a registered nick again, post in the talk room before making such major and drastic changes to definitions in the Messianic Judaism article and its related articles. Thanks! inigmatus 06:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I just discovered this wonderful article on an equally great website: http://www.geocities.com/~rabbi1/beit.html This is the historically accurate, well-studied brief history of early (1st to 4th century) Messianic Judaism that no Christian, wikipedia article (they are all tremendously biased and refer to the early Messianic Jewish community in a completely Christian understanding), or probably even [|Michael Rood] will be able to tell you. Article is called History (Acts to 400 C.E.). By the fourth century Messianic Judaism was virtually eradicated by Constantinian Paganism (I guess most people prefer to call it Christianity). The Nazarene school was rejected by the Pharasaical leadership since the 132 C.E. Bar Kobkha revolt because they agreed to assist their brothers in arms but rejected Bar Kobkha as the Mashiach (because Kobkha fulfilled virtually none of the prophecies), and were not allowed return. Their only other option was death by the Constantinian Church or assimilation to it. Another sad chapter in Jewish history, really. The website itself is actually a small assortment of advice for practicing Charedi-style ("really orthodox") and Modern Orthodox Messianic Judaism. It seems difficult to believe that, although it is very new and VERY small, such Messianic Judaism DOES exist today in Israel! You may learn something valuable, and I did. 12.64.210.236 01:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What Messianic Judaism is NOT

Alright, I am finally back as Zorkfan, which means it is acceptable for me to make major edits and comments once again. Plenty of work to be done, but at least the contours of an article eventually acceptable to be submitted as a feature article/good article are beginning to form. To give the other editors a better idea of what Messianic Judaism IS, I have created a short list of groups that are not Messianic Jews and have virtually no affiliation with the Messianic Jewish movement. I do not mean to offend you if you fall under any of the following, but if you do, you aren't a MJ:

Hebrew Christians: In the face of a growing and maturing Messianic Judaism, the Hebrew Christianity that Modern MJ actually emerged parallel to in the 19th century is virtually dead as a movement today. There's not much explanation due here: a Messianic Jew is usually an ethnic Jew, believes that Y'shua of Nazareit is the first appearance of the Mashiach of Israel, and practices Judaism (it's a two-millenium old tradition over 1/2 as old as Judaism itself going back to the twelve talmudim of Y'shua and the grassroots following of thousands he had in Judea, and the Nazarene sect that lasted for a few centuries after. From about 400 CE to the last century, of course, Messianic Judaism was essentially nonexistant in any form). A Hebrew Christian, on the other hand, is by necessity an ethnic Jew that practices the Christian religion, period at end of sentence. There is not a real crossover or much potential for confusion here. The idea of putting up a Christmas tree, eating pepperonis on your pizza, or pretending like Sunday is the Sabbath is anathema to an observant Messianic Jew.

Jews for Jesus: If Messianic Judaism has an Achilles weakness, this is the one, because there is a true lack of outspokenness in the movement about the simple and essential fact that Messianic Jews and the "Jews for Jesus" missionary group have no connections and are mutually exclusive. Don't be misiformed, please! There is virtually no connection or overlap between Messianic Judaism and the JfJ group, and any similarity is almost certainly superficial, and JfJ certainly is not the face of any sector of MJ, as many actually believe. Rabbinic Jews often approach MJ with the misguided belief that the opposite is true, possibly due to superficiality and the overt name. Jews for Jesus has only a single actual ethnic (though non-Jewish) Jew in its leadership, ordained baptist minister Moishe Rosen. So I guess even JfJ's name can really be seen as false advertising. Virtually every Rabbinic Jewish refutation I have read for Messianic Judaism refers to the evangelical Christian Jews for Jesus missionizing organization and Messianic Judaism in the same sentence or context. Either they don't know the simple facts before setting out to write a respectable paper or they don't care if it's false leverage. Jews for Jesus is, at best, an evangelical Christian group that may use an aesthetic or a veneer of Judaism to fulfill goals, and at worst, an organization almost entirely comprised of non-Jews that actively seeks to assimilate Jews and remove their Judaism wholesale, doing mildly in one way what Hitler did in another. More Messianic Jews need to realize that JfJ not only isn't moving even remotely in the same direction as MJ's goals and beliefs; it may be its most dangerous opponent in the long run.

Anti-Torah Groups: Maimonides' ninth principal of faith: "We believe with complete faith that this Torah will not be exchanged nor will there be another Torah from the Creator, Blessed is His Name." The Torah is the holiest part of the many holy Jewish books. No Torah = no Judaism. What can be defined as Jewish is at least halfway proportional to the actual existant level of Torah-basis and observance. So a "Messianic Jew" that claims it is non-normative and unnecessary for a more intimate relationship with G-d is not only a Hebrew Christian at best, but is in fact in active opposition to core beliefs of the writers of the Tanakh, the B'rit Chadasha, Y'shua and all his talmidim (Rav. Sha'ul included and especially), and the Nazerene sect. Telling a Messianic Jew not to follow the Torah is like telling a Muslim that the Five Pillars are unnessesary for Islam.

Trinitarians: Contrary to the popular belief, most Messianic Jews DO NOT hold the non-Scriptural Christian invention that G-d (who's supposed to be, you know, immeasurable, supremely ineffible, and omnipresent) exists as three unique and equal persons as a belief (the Christian trinity also makes no real sense to me, but that is irrelevant). Worse yet, this ties back into anti-Torah, as it goes against arguably the most basic part of the most holy part of THE Holy Scriptures, the Shema in the Torah. Adonai Eloheynu, Adonai Echad. The L-rd our G-d, the L-rd is ONE. Not somehow three unique, autonomous dudes. Most Messianic Jews instead believe that HaShem is indeed an immeasurable, supremely ineffible, and omnipresent existance in accordance with all Jewish understanding, and that how he reveals Himself to humanity can be described in three general ways: Avvi (Father), Ruach HaKodesh (Spirit), and Son, Scripturally. They're not beholden to some ecumenical, supersessionist, anti-semetic, anti-Messianic Jew Roman edict.

Those that attempt to pronounce the Tetragrammaton as part of their doctrine: Observant Jews (including the Messianic ones) hold G-d in such high esteem that they dare not say His tetragrammatical name in conversation. They prefer just G-d, Adonai, Eloheim, HaShem, or sometimes when writing the abbreviation YHWH, but that which should not be pronounced and can no longer be assuredly pronounced reliably because of loss of the original pronounciation, is NOT pronounced by Messianic Jews. But someone who actively and shamelessly attempts to pronounce the the name of G-d as part of DOCTRINE? The Sacred Name movement is neither Judaism nor Messianic Judaism; in fact it fits under the cult umbrella by most standards.

Anyone that teaches that the Moshiach is somehow equal to G-d: This sort of also fits under the Trinitarian category. Maimonides Principal of Faith 3. "We believe with complete faith that the Creator, Blessed is His Name, is not physical, and is not affected by physical phenomena, and that there is no comparison whatsoever to Him". Nothing, including the Moshiach, is equal or supreme to G-d in any way in Judaism. All things are ultimately OF G-D, and some things are considered holy and pristine BY G-D (such as Eden, the serapheim, the Temple, and of course the Moshiach, who I believe is Y'shua). All else is non-belief (which I respect) or idolitry (which shouldn't be respected, see Noahide.org).

Anyone who claims that the Moshiach did away with a part of the Torah as a teaching: Like all of the above, no Messianic Jew really believes this. Why? Because in Judaism, the Moshiach is the ultimate human example of the Torah in practice and principal, the Torah "made flesh". He can't therefore possibly abolish it, contradicting everything the Scriptures say prior! And the argument of "the purpose of the Torah was just to show us how much we needed Jesus". Crock. How does the Jewish Moshiach therefore be the ultimate champion of a codice of ultimately what NOT to do? The Torah tells the children of Israel to follow it for ALL THE DAYS THEY EVER EXIST, and NOT to assimilate into another system of thought, and NOT to try to be like any of the others. Y'shua HaMoshiach repeatedly stated that overtly with statements such as "until Heaven and Earth pass away, not one jot nor tittle of the Torah will fade" as well as "I come not to remove the Torah of Moshe and the Prophets, but to reinforce them". and the statement often incorrectly stated as "Christ is the end of the law for everyone that believes", actually correctly translated roughly from either Koine or Judeo-Aramaic as "The Messiach is the aim of the Torah for everyone that trusts". Because Messianic Jews view Y'shua of Nazereth as Moshiach through Tanakh prophecy rather than the common Christian concept of "He is G-d the human because he is, and because G-d can do anything he wants even if it flies in the face of everything His Scriptures say prior, the Moshiach will free us from the 'bondage' of G-d's very own instruction!"

Once again, I mean to offend noone. Everyone is beloved to me. I just wrote this out because if the Messianic Judaism project is going to continue and develop into something great, all the editors and contributors should understand what MJ isn't. Shalom. 12.64.66.179 02:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Zorkfan, thanks for voicing your views. Your views on the authority of the Torah I believe are consistent with the rest of Messianic Judaism. I of course believe that the Messiah is YHVH as revealed throughout the Tanakh, and I think this is the majority belief of Messianics. I think the belief that the Messiah can not be YHVH is one error that Rambam regurgitated when he drafted the 13 principles of faith, and I also think that it's a view that rabbinics have promoted all the way since at least the time of Yeshua, for Yeshua was condemned for blasphemy for making himself out to be God, well after he did what he could to prove to the Sanhedrin that he was the Messiah. Forgive me if I've read you wrong, but it seems that your brand of Messianic Judaism seems to be to be an example of those that seem to deny the deity of Yeshua. I believe this opinion is the extreme fringe of those who call themselves "Messianics" and as such, I don't think this kind of POV should be promoted in the general article as a mainstream opinion - since it is not. You are of course welcome to create a sub section in the Theology section (and also in Messianic Jewish theology) to explain more of your viewpoint. I think other Messianics editing this article will agree with this. inigmatus 05:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

When did I ever say I do not believe that the Moshiach is divine? I DO believe that the Moshiach is divine! See the following here, where it is impressive how much Talmud and Pharasaical commentary they do use in the short paper: http://about-torah.org/Teachings/UniqueSoul.htm The Moshiach is divine, but he is not G-d. The ultimate human realization of G-d, perhaps, but not G-d. Messianic Judaism has had a lot of trouble casting off the last bits of Protestant and trinitarian rediculousness that may cloud its ability to see their beliefs through an intimately scriptural and Jewish perspective (which, if the synagogue is authentic, is that of "US", not "them", see the hashivenu link). As for Maimonides' thirteen principals, whatever Rambam believed, the principals themselves make no reference to either the divinity or non-divinity of the Moshiach, so yes, for Messianic Jews, those principals are and should be vibrant and re-affirming of beliefs they already hold (with reservation to the 12th one modified with an understanding that Yeshua of Nazareth was Moshiach come as Suffering Servant). I actually believe that modern Orthodox Pharasaic Judaism is in fact a strong departure from the days of the Tabernacle/Temple: with the absence of the Levite Priesthood and G-d's dwelling on Earth, I suppose the writers of the Talmud felt that they needed to come up with lots of new, useless rituals (many that aren't even related to a Torah Mitzah, even though Pharasaic commandments are supposed to be fence, or "just to be safe" commandments) to fill that void in Judaism. Being required to put on your shoes in a certain order every day is as scriptural as Catholics holding the rediculous belief that the Pope is infallible. Nonetheless, every Talmudic commandment that DOES relate to a mitzvah in the Torah, one SHOULD do their best to keep it, as it makes one a more observant Jew, because it is a valuable cultural remnant, and the Moshiach also commands it. I believe it is something like: "Do everything the Pharisees instruct you to do (even that they, being hypocrites, do not as they instruct), for they sit upon the seat of Moshe". So it's up to you, I guess, how, if, and when a cheeseburger is OK to eat. The holidays section seems a little rough around the edges and may need some niptuck, if you don't mind. Shalom, and I hope you had a good Sabbath too, Inigmatus. 12.65.42.19 00:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Movement or Religion?

I was the one who redrafted the article, and I was the one who in the new draft started out by saying that Messianic Judaism is a religion. I had meant to use the term "religion" in a neutral sense - where the casual reader would be led to see that it's a religion, and not in a separation sense in that it is distinct from from Judaism or Christianity - as that is a debatable issue. I would think that to describe Messianic Judaism as a "movement" then I would encourage the development of Messianic Judaism (movement), in which we could split information out of Messianic Judaism which relates to the modern movement itself. This is what I love about Wikipedia. If a page is needed, then the response is organic - a page is created, knowledge is increased, and the public served. Messianic Judaism IS a religion if compared to Islam or Hinduism. Compared to Judaism or Christianity, I would say that it's not, and that it is more of a reform movement within Judaism, and a roots movement within Christianity. For now though, I don't think it improper for Karaite Judaism to describe itself as a religion, just as Orthodox Judaism is also a religion, or Reconstructionist Judaism is one as well, that is, in the neutral/public/reader sense of the word "religion". In defense of my original work (yes I admit some portions of the article is original work, but most of it is now referenced externally) The intention was not to separate Messianic Judaism from Judaism or Christianity in my use of the word "religion." If someone would like, we can clarify that it is a movement, but then would it be necessary to change the article's title, and if necessary to change the title, then why not have two articles - one for the historical religion, and one for the modern movement? In short, I think if someone would like to go through the trouble of creating Messianic Judaism (movement) then I would consent to reinforcing the "movement" aspect of the idea, but in Messianic Judaism the faith and its practice IS encyclopedically a religion. inigmatus 07:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Whether or not MJ is a unique religion is debatable, but it's definitely a religious movement. Also, those numerical estimates of number of adherants are no longer accurate. And the movement is based on Jewish history and culture AS WELL as the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and the links at the top gave people a mistaken impression that MJ is a fusion of Judaism and Christianity. These were all reasons why I slightly modified the introduction, but PinchasC won't stop reverting it anyway! And then yesterday I was almost finished with a major re-edit of the theology section when Firefox crashed. I'm honestly about to burst into tears, it is really so overwhelming how corrupt the staff at wikipedia has been to me. 12.65.162.148 14:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Messianic Movement article created

In an effort to summarize the Messianic Judaism article, and to encourage further expansion of relevant information, please visit the new article to see what information can be transferred from the main Messianic Judaism article into the more movement-specific article, Messianic Movement. Guidelines have been proposed in Talk:Messianic Movement. inigmatus 17:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Confusion regarding numbers in intro

" that claims to have at least 47,000 followers and 280 congregations worldwide as of 2006.[1] [2] " Neither one of those cites (both added by PinchasC , as seen in this diff refers to these numbers. I can't find ANYTHING in the first cite that even talks about numbers of congregations. Until and until someone can find HARD , VERIFIABLE data on EXACT denomonation and membership counts, does anyone have a problem with the old "with tens of thousands of adherants and hundreds of congregations worldwide" line? --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk|Count 17:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who posted the figure. It can be found in the citations provided. inigmatus 19:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

First citation says aprox. 40 to 50K and aprox. 200 congregations. Second citation only talks about the number of followers and congregations in the former sovite union and is much lower being from one country. The numbers on the intro now seem to be both higher than the reference material and sound more exact than the references are.Sardious 04:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Objections to the following minor additions?

There are two additions I would like to add that I think would be relevent to the article is:

Under the "Scriptural Commentary" sub-topic I would like to add other commentary authors. Between the sentences in the last paragraph starting with, "David H. Stern...." and "Some in evangelical Christianity..." I would like to add, "Other noted New Testament commentary authors include: Joseph Shulam, Tim Hegg, Daniel Thomas Lancaster, and Stuart Sacks."

Under the "Grafted-In Theology" sub-topic I would like to add at the end is, "One major proponent of Grafted-In theology is First Fruits of Zion ministries. Major GIT writers/authors and leaders include Boaz Michael, Tim Hegg, Daniel Thomas Lancaster, John McKee of TNN Online, Ariel Ben-Lyman and Mark McClellan of Kehilat T'nuvah, and Rick Spurlock of Bereans Online.org"

Be bold. Do it. However, I'd remove those external links. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 01:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just do it. I actually am a member of Kehilat T'nuvah, as I am Ariel ben-Lyman's talmid (student). I'd say keep the links in unless consensus disagrees. So far, I don't see why these can't be external links. inigmatus 02:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wanted to make sure I met the consensus as I knew that this page was under heavy scrutiny and controversy. Also, since I am new at this I wanted to make sure my wording was proper, although I do expect some edits. Inigmatus, I highly appreciate Ariel's weekly commentary as well as his new audio commentary. I also understand him to be a very unique gentle individual. I am sure you think just as highly of him as I do.Jamie Guinn 04:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and kept the links as I think they help establish needed references of the named individual's positions that the reader can check out for themselves. Jamie Guinn 04:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT STICK JEWS FOR JESUS REFERENCES IN THIS ARTICLE!

MJ is not Jews For Jesus. JfJ is, to put it politely, antithetical to everything MJ is about. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 21:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)