Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

In regards to working with disputes on Messianic Judaism or related articles, please follow the following dispute resolution process:

1. Do not revert the article more than 3 times in a single day.
2. Post in the article's talk before reverting the first time.
3. Post on the involved editor's talk page before reverting a second time.
4. Request counseling for resolving a dispute with another editor, or article
   WP:EA
   .
5. Post a request for a third opinion at
   WP:3O
   .
6. Post a request for comment at
   WP:RFC
   .
7. For communications issues with editors, post Wikiquette alert at
   WP:WQA
8. Consider posting a Request for Mediation at
   WP:MEDCAB
   .
9. Post a Request for Arbitration at
   WP:AC
   .

These two terms (evangelical and Christian) are used ubiquitously to describe Messianic Judaism. I just reverted an edit [1] that removed these terms from the lede. The edit summary accompanying the removal of these terms [2] suggests that these terms are not sourced. One change that I made upon reinserting the two terms is that I linked each term to two separate Wiki articles. I believe these terms are well-sourced descriptive terms for the Messianic Judaism movement. They are used to characterize Messianic Judaism. We should be characterizing Messianic Judaism in the terms with which reliable sources characterize it. Bus stop (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The below paragraph is from "Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America: African diaspora traditions and other American innovations" by Eugene V. Gallagher, W. Michael Ashcraft, page 198:

"Like all Messianic congregations, Beth Yeshua is committed to the evangelization of Jews. In the 1980s it established its own evangelism agency. But even without an adjunct missionary organization, the Messianic congregation serves as a natural and vibrant center of evangelism. Messianic congregations promote the Christian message merely by existing in their given locales. Members invite friends to attend services, and curious observers and seekers also come by. Almost all sermons are evangelistic in nature, striving to inspire conversion among the non-converted in the audience. They emphasize the necessity of accepting Jesus as Savior, being born again in Christ, and cultivating the view that Jewish converts become better Jews when they accept Jesus as their Savior. Messianic leaders consider their achievements in evangelism to surpass those of specially designated missions to the Jews, and consider their enterprises to be beneficial for the propagation of the Gospel among Jews. Since the late 1970s, the tensions between the established missions and the Messianic movement eased considerably. Missions now recognize the merits of Messianic congregations as centers of evangelism and began founding such congregations themselves. Missionary societies such as the Chosen People Ministries, Jews for Jesus, Ariel Ministries, and denominations such as the Assemblies of God, the Christian and Missionary Alliance, and the Southern Baptist Convention decided to establish and support congregations of Messianic Jews. In the eyes of such missionary groups, these congregations proved to be effective in evangelizing Jews, as they demonstrated both the spiritual and communal merits of the Christian evangelical faith, and were particularly compelling for those Jews who wished to retain their Jewish identity and continued to identify with Jewish causes. They also presented a new relationship between evangelists and prospective converts based on interaction among peers of similar ages and backgrounds. Messianic Jews in all walks of life served as undeclared and nonprofessional evangelists, by just being who they were: arousing curiosity, answering questions, offering literature, and inviting friends and acquaintances to attend services." [3]

I believe the above supports both terms. Bus stop (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Pauline Kollontai, reports on Messianic Judaism who have not converted to Christianity. See Between Judaism and Christianity: The Case of Messianic Jews, Journal of Religion and Society, Volume 8 (2006) ISSN: 1522-5658 [4] Even the authors you are citing say that there are individuals and groups that do not accept Messianic Judaism as Christian (page 204).

Per

WP:ASF Values or opinions must not be written as if they were in Wikipedia's voice. Factually attribute the opinion in the text to a person, organization, group of persons, or percentage of persons, and state as fact that they have this opinion, citing a reliable source. harlan (talk

) 14:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Harlan — you say, "Even the authors you are citing say that there are individuals and groups that do not accept Messianic Judaism as Christian (page 204)." In perusing that page 204 I can't find that. Can you please post the text on the talk page that you are referring to? Bus stop (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted you in turn, because there is an ongoing discussion and RfC on this very issue. Are you guys really going to try to edit war this terminology in, or will you just wait and let the RfC progress? --Ludwigs2 15:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The lede described MJ as an evangelical Christian movement for weeks. Suddenly, because there's an RfC, you take that out and display outrage that your edit is reverted because there's an RfC going? Not very honest of you, Ludwig2. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who took it out. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, not. It was described as Christian for weeks (still a violation of Wikipedia policies, but so be it). "Evangelical" is a more recent and less stable addition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Lisa, since the dispute is over whether that phrase is appropriate for use on Wikipedia, it is only correct that it be removed until the issue is decided. I do understand that you and Jayjg and Bus Stop have already decided for yourselves that the term is appropriate, and that's fine. The remaining question, however, is whether the three of you have sufficient respect for the encyclopedia and the editors who oppose you to wait until the issue has had proper attention from the wider community. You should realize by now that you are not going to make it stick in the article; the addition has been reverted numerous times by several editors. You can keep trying to edit it in (behavior which suggests that you have no respect for the project or for the other editors here, but are simply trying to make a

POINT), or you can wait patiently with the rest of us for uninvolved editors to arrive and resolve the issue. Which is it going o be? --Ludwigs2

16:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You're the one who is being disrespectful, Ludwig2. You want your version to be seen as the "default" position. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Lisa, my position is the default position. In the name of the Buddha, all I'm doing is saying they are a religious movement. do you think that's wrong? you want to go further and say they are a Christian religious movement, a position that is disputed and under discussion. That's not a problem (I will have no regrets if the community decides to use the term Christian in the long run), but you are behaving like a pure POV-pushing troll demanding that your POV be treated as sacrosanct before the discussion has reached any decent conclusion, and I just won't put up with that kind of pugnacious crap.

Time for you to get a clue, L. If you think you can out-tendentious me, check my editing history and think again; I am the most god-awful stubborn ass you are ever likely to meet, when and as I choose to be. If you want to fight this hard and dirty, that works just fine for me. However, you'll get a lot farther with me, a lot faster and a lot more pleasantly, if you decide to be reasonable and work with me. But trust me, I will not allow you to be reap rewards from tendentious editing; that is not in my nature. do you get it now? --Ludwigs2 16:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You have yet to establish (other than repeating it over and over) that the group being Christian is disputed. It isn't. Not by anyone. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You miss the point Lisa. I have concluded that there is absolutely no possibility of convincing you of anything regarding this subject, so I am now just waiting for other (less emotionally invested) editors to weigh in on it. I will abide by whatever consensus they establish, and in the meantime I will continue to revert any efforts to push the POV on the page. We can pass the time waiting for the RfC to finish in a slow edit war on the article - if that's what makes you happy - or you can relax for a couple of weeks and allow the article call them a mere religious group until broader consensus either vindicates or refutes your beliefs on the matter. it's no skin off my nose either way. so you tell me: is trying to keep the article true to your POV for the next two weeks really worth the kind of trouble you're going to have to go to to maintain it? --Ludwigs2 18:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy provides that different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view. The same policy says "in encyclopedias it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term; unlike dictionaries, a single encyclopedia article covers a topic, not a term." See Articles whose subject is a POV and Related articles. Judaism is a term with multiple theistic and non-thestic meanings, e.g. SECULAR HUMANISTIC JUDAISM. You cannot game the Wikipedia project by declaring the primary sources regarding a POV as "unreliable" and then use the voice of Wikipedia to recite the value judgments and opinions of rival Jewish or Christian sectarians as if they are facts. See

Lisa, you just said that "...the group being Christian is disputed. It isn't. Not by anyone." but above you said "It is not a Jewish group according to anyone but themselves." Can you explain this contradiction? BE——Critical_{__}Talk 19:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

And Ludwigs... do you really want to threaten to edit war? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. They consider themselves a Jewish group and a Christian group. That's why they use the name Messianic Judaism. It's another way of saying "Christian Judaism"; a way that flies under the radar for some people. Everyone else agrees with the Christian part and disagrees with the Judaism part. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of my argument above, which addressed cases where "everyone else says" ? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Be-Critical: what threat? I'm simply saying what will happen if Lisa et al continue to try to push their POV while the RfC is ongoing - I will continue to remove it, as much as permitted by behavioral policy, on the grounds that it is inappropriate content (as is my right as an editor). I think it's stupid behavior, mind you - much better to let the RfC play out to whatever result it achieves - but I rarely feel the need to be better than the people I'm dealing with.

She's clearly in the wrong, behaviorally speaking (don't know yet whether she's right or wrong content-wise), and so I will continue to correct her. we'll all have to deal with it. --Ludwigs2 20:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm just not sure that kind of forceable editing works well in such cases. But I guess you know what you're doing. Do you think my analogy with al queda being "terrorist" was a good one? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I do, yeah, but I suspect it's irrelevant. Notice how Lisa entirely sidestepped it by nitpicking a minor point and then dismissing the entire argument because of it? No matter how well you refine the argument, she will continue to evade it in that fashion, and there's not a darned thing you can do about it. Logic can never beat rhetoric; unless both sides commit to using reason, reason is impotent.

The problem here is that nothing works well in this kind of didactic editing environment. Unless Lisa and Jay and Bus Stop suddenly have a change of heart and stop trying to color the article to the Jewish perspective, nothing you or I say or do will (or can) have any impact. The smarter and more reasonable we are, the more we will be painted as evil people (because in fact that's what's happening here - this issue is somehow threatening to some core elements of religious identity for L, J, and BS, and people who oppose their position are therefore more than merely wrong from their perspective). as I said, I'm just pacing them until the RfC develops a clear consensus, since the RfC is the only real solution to the issue - assuming we can get a decent showing. There's a slim hope that if I keep repeating the same point one or more of them might actually engage the issue seriously, of course (I have faith in the indomitable human spirit). but it's only slim, and I'm not expecting it.

I might have used something less dramatic than terrorism for the example: for instance, we don't allow editors to say that

Sufis are not Muslim (though that is a clear theme in some more traditional Muslim scholarship); we don't allow editors to say that Latter Day Saints or Catholics are not Christian (though that is also a clear theme in a lot of mainstream Christian literature). But neither of those examples is going to make a dent, because L, J and BS have a preconceived notion the MJ is first and foremost a scam, and they have decided that it is their task in life to expose that sham for what it is. I'm not even sure I disagree with them entirely, I just don't share their activism or their attitude. --Ludwigs2

22:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

BE——Critical_{__}Talk 22:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with this, with a caveat. If there are attempts to further conceal the fact that they are a Christian group, I'll add the term back into the lead. I'm willing to compromise, but not if that compromise merely shifts the middle ground. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll agree that this is better - my only real objection was the overt declamation of MJ as Christian. excellent work BC. If Jay and BS also agree, then I would be content with this, and we can close these two RfC's as resolved. --Ludwigs2 23:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

And we aren't going to see more attempts to put "other" before "Jewish groups" the way some editors were trying before, correct? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ludwigs (: Lisa, that would be POV pushing if they tried that. I do see where one would come from on that since the text says "However, all Jewish religious movements contest this," so we might have a qualifier on that, such as "purely," but I really don't think that's necessary. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

As a rule, it's best not to use absolute words like *all*. If you do, someone is invariably going to come along with some source from somewhere who disagrees, and then you have a fight. Simply saying "However, Jewish religious..." or "However, established Jewish religious..." implies *all* but leaves a little wiggle room for occasional dissenters. I won't be putting any 'Other' in, though I can't speak to anyone else. --Ludwigs2 00:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

How about "All three divisions of Judaism" or something like that (not sure if I have it right). BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

BC What published sources are you using to support the circular logic that it would be POV pushing to require that value judgments and opinions be attributed to the appropriate individuals and Jewish sects that espouse them?

WP:NPOV

, so it is non-negotiable. There are a lot more than three divisions of Judaism.

You've constructed a narrative which contradicts third-party verifiable published material from reliable secondary sources which say that some adherents of Messianic Judaism have not joined the Church or converted the Christianity. Kollontai has written that "Contemporary Messianic Jews identify themselves with the first Jewish followers of Jesus. These followers were a group within first-century Judaism who lived a Jewish lifestyle and believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Thus, contemporary Jewish followers of Jesus argue that, like their predecessors, their belief is an expression of Judaism; they are a renewal movement similar to the movement founded by Jesus." She says "Contemporary Messianic Jews state they are merely expressing a way of being Jewish that existed over 2,000 years ago."

She cites Dan Cohn-Sherbok who observed that a degree of hypocrisy is present in the attitude of non-Orthodox Judaism towards Messianic Jews. He says there is already a minority of Jews who have a more tolerant approach to Messianic Judaism, claiming that there has never been one monolithic expression of Judaism or way of being Jewish. According to Cohn-Sherbok "In the current situation the teachings about “Creation, revelation, divine action, the concept of God, providence and salvation have been either redefined or abandoned by many members of all the Jewish movements” (Cohn-Sherbok 210)." He considers "Jewish Messianics as Jews who have recaptured a way of being Jewish. Therefore, “Messianic Judaism is no more inauthentic than other forms of contemporary Jewish life”, Messianic Jews are Jewish and should be considered part of klal yisra’el (Cohn-Sherbok 213)." See Kollontai, Pauline (2004) 'MESSIANIC JEWS AND JEWISH IDENTITY', Journal of Modern Jewish Studies, 3: 2, 195 — 205, DOI: 10.1080/1472588042000225857. In short, there are MJ who claim they are not Christian and a minority of non-MJ Jews who accept them as part of the Jewish community according to mainstream journals. harlan (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If you say "other" then you assert that MJ are Jewish. This lead is meant to express no opinion on such arguments. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Some adherents to Evolutionism assert there was no act of creation. Some adherents to Creationism assert there is no such thing as evolution. Wikipedia has articles that reflect both POVs.

The topic of this article is a POV, Messianic Judaism. According to reliable published sources, it is a movement that consists of some individuals and groups who actually do assert that MJ is a form of Judaism. Those same sources say that, with the exception of a minority, the other Jewish groups reject that assertion. According to

WP:ASF says that editors cannot assert value judgments or opinions as facts. At the same time, editors should not misrepresent the relative prominence of the Jewish groups that oppose the views of Messianic Judaism. It appears that Lisa would like the article to say that all MJs agree that they are Evangelical Christians, but I've supplied third-party verifiable sources which dispute that claim. harlan (talk

) 03:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, While I agree with you to a certain extent, on sensitive topics such as this one it is usually better to err on the side of "make no claims". Let sources argue the various sides in a real-world dispute; don't use sources to argue for a side on wikipedia. Yes, (some) Messianic Jews claim it is a form of Judaism, and other groups claim that it is a form of Christianity; these sides need to be presented in the article with proper balance and attribution, but it would be a mistake to try to try to write the article in a way that elevates either perspective to the level of truth. --Ludwigs2 03:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what is purportedly the matter here. No one says they all agree they are Evangelical Christians at least not in this lead. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

BC, many contemporary Messianic Jews identify themselves with the first Jewish followers of Jesus, but they are not necessarily trying to add to Evangelical Christian theology. See for example paragraphs [10], [11], and [12] of this Kollontai article. [5]

Ludwigs, I never meant to imply that any opposing viewpoints not be presented or said that any of the sources supply the correct perspective. I am just citing reliable published sources and asking for other editors to do the same, while following the normal guidelines of letting the sources speak for themselves. We can assert "facts about opinions" and I did underscore the fact that Lisa's claim, that all MJs say they are "Evangelical Christians", is simply not supported by "all of the sources". In addition, Kollontai also points out "It is not only Jewish groups who criticize or are hostile to Messianic Judaism. Some Christians, individuals and communities, have expressed opinions of either concern or outright hostility." harlan (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

So you object to "Evangelical"? I don't have a problem with taking that out, but some here might. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The groups in that study do not consider themselves converts to a new religion or part of the Church. "Evangelical Christian theology" can include controversial eschatological beliefs regarding the literal destruction of the Jewish people, a pre-millennial rapture, and etc. harlan (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well that sounds convincing to me relative to the need to take it out of the lead. I guess you know others here who have objections? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) There are undoubtedly some Evangelicals who object to studies of the Book of Revelations based upon Jewish sources, including the Talmud, the Kabbalah, & etc, e.g. [6] harlan (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

My one objection is to the phrase "all Jewish religious movements", as it strikes me as being misleading. Not all Jewish religious movements are currently active, and thus cannot have anyone speaking for them. Also, there is to me, a non-Jew, some question as to whether the bodies or officials who have spoken for the Jewish religious movements have spoken in an official capacity for all the individuals who belong to those movements or not. Admittedly, this may be something obvious which Jewish editors know about which I don't, but I would still like clarification of the matter. At the very least, however, I would think changing the phrasing to "all extant Jewish religious movements" would be better. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, but "all extant Jewish religious movements" might not be correct either- it still might be too much of a blanket statement. I don't know, and I'd like to hear from others here: is that part of the lead "However, all Jewish religious movements contest this, saying that Judaism and Christianity are incompatible" correct? If not, what do we say instead? So to summarize there are two objections: one to calling them unequivocally "Evangelical," the other to the blanket statement about Jewish Religious movements. How to fix them? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly why I've been saying that we need to attribute. If we want to do this properly, we ought to say something like "Leading Jewish sources (both religious and political) contest this..." with a short list of high quality sources. --Ludwigs2 18:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "Leading Jewish religious and political bodies contest this," and I assume this can be well sourced. I don't think we are supposed to have to put sources in the lead. I like the word "leading," since I would guess it's non-controversial. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No one speaks officially for all religious Jews or streams of Judaism. The term "Jewish community" is simply a collective euphemism for individual groups that refuse to worship together, intermarry, eat one another's food, & etc. for various theological reasons.

I don't think you can avoid providing sources in the lead for material that is likely to be challenged. You can summarize opinions there that have been attributed in the body of the article. Here is some sourced material:

According to Pauline Kollontai and Dan Cohn-Sherbok, only a small minority in the Jewish community accept the members of Messianic Judaism. <ref>Kollontai, Pauline (2004) 'MESSIANIC JEWS AND JEWISH IDENTITY', Journal of Modern Jewish Studies, 3: 2, 195 — 205, DOI: 10.1080/1472588042000225857</ref> Kollontai says that some Christians, individuals and communities, have expressed opinions of either concern or outright hostility. Although some belong to Christian churches, many Messianic Jewish groups have refused assimilation into Gentile Christianity.<ref>Pauline Kollontai, Between Judaism and Christianity: The Case of Messianic Jews, Journal of Religion and Society, Volume 8 (2006) ISSN: 1522-5658</ref><ref>Daniel Juster and Peter Hocken, The Messianic Jewish Movement:An Introduction, The Jerusalem Council II, page 6 [http://www.tjcii.org/userfiles/Image/messianic-jewish-movement-an-inttroduction-Eng.pdf]</ref> harlan (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it miht be time to edit in this version of the lead. BC, do you want to do the honors? --Ludwigs2 22:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok if no one objects. I'll wait a while to hear any objections, but if you want to put it in yourself it's fine with me (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

But before you do note this change. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I left that one line in there twice. But it's correct to note that there is a unanimity of opinion on this count. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you read what John Carter said above about "Not all Jewish religious movements are currently active, and thus cannot have anyone speaking for them"? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I did. I laughed a little. Seriously, any normal reading of the statement is that all current Jewish religious movements say that. After all, the statement isn't, "All Jewish religious movements that have ever existed have rejected this." But even so, it remains true that all Jewish religious movements since Christianity came into being deny absolutely that worship of a human being -- any human being, including Jesus -- is possible within Judaism. A Jew who sins remains a Jew, but a Jew who worships Jesus is not practicing Judaism. Of any kind. According to every Jewish group ever (except for those which ceased to exist before the whole Jesus thing happened, which prevented them from having a position). - Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

again, to be precise, 'movements' don't say anything; 'sources' say things, and what these sources say is attributed to movements, if the sources are reliable. it's best just to cite actual sources and leave the generalization to movements as a whole to the reader. --Ludwigs2 05:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

By your reasoning we can't say anything about what the movement called Messianic Judaism has to say about itself. Sheesh. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the phrasing "Leading Jewish religious and political bodies contest this," won't fly, as it has the qualifier "Leading" (the rejection is unanimous), and includes the phrase "political" (many of the other "bodies" you refer to are not "political"). "Jewish movements and organizations contest this" is acceptable, since all Jewish movements and organizations who have opined on the matter do contest this. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer "those Jewish movements and organizations who have expressed opinions contest this," as that would be more accurate. And, some of you might be interested in seeing that

James the Just, who was clearly a Christian, was accepted as a Jew, apparently, by the Jews of his time. That was probably one of the reasons he was chosen as the leader of the early Jerusalem church. I agree, we have no specific knowledge of what his own personal expressed beliefs were, but the sources do indicate he prayed at the Temple regularly and that he was, to a degree, "accepted" by the Jews. So, yes, there is a precedent, apparently, for Christians being considered Jews. John Carter (talk

) 16:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

WIll both of you (Personal attack removed) realize that we are not MJ supporters trying to ruin your world, but wikipedia editors trying to make a balanced article? I'd appreciate it, thanks. --Ludwigs2 16:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What the lede is lacking is a clear statement on what the theology of Messianic Judaism derives from as well as a clear statement on what the theology does not derive from: Judaism plays no theological role in the religious movement of Messianic Judaism. Here are a couple of sources supportive of that assertion:

1. ) "Messianic Jews share many of the values of the larger evangelical Christian community. For example, Messianic Jews, without exception, believe the way to eternal life is through acceptance of Jesus as one's personal Savior and that no obedience to the Jewish Law" or "works" is necessary in order to obtain that goal. Those in the evangelical community insisting on the need to observe elements of the Law as a prerequisite for salvation gravitated towards another movement, B'nai Noah ("the sons of Noah"), composed of evangelical Christians who adopted modes of Jewish observance. But, as a rule, such groups neither presented themselves as part of the Messianic Jewish movement nor were accepted as such. Remarkably, it has been exactly this adherence to the basic Christian evangelical faith that has allowed Messianic Jews to adopt and promote Jewish rites and customs. They are Christians in good standing and can retain whatever cultural attributes and rites they choose. In principle, there is no reason, except for cultural prejudices, to follow in the customs, habit, and regulations of mainstream Anglo-Saxon churches, and Jewish manners and cultural heritage are just as good as whatever cultural trappings other evangelicals choose to adopt." [7]

2. ) "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." [8]

I would suggest adding wording to the lede such as:

"While Messianic Judaism is a religious movement containing the term "Judaism," Judaism actually plays no theological part in it. Messianic Judaism posits that elements deriving from Judaism — including symbols, cultural practices, and Jewish legal practices (called

I think we want to state fully and explicitly Messianic Judaism's theological parameters. From a theological point of view there is nothing "Jewish" contained in Messianic Judaism, despite it having a name that would suggest otherwise. I believe the above two sources serve as adequate references for the wording that I suggest above. Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Lisa- I think "Leading Jewish religious and political bodies" was a good compromise here, and while you may be right about the universality of it, that is still taking a position on the non-Jewishness of MJ. When you say "Some Messianics are ethnically Jewish, and argue that Messianic Judaism is a sect of Judaism. However, all Jewish religious movements..." it is an argument "MJ say this but they're wrong." I happen to agree that they are not properly called Jewish.

I disagree. Not calling them a Christian movement in the first line of the article, when they are one by any definition, was an enormous compromise. One which I'm not interested in going along with if the envelope is going to be further pushed by watering down the absolute and unanimous rejection of MJ by Judaism. "Leading" is weaselly. It's also inaccurate. "All". Every single one, without exception. And if that's not acceptable to you, then leaving out the fact that they are a Christian movement isn't acceptable to me. Like I said, I won't accept a compromise that's only a tactic to move the middle ground. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg- "Jewish movements and organizations contest this" doesn't work either, in context, because you have "MJ say they are Jewish" --> but "Jewish movements" context this. And you don't want to say "other."

Ludwigs- I think it's fine to attribute to "movements" when their leaders have issued statements. However, "sources" works too but is awkward. Perhaps "Representatives of leading Jewish religious and political bodies."

Bus Stop- While you may be right, I don't think we can make the distinction between "theology" and "culture" based on sources which don't explicitly state that, and that's what I get out of your statement. And I think that the parameters are already stated here "Messianic Jews hold the view that eternal life is available through acceptance of Jesus as personal Savior. While Messianic Jews follow some Jewish Law they do so only optionally — Messianic Jews do not hold the belief that observing Jewish Law is necessary for achieving Salvation." But correct me if I'm wrong on that. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

BeCritical — you say, "While you may be right, I don't think we can make the distinction between "theology" and "culture" based on sources which don't explicitly state that, and that's what I get out of your statement."

The first source I provided says, "They are Christians in good standing and can retain whatever cultural attributes and rites they choose. In principle, there is no reason, except for cultural prejudices, to follow in the customs, habit, and regulations of mainstream Anglo-Saxon churches, and Jewish manners and cultural heritage are just as good as whatever cultural trappings other evangelicals choose to adopt."

The second source I provided says, "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’."

Both sources, in describing the view of Messianic Judaism on Jewish contributions to the religious movement, relegate any elements deriving from a Jewish realm to non-theologic status. Jewish elements are permitted in Messianic Judaism just as any other nonoperative element might not be excluded. But Messianic Judaism explicitly states that these elements exert no force. Messianic Judaism reserves for itself the operative mechanism of Jesus in the form of a Savior as the only functioning key to Salvation, which is the purported aim of this religious movement. The second source that I provided is a Christian source. (The first is merely a scholarly source.) The second source makes clear that the Jewish style that is permissible under Messianic Judaism would definitely not be an effective means of achieving salvation. The lede might be more reflective of this. Suggested paragraph:

"While Jewish elements are present in Messianic Judaism they are non-functional, theologically. Messianic Judaism posits that no Jewish element is efficacious in achieving Salvation. This would apply to symbols deriving from a Jewish realm, cultural practices deriving from a Jewish realm, and Jewish law, also known as

halacha, which of course derives from a Jewish realm. Messianic Judaism posits that the only means to Salvation is through the acceptance of Jesus as Savior and that any Jewish elements as may be found in a Messianic Jewish setting are not contributory to Salvation." Bus stop (talk

) 00:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious why my last comments on this thread were somehow deleted. In them, I mentioned that

James the Just is said to have prayed at the Temple regularly, despite being a Christian and a prominent one at that, and, on that basis, there is some reason to think that historically at least some Jews accepted some Christians as Jews. Regarding the point by BC above, there is a fairly common belief in a lot of Christian groups that people do not have to follow any particular group of laws, even Christian ones, if they do not know that they have to. This would allow Gandhi, for example, possibly directly into heaven, if he was following the God or Jesus of the heart, which is I think the stock phrase for the belief. Whether MJs would go further and say that someone who as an MJ knew he was obliged to follow the law but did not do so could still achieve salvation is another matter entirely. John Carter (talk

) 18:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I see... so what you're saying is that there is a distinction between theology and culture because many believe that you can have different culture and still be "okay" in the theological/spiritual world. And that the "culture" part might be everything outside the most basic psychological orientation to good? Can you relate this more closely to phrasing of the article, or what we can say though? It's kind of complicated to me at least. And I don't know how your comments got deleted. BE——Critical_{__}Talk 20:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Re-posting John Carter's comment: I would prefer "those Jewish movements and organizations who have expressed opinions contest this," as that would be more accurate. And, some of you might be interested in seeing that

James the Just, who was clearly a Christian, was accepted as a Jew, apparently, by the Jews of his time. That was probably one of the reasons he was chosen as the leader of the early Jerusalem church. I agree, we have no specific knowledge of what his own personal expressed beliefs were, but the sources do indicate he prayed at the Temple regularly and that he was, to a degree, "accepted" by the Jews. So, yes, there is a precedent, apparently, for Christians being considered Jews. John Carter (talk

) 16:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

John Carter, the issue isn't whether some MJ individuals, or even most MJ individuals, are Jews. That isn't being contested here or anywhere else, and bringing it up is nothing but a strawman argument. The issue is whether what they are practicing is Judaism. And according to every single Jewish religious group on the face of the planet, it is not. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Except for some proponents of Messianic Judaism, who do claim to be doing do. honestly, Lisa, we do not need to pull out our jack boots and stamp on the suckers, and I wish you could get that concept through your head. --Ludwigs2 20:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 — that is referred to as the "… Orwellian world of Jewish-Christian confusion where things are never as they ought to be, and rarely are as they seem…" [9] Bus stop (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how anyone can define "Judaism" as an absolute. This is not science or math, it's religion. In religion, you get to "be" who you say you are. I don't understand how we can even begin to try to take sides on that. We can't say "all Jewish XXX" say that MJ are not Jewish, because MJs say they are, and since one religion is equally valid with another, who are we to take sides? We can attribute, but we can't take sides. Attribution is usually a stronger statement than an absolute in terms of how it comes across to the reader. So the statement "according to every single Jewish religious group on the face of the planet, it is not [Judaism]" is also an argument that they are not Jewish. An appeal to authority in an intrinsically self-defined realm. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Until you find a counterexample, let's go with "all". - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, it's probably time for me to start the page for my Muslims against Muhammad group. You have to use common sense, sometimes, BE. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, common sense to me says that we can't refute what a person/group says about themselves in terms of religious affiliation. And the counter example would be MJs themselves. The deepest argument here is whether the primary sources of MJ's self-definition is enough for Wikipedia to not take sides in the article. I blindly put in Wikipedia:Religion. That's a proposed guideline page, and it seems to directly address the issues here. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Lisa also has no source for that 'all' except her own rather prejudiced beliefs on the matter. basically it's a catch-22: anyone who disagrees with her perspective is ipso facto not Jewish, and therefore can be disregarded. I expect sooner or later this is going to head to arbitration, because I cannot see anything resembling reasonable editing practices occurring on that side of the fence. We might just try editing in the new lead over her and Jay's objections: it will lead to an edit war, almost certainly, but it might draw enough attention from outside participants to get some reasonable players in the game. --Ludwigs2 22:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The word "all" is not required. "Jewish movements and organizations" doesn't say "all" and doesn't need to; that's all we have to use. Also, before you counsel further policy violations, I'd try to involve the other people in the discussion, particularly Avraham and Bus stop. By the way, I suspect arbitrators wouldn't look favorably on your statements on this Talk page, particularly the uncivil ones, and the ones counseling edit-warring etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Self definitions are still

I'm sure we can find ways to bring in other editors without going to that extreme. This is a sourcing issue, and clarify something for me again so I don't have to go around looking: there are sources from within the MJ movement which say they are part of Judaism, correct? Also, Wikipedia articles do draw from primary sources for religious articles, and if that is true, and there are MJ sources saying they are Jewish, I don't see how we can argue against that without attribution, which is what and unqualified statement about "all Jewish X" is doing. I think it's pretty clear if and only if we can find prominent MJ claims of being Jewish. BE——Critical_{__}Talk 22:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources within Messianism claim to be Jewish, and the lede reproduces that claim, which is fine. But sources within Messianism are, quite obviously,

primary when referring to themselves. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." So, we can possibly use sources from within Messianism to confirm the claim that they believe they are Jewish (though secondary sources would still be better for that), but we need reliable secondary sources to actually identify what kind of faith they are. Jayjg ^(talk)

23:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything up till "actually identify what kind of faith they are." We don't need to do that at all, and it violates NPOV to do so as an absolute statement. We rather need to report the claim, and who makes it. There is no matter of fact here to be made clear. BE——Critical_{__}Talk 23:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The

Ahmadiyya Muslim Community insists it is Muslim; it's even part of the group's name (just like Messianic Judaism). Yet the article's lede does not identify them as a Muslim group. Why not? Jayjg ^(talk)

23:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

again, Jay, no one is trying to assert that Messianic Judaism is a Jewish sect in the lead (or anywhere in the article). this entire debate revolves around whether they should be identified as a Christian sect. I'm in complete agreement with you that they shouldn't be called Jewish; why aren't you in agreement with me that they shouldn't be called Christian? --Ludwigs2 23:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, while no reliable secondary sources assert Messianism is Jewish, some do indeed assert it is Christian. This has nothing whatsoever to do with personal beliefs, but simply with what the secondary sources themselves assert. Anyway, I've proposed a new lede below; I've made it clear anyone can edit it. It's a compromise that should likely solve all issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The word "blending" fails to imply the unequal status of Jewish and Christian input to Messianic Judaism. In this edit I undid this edit. Sources that I've thus far found that address the question, indicate that Jewish precepts assume the status of that which is "cultural" in the setting of Messianic Judaism, while Christian precepts such as the notion that Salvation is available through the acceptance of Jesus as Messiah — assume the status of theology. Such Christian precepts are never characterized as being merely "cultural." I think that the unequal input from both Judaism and Christianity to Messianic Judaism would recommend terminology such as "adding to" rather than "blending" as used in that opening sentence. Bus stop (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

How about "sprinkle with"? "Applied a thin veneer of"? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If you talk "adding to" then it is Christian theology that is added to traditional Jewish services. The majority of the mainstream MJ denominations and congregations provide services and activities that could be found in any other synagogue. Those that have a Conservative upbringing tend to worship with a Conservative-style MJ congregation http://www.bnaiavrahamva.org/. Those with a Reform upbringing host a Reform-style MJ congregation. Orthodox Jews become Orthodox Messianic Jews http://www.levhashem.org/who_we_are.html. They worship Jewish, and adjust the service to reflect the theology of a different set of rabbis. (Those Christians who like Messianic style will sometimes add a veneer to their Christianity and call it Messianic http://www.houseofisraelfellowship.org/, but it is not the mainstream.) For a good discussion on the issue see http://www.nabion.org/html/what_is_a_messianic_jew__.html DeknMike —Preceding undated comment added 23:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC).

"Adding to" is correct and accurate. "Blending" is inaccurate. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, does anyone actually expect any parties who might be willing to contribute to the RfCs to be able to follow the regular changes to the article and the hugh discussion on the talk page? Maybe, just maybe, mind you, it might be a good idea to wait until the RfCs are finished, and input from any parties who might be neutral to this subject be received, before making wholesale changes? If I were coming to respond to the RfC, at this point, I would basically walk away, because there is altogether too much material being added and too much being done here for me to want to make the effort of following. The article has existed for a few years, and I think we could, possibly, survive if we waited to make changes at the end of the RfCs. Just an idea, anyway. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, except that they seem to be working well toward consensus and they seem to have improved the lead quite a bit. So the RfC may be superseded. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think the new proposed lede is coalescing around a text that is achieving broad consensus, so the RFC is no longer relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've put a proposed new lede above. Unlike the one in the previous section, this is available for anyone to edit. Comments? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this is good. I'd suggest a few changes, though none of them are high-priority:

• "...that adds to Evangelical Christian theology some elements of Jewish terminology, ritual, and culture..." should really read "...that adds some elements of Jewish terminology, ritual, and culture to Evangelical Christian theology..." for purely grammatical reasons. That's a problem inherited from the previous verion that I hadn't gotten around to commenting on.
• I'd remove the 'opinion' bit with respect to the supreme court, and just say "The supreme court of israel has ruled that..."
• "generally welcome" should probably be "generally accept"
• The last line might be a bit clearer and less pointed if it read "Messianic Jews believe that salvation is achieved through acceptance of Jesus as the Savior. They follow Jewish laws and practices as a matter of culture and ritual." That might not be quite right, though. I don't believe that Judaism has an effective equivalent of Salvation, since salvation is tied up in the eminently Christian notion of original sin and the need to proactively achieve grace - following Jewish law (except maybe dietary law) would never be implicit in one's Salvation, not even for Jews. I just don't want to give the erroneous impression that Jews worry about salvation the way that Christians do, because I don't think that's the case.

otherwise this looks reasonable to me. --Ludwigs2 23:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm for anything people here agree on. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the suggested changes:

• For, among others, stylistic reasons, it's better to have Evangelical Christian first, as the material about Jewish terminology etc. is lengthy, while the material about Evangelical Christian theology is brief. Also, it's a more accurate view; keep in mind that, in terms of religious belief, Messianism is really identical to Evangelical Christianity - Trinity/Jesus is God and Messiah, New Testament, etc. The base is Evangelical Christianty, and all the Jewish stuff is optional. In this way it's not much different from how Catholic churches in Mexico often add an overlay of Indian traditional practice. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Sounds fine.
• Sounds fine.
• Sounds fine, but I'd say "only achieved", and change "culture and ritual" to "culture and tradition".

Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

well, the first point still sounds funny to my ears, but that's not worth worrying about. I'd agree to the rest of your comments. If we make those changes I'm good with this, so if lisa and Bus Stop and Arthur Rubin agree, let's go with it. --Ludwigs2 00:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

O.K., changes made. How does it look now? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

looks good. The one thing that's missing from it (and from the document as a whole, now that I look for it) is some sense of the structure of the movement: is it a loose collection of separate congregations? organized and divided into internal sections? does it have a center of worship anywhere? I don't know the answer to any of these questions for sure, but my sense is it's a loose collection of separate congregations, and If that's true we could maybe expand the second line to read: "As of 2003, there were at least 150 Messianic houses of worship in the U.S. and over 400 worldwide, loosely connected by a small number of overarching organizations." What do you think? --Ludwigs2 01:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the point, but don't like the word "overarching" - can you think of another word/phrase? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

'overarching' is unnecessary; it could just be deleted. or if you think it needs some qualification, maybe use 'supporting organizations' or 'intergroup alliances'. They don't seem to have anything as definitive as a centralized structure, as far as I can tell, so I don't think we should put too much oomph on these. --Ludwigs2 01:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to change "contest" to "reject". Contesting it implies that the side doing the contesting agrees there's a contest. Rejecting is more accurate in this case, because it isn't even considered a contest by any Jewish religious group. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Bus stop, please don't insert astonishing amounts of confusing detail into the lede; we're trying to simplify and clarify in the lede, not the opposite. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, maybe it was a little longwinded. I've rewritten the last sentence. Bus stop (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Bus Stop: that seems a little extreme, and a bit ORish - obviously they do serve a theological role (similar to the theological role they serve for Jews), it's just that they are not the focal point of the faith. I think the previous version was more sound, so I've reverted to that. can you think of a better way of putting it, that's somewhere in between these statements? --Ludwigs2 01:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the changes again. In the second paragraph, the key here is the belief that Jesus is God, not Messiah, and both Christianity and Judaism see this as the dividing line. We must follow the sources, and while belief that Jesus is Messiah is outside Jewish belief, it is really the belief in his divinity that puts it "beyond the Pale", so to speak. A second key theological differentiator is the role of Jewish law vs. the belief in salvation only through Jesus. Also, I've shortened and clarified the third paragraph again. Please propose further changes here, since your edits, while I'm sure well-meaning, have tended to make the text confusing and longer than is helpful, not adhere to the sources, and sometimes misconstrue the most significant theological issues. It's best if we work them out in discussion before implementing in the proposed lede. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's very nice- the only thing I know of which would be very controversial is "Jewish organizations and religious movements reject this." That's an argument against their being really Jewish, as I said before, but to me it is not important. We tried many different ways of saying that, and none of them reached complete consensus. So it looks good, and the recent simplification is also good. But one question: if this is proposed as the entire lead it seems to be very focused on their status as Jewish/non-Jewish. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If someone is looking them up, that's likely to be the main issue they're looking for. Anyway, leaving out the word "all" before "Jewish organizationa and religious movements reject this" is an enormous compromise. That'll have to do. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I have no real opinion on this, since I don't care about MJ. If I were writing it, I would say "Major Jewish organizations such as X Y and Z reject this, saying..." I think that's just better in several ways. I also agree with this edit. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

agree with BC: attribution is always better. I don't mind giving the impression that every jewish organization rejects MJ (since I think that's probably true); I just don't want to say it outright without attributing it to someone (since that feels like

wp:OR). --Ludwigs2

02:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well we have different reasons for saying that, but yes. But I don't think it's worth making an issue of it if we can gain a consensus lead here. BE——Critical_{__}Talk 02:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, it's not just "Major" Jewish organizations that say this, but every single one that has ever commented on it. Insertion of the term "Major" implies that "Minor" organizations and religious movements disagree, which isn't true. This is a rare topic on which there is essentially unanimity. On the other hand, editors have objected to the word "All", which, while true, is a bit ORish. So, removing the word "all" provides the necessary ambiguity and factualness; we no longer make any absolute claim, and the statement itself is true. No qualifier is the compromise between "All" and "Major". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

" but every single one that has ever commented on it" well I guess some haven't then? Remember I'm not trying to break consensus here, but I just read your comment here to someone who knows nothing of Wikipedia, and she agreed with you 100%. Then I read the lead to her "Many members of the movement are ethnically Jewish, and argue that Messianic Judaism is a sect of Judaism. Jewish organizations and religious movements reject this" and her response was "OH!" by which she meant that it was an argument that they are not Jewish. Mind you, I didn't bias her against it beforehand. Just saying. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. What happened with the person you read this to? Also, what do you think of the lede as it currently stands? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the version you point to above is good. I would make one edit but it changed since then (moving one sentence). Oh, to answer your question, the person I read it to thought that the phrasing was making the argument that they are not Jews even though they say they are, just as I do. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

O.K., I've moved the sentences around into what I think are now three coherent paragraphs, each with a single main theme. First paragraph: what the movement is, second paragraph: fundamental theology (MJ and Jesus and Jewish law), third: how Jewish and Christian groups view the movement. I hope people approve. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, as another compromise, I've also change the phrase "Some members of the movement are ethnically Jewish" to "many members of the movement are ethnically Jewish". This seems to me a reasonable concession to make, in order to balance the lead. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And, as another compromise, I've changed the "seen by... Judaism" to "seen by... Jewish movements". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

BE wrote: "'but every single one that has ever commented on it' well I guess some haven't then?" That doesn't follow at all. There are Jewish groups that feel even commenting on MJ would be granting them respectability. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to "comment on." That is why Jewish groups fail to comment in many instances. Messianic Judaism denies that any of the elements deriving from Judaism have religious status. All such elements are merely "cultural" in the context of Messianic Judaism, and numerous sources support this. A Jewish person (or Jewish group) does not have to comment on Messianic Judaism unless he or she is "on the fence" as to whether to join the Messianic Judaism movement or not. Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This is inaccurate. Mainstream Messianic Judaism affirms the core of Jewish worship and practice as key religious status, and only reinterprets (we would say corrects) prophetic writings about Messiah, and rejects Mishnah interpretations that are more culturally derived than Biblically sourced. Of course mainstream Judaism rejects this challenge, but it doesn't change what messianics believe any more than messianics being able to convice mainstream advocates they are wrong. (I will admit there are some coming out of the Hebrew Christian movement that are really Christian with only the form of being Jewish, and call themselves Messianic because they don't know any better.)DeknMike(talk)

Why can't Messianics define themselves instead of having you people trying to tell us who and what we are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacherbrock (talk • contribs) 15:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Call yourself a different religion, and that's pretty much what will happen. But so long as you claim to be part of another religion, one which repudiates you lock and stock, that rejection is pertinent, and the burden of proof lays with you. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Teacherbrock, as much as it pains me to agree with Lisa, we in the Messianic community are like Luther in Germany or the Anabaptists in Holland, suggesting the mainstream faith has a corrupted interpretation of source documents and expecting them to repudiate their power structure without a fight. The point of this particular page is to present an outsider's view of the faith practice: not too heavy on insider terms but also minimizing the attacks of the anti-missionary detractors. DeknMike(talk) 15:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC).

I've made some reasonable changes. The easiest way to present them is in a revised version of the above "quote box," as here:

Please ask me to explain some of my changes if the changes seem wrong.

In brief, I see no reason to detail the varieties of Jewish elements added in the first sentence. It is the first sentence. It is sufficient to merely state that Jewish elements are added.

"Trinity" is the "Holy Trinity," a highly religious concept. "Salvation" begins with a capital letter. This is a highly religious concept. We have solid sources saying that circumcision, kashrut, sabbath observance — are not instrumental in bringing about salvation. These are strictly halachot. It is a succinct, sourced, statement that Messianic Judaism maintains that halachot do not contribute to the attainment of salvation. I will bring down those sources to this section of the Talk page if anyone requests. But I just thought I wouldn't clutter this area with a re-posting again.

Finally, I added wording that indicates that not all ethnically Jewish members support the contention that Messianic Judaism is a sect of Judaism. I also broke the sentence into two containing the reference to the supreme court of Israel. Bus stop (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, allow me to post this again down here:

1. ) "Messianic Jews share many of the values of the larger evangelical Christian community. For example, Messianic Jews, without exception, believe the way to eternal life is through acceptance of Jesus as one's personal Savior and that no obedience to the Jewish Law" or "works" is necessary in order to obtain that goal. Those in the evangelical community insisting on the need to observe elements of the Law as a prerequisite for salvation gravitated towards another movement, B'nai Noah ("the sons of Noah"), composed of evangelical Christians who adopted modes of Jewish observance. But, as a rule, such groups neither presented themselves as part of the Messianic Jewish movement nor were accepted as such. Remarkably, it has been exactly this adherence to the basic Christian evangelical faith that has allowed Messianic Jews to adopt and promote Jewish rites and customs. They are Christians in good standing and can retain whatever cultural attributes and rites they choose. In principle, there is no reason, except for cultural prejudices, to follow in the customs, habit, and regulations of mainstream Anglo-Saxon churches, and Jewish manners and cultural heritage are just as good as whatever cultural trappings other evangelicals choose to adopt." [10]

2. ) "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 or she is not obliged to, nor are they in any way linked to his or her salvation, which is exclusively grounded in the Messiah's sacrifice on the cross." [11]

I believe these support the notion that Jewish elements are not understood in Messianic Judaism as contributing to the purported aim of the religious movement. It is stated explicitly that they (the religious laws) are not "in any way linked to salvation." Note that salvation is "...exclusively grounded in the Messiah's sacrifice on the cross." The important point being that in Messianic Judaism, Jewish religion becomes Jewish culture. Bus stop (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop, I'm okay with your proposed lede, except that I think the first sentence should not say "Messianic Judaism is a religious movement that adds to Evangelical Christian theology some Jewish elements." It should say "Messianic Judaism is a religious movement that adds to Evangelical Christian theology some elements of Jewish terminology and ritual." Otherwise, it gives the impression that it could have some elements of Jewish theology, which it does not. "Custom" shouldn't be there, since it's redundant (being subsumed by "ritual"). I've made the change in the box. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Lisa — can we consider the following for that sentence (actually 2 sentences):

"Messianic Judaism is a religious movement that adds to Evangelical Christian theology some Jewish elements. These elements take on the status of the merely cultural in the context of Messianic Judaism."

To add support to that I have found the following reference:

"…Messianic Jews are Christian believers who wish to preserve and affirm their identity as Jews and to live and worship in culturally Jewish ways." [12]

The point being that anything deriving from a Jewish realm takes on the status of being "cultural" within Messianic Judaism. That which derives from a Jewish realm is not "

halacha," and is not even of the status of "minhag." Sources are saying that these elements are "cultural." Cultural of course is not even necessarily religious. Which is why I was earlier trying to say that these elements deriving from a "Jewish" realm are not "theological." But "theological" is not found in the sources I've encountered. Bus stop (talk

) 14:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that we have a reasonable text, can we go about including the sources? We can't move it into the actual article as it is. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not yet a reasonable text, for the reasons listed below. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop, there are a number of issues with the text you've proposed, as follows:

1. The Wikipedia term is the Trinity, not "the Holy Trinity". That is also the common academic term. Wikipedia takes no position on whether or not it is "Holy".
2. The Wikipedia term is halakha, and there's no need for this technical/non-English to be listed in the lead of this article. It will be handled as part of the dablink behind "Jewish law", thus: Jewish law.
3. Jewish law and Jewish customs are not identical, and both need to be mentioned, particularly for Christian readers, who often have a very narrow and negative understanding of what "Jewish law" means.
4. "Salvation" is not a proper noun, and therefore should not be capitalized. Also, you've left off the rather critical theological point that, in MJ (and normative Christian) theology, salvation is achieved only through acceptance of Jesus.

I've fixed these issues in the latest version, and from now on only working copy, below. I've also started linking some of the key terms. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg — I'm OK with all that. Bus stop (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well?? Isn't someone going to put it in? If you want a suggestion, make this the last sentence of the lead "Messianic Judaism's belief in the role and divinity of Jesus is seen by Christian denominations and Jewish movements as being the defining distinction between Christianity and Judaism." BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually prefer the paragraph without that "distinction" sentence, which is one of the most inflamatory in the whole article. It is an "objecction" not a description. Even though the 12% of Judaism that attends synagogue regularly believe Messianic is not Jewish, Messianics self-identify with Judaism in virtually every theological point except the person and purpose of Jesus. This factor makes Messianic a modifier of Judaism; if they were only adding Jewish customs to Christian worship (as some who incorrectly call themselves Messianic have done) then they would be modifying Christianity, but this is not the case with mainstream (IFJM, CPM, UMJC, etc) Messianic groups. DeknMike Talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC).

"Except the person and purpose of Jesus". That's a little like, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" And you forgot the godhood of Jesus. Minor little thing. Shall I bring quotes from innumerous Jewish sources which say that idolatry (which worshipping a person is) is the absolute antithesis of Judaism? There is unanimity of opinion across the Jewish spectrum that the use of "Judaism" in "Messianic Judaism" is fraudulent and intentionally deceptive. You can't co-opt someone else's religion and expect to have it go unchallenged. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism is the challenge to a wayward Judaism, whose rabbis and leaders have changed to fit the times instead of the text. The non-Messianic Jews in our congregation complain more about our Askenazic ]]pronounciation than our theology. DeknMike

You are entitled to your opinion, but the sources brought are very clear that belief in the divinity of Jesus is one of the prime reasons why MJ is Christianity and not Judaism. We have a rather extensive citation list on this in the notes. -- Avi (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Could everyone please comment in the section below? That's the one that has the current version of the lead. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned that Harris-Shapiro is being misrepresented. Can someone please bring the exact citation/quote where she states MJ is Judaism? The citation brought just says it a Jewish/Christian movement which is as much, if not more, about the ethnicities of the participants than a categorization of the religion. I think a clearer statement, along the lines (but opposite, of course) of the quotations from the Jewish repudiations or Christian categorizations of MJ is necessary. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I emailed her to ask for a clarification, but she hasn't gotten back to me. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure that subsection can be saved. The reason it's there is that MJs like to cite Cohn-Sherbok and Harris-Shapiro as "Jewish sources" that say MJ is legit. It's understandable that they'd glom onto anything that seemed even remotely supportive to them, but it definitely doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliably sourced material. I suggest that we remove that section entirely. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If that quote is to be abandoned, I think we could substitute the 2000 quote from Sherbok referenced above about how he thinks the MJs will be recognized as Jews by the end of the century, saying that Jews are historically slow to recognize new movements as Jewish. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do we have to replace it with anything? Particularly in the light of Dan Cohn-Sherbok's response to the e-mail I sent him? The statement of one person about what he thinks might happen sometime in the next 100 years says nothing about Jewish legitimizing of MJ. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"…historically slow to recognize new movements as Jewish"? When was the last time a movement was recognized "as Jewish"? Bear in mind that nonobservant Jews are also considered Jews, so it is hardly a surprise that Reform, Reconstructionist, and Humanistic Jews would be considered Jews. Bus stop (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Good question. The quote I was referring to can be found here. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the question here is not the same. There is no logic to comparing liberal Judaism to Christianity. These are two different religions. Liberal movements (in Judaism) largely replace observance with nonobservance. They don't replace Judaism with Christianity in any sense whatsoever. I don't see the logic of the comparison.

Also your post linked to above refers to a "syncretism." That is hard to understand in light of all other sources (that I've encountered) that indicate that what was of the status of

halacha or at least of the status of a minhag becomes instead of the status as of something merely "cultural" in the setting of Messianic Judaism. I think that when one religion's precepts are relegated to the status of that which is merely cultural there is no syncretism but rather there is at best tolerance. Bus stop (talk

) 17:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The "slow to recognize" comment is demonstrably false. Orthodoxy rejected Reform and continues to do so. Reform did not reject Conservative, which came next. Conservative did not reject Reconstructionist, which came after that. Reform got all itchy scratchy about its next spin-off of Humanistic (atheist), but I don't think there was ever an issue of them not recognizing them. And I've never heard of any of those rejecting the new-agey thing called Renewal. Meanwhile, Orthodoxy has remained consistent by not recognizing any of them. So there's no "slow to recognize". - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Orthodoxy rejects reform Judaism just as much as Messianic Judaism, they just play nice because they don't accept Jesus. The legislation to restriction conversions to Orthodox only in Israel is a really good example of that. teacherbrock —Preceding undated comment added 15:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC).

teacherbrock—please bring sources to support your assertions—if you feel they are relevant and valid. Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

From now on, in order to avoid the problem of multiple confusing "new ledes", all edits will be made to this version. Once we agree on a final wording, we can start adding back the supporting footnotes. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Any current objections to this lead? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It works for me if you remove the last sentence of the second paragraph. That statement is a mainstream jewish statement not a messianic statement. For example, there are other distinctions between Christianity and Judaism, such as dietary laws, the use of ritual, the reverence for the physical Torah scroll, thing most Protestant Christians don't follow, but Messianics do. Removal of the sentence does not negate the truth of the rest of the paragraph, and even if true doesn't materially improve the understanding. DeknMikeDeknMike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.238.2 (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

DeknMike, I just fixed your indenting again. Can you please try to remember that you indent one more than the person you're replying to? Not the same.

And I object strenuously to the idea of removing the last line of the second paragraph. This article is not meant to be a PR piece for MJ. Judaism is inestimably more notable than MJ, and so long as MJ insists on the J in their name, that fact is relevant. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

DeknMike, as explained in the section above, that sentence is both true, and highlights the key theological points on which Messianism differs from Judaism, and instead strictly follows Christianity. One could add, I suppose, belief that the New Testament is Holy Scripture, but this will do. Things like dietary laws, use of the Torah scroll, etc. are part of the Jewish "cultural" observances of Messianism - things it follows, but does not consider obligatory, or necessary for Salvation. Therefore they are not key theological points, but rather relatively unimportant points of style. Why would one remove a sentence that is both true and highlights the key theological differentiators between Messianism and Judaism - the main reason why Judaism doesn't accept Messianism as Jewish? Jayjg ^(talk) 12:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg - again, that is original research on your part. as I noted previously, Jewish observances are not necessary for salvation for Jews so why should it matter whether they are necessary for salvation for MJs? You are just fishing for disparagements here. the second and third lines of the second paragraph share this problem: they both need attribution (so that we can see this is an argument sources are making, not an argument you are making), or else they need rewriting so that they do not so obviously push a particular POV. --Ludwigs2 15:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources are brought in the article; Jay's version did not carry the ref tags. -- Avi (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, are you objecting to the sources in the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It is "a" distinction, not "the only" distinction between "all Judaism" and Christianity, in that Jewish Science and Humanistic Judaism do not recognize a definitive God. In fact, more than 60% of Jews are avowed or functionally agnostic / atheistic, or practice a synchretic new age, eastern or humanistic faith. In terms of describing what the movement is, that sentence belongs in "objections"DeknMike —Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC).

Don't conflate Jewish ethnicity with Jewish religiosity. We are discussing the distinction between Judaism and Messianism, not ethnic non-religious Jewish people and a religious movement. -- Avi (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It says "Jewish Movements" - if you claim "all Jews" then non-Rabbinic spiritual perspectives ought to be included. --DeknMike (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually not. Theological positions are not held by those on the most liberal end of the spectrum of Jewish observance. Bus stop (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

without getting into a war over it, the denial of a god is a theological position. You can't have it both ways.--DeknMike (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, DeknMike, but there is no theological position taken vis-a-vis Jesus by those Jews at the liberal end of the spectrum of Jewish observance—except for the rejection of Jesus. They may reject Jewish observance, but that has no bearing on their rejection of the notion of Jesus as Messiah. Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You're still conflating Judaism and Jews. "Jewish movements" here means streams of Judaism, not divisions among ethnic Jews. -- Avi (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What Bus Stop says is true for irreligious ethnic Jews, so the conflated meaning is incorrect in and of itself, besides being an incorrect interpretation of the article. -- Avi (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As Avi points out, the lead talks about what Jewish movements say, not the opinions of individual Jews. Individual Jews have around 14 million opinions, so listing them isn't helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a valid need for this section? As written it adds no value. It doesn't provide 1:1 comparisons. It does not reproduce discussions from the "Jewish Messiah" page, nor are these arguement there. It does not reference other mainstream opinions on the person and place of Jesus. If the "Jewish" portion is retained, it should be moved to the "objections" section. Note this article is supposed to be about understanding Messianic Judaism, not "why Messianic Jews are wrong."--DeknMike (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a cumbersome article to read. Instead of describing who the Messianics are, it starts of with who they aren't in one community's opinion. Then it tells a fractured history, followed by more reasons why to not have the article. A list of theology is followed by yet another paragraph why the group is invalid, followed by why it's really just another denomination of Protestant evangelicalism. Some more doctrines, a random list of practices, more objections, and then the understatement paragraph - persecution. I suggest a different ordering:

1.identity

2.history

3.religious practices

3.1 holiday observances   
3.2 dietary laws   
3.3 messianic music   

4. theology

4.1 Torah and canon   
4.2 other writings   
4.3 core doctrines   
4.4 additional doctrines   
4.5 Yeshua/Jesus   
4.6 people of God   
4.7 jewish paul   
4.8 eschatology   

5. denominations and organizations

5.1 mainline denominations   
5.2 secondary / fringe denominations    
5.3 churches being "messianic" in name only   
5.4 Jews for Jesus and other support organizations   

6. controversy

6.1 Jewish objections - general (blend former 3 & 5.1)   
6.2 Jewish denominational objections (former 8.1)   
6.3 messianic jewish conversion (former 4.7)   
6.4 Israeli citizenship (former 9)   

7. persecution of messianic jews

8. see also 9. references 10. further reading 11. external links --DeknMike (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

So is this tied to evangelicalism or is it separate from it while incorporating elements from it? 74.78.89.243 (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Before you linked to it, I was unaware of the term - it's not widely used. It has similar aims, but Messianic's theology of evangelism is much older, dating at laest to the time of the prophet Ezekiel (3:18-19)--DeknMike (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The writings of Dr Sam Nadler are representative of mainstream doctrine, and should be allowed as source materials. He has credentials as being Bar Mitzva at 13, then learning from Moshe Rosen at J4J as part of the Liberated Wailing Wall. He is a past president of Chosen Peoples and now consults widely on messianic congregation planting and organizational health. He is listed on the

You can't have it both ways, Mike. If J4J is part of MJ for the purposes of granting Nadler credentials, you can't disown them for other purposes. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sam Nadler's "credentials" are his theological degrees and his 30 years leading mainline Messianic organizations (Chosen Peoples and WoM). Also, I've never disowned J4J. My own rabbi used to represent them. All I've said is they are not a congregation-planting organization. --DeknMike (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What is so bad about having a link to a neutral completely open facebook page that allows just as open discussion as wikipedia? It actually does represent every Messianic Jewish conference and council as far as I can tell. --Teacherbrock (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Because

1. Facebook is a
   non-reliable source
2. The implication is that that Facebook page speaks for all Messianics, which is not true
3. Wikipedia is not meant to be a link to social websites
   , it is an encyclopedia.

-- Avi (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see note 58 (at current) which is http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html. That is a direct quotation and direct quotations should not be changed. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As a direct quote from a single individual then it should be marked as a quote, or at least move the reference to the end of the passage instead of above the questionable part: I was pointing out that the passage referenced doesn't actually say what Rabbi Simmons says it does, but instead is an interpretation that uses a proof-text to support a particular viewpoint.--DeknMike (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I've enclosed the quote in blockquote tags. But DeknMike, the section it's in is "Judaism". Adding a caveat that this is the Jewish view is redundant. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a quote from a representative of one of the most famous institutions engaged in answering the questions about Judaism that people have, so it's not one person, it is an organization. Also, a brief review of the literature (online, modern, and historic) will show that this has been the consistent answer for not centuries but millenia. -- Avi (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

adding hidden "blockquote" tags don't clearly show the sourcing for the casual reader. I adjusted the formating to show what you intended. Also toned down some of the rhetoric.--DeknMike (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You cannot change direct quotes; that is academically fraudulent as well as potentially libelous (misquoting a source). We bring unadulterated acceptable sources without adding our POVs; give the reader credit for being able to make up their own mind. -- Avi (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

nothing in that paragraph is marked as a direct quote. It is sourced and indented, but when I was in school, a quote had quote marks around it. Everything else was taken as my own words. In short, there is no way to know how much of that paragraph is taken from the source and how much is explanation about the topic; it's just sloppy.--DeknMike (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I note that Rabbi Simmons holds no theological training, but instead has a degree in journalism. Can we find a theologian who can get their references straight to explain this position, instead of a newspaper editor giving an unsourced opinion?--DeknMike (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

An ordained Rabbi is not a trained theologian? Also, he likely spent decades in kollel which would have given him upwards of 10 hours a day training in Jewish law, ethics, and philosophy. the training people go through in Orthodox Judaism is not similar to Christian seminary training, and trying to compare them would lead to confusion. -- Avi (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Learned is not the same as trained. Time spent is not equal to quality of effort. I've met many unordained who've spent thousands of hours in Bible study who make excellent pastors and preachers, but without degree-granting training. Even when ordianed, they are rarely quoted as denominational source experts. The Rabbi Simmons quote is a homily-like illustration that misquotes the source text, and is not a verifyable source. --DeknMike (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If we are discussing the quote from Simmons about why Jews do not believe in Jesus, it is a synopsis of both Talmudic and Rishonic sources (Maimonides in particular, but others as well). It is specifically not primarily based on the Written Law texts. The vast, vast preponderance of sources and discussions about Judaism's eschatological theory (which includes who the Messiah will be and why), is in the Oral Law and the glosses by the Rishonim—not the Written Law. I understand Christianity does not have the same tradition, but this is the section about Judaism. Regardless, the Simmons source is a reliable secondary source and, as someone who is somewhat knowledgeable in the field, I find it a good synopsis of the Rishonic texts that relate to the topic. -- Avi (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Let the record note that today I agreed with one of Lisa's edits (Judaism section), that actually cleaned up the sentence. --DeknMike (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I think DeknMike and I mean the same thing with regard to the placement of the Simmons footnote in the Judaism's response section. I feel it should be after the introductory colon, as all points are sourced by the citation, and putting it after the colon, in my mind, implies that that all that follows in the blockquote is covered. DeknMike is putting it after the last bullet point, likely for the same reason, but to me that looks as if only the last bullet point is supported. Some more input as to the typographic placement would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I added one more line from the source to close out the discussion and put the citation at the end. Hope that meets general approval.--DeknMike (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In theory, that would be a great way to solve the issue. Unfortunately, that sentence is not found in the article, nor is a similar sentence found, so, technically, it is a

While The Chicago Manual of Style is not the wikipedia MoS, it is a good starting point, and per the current (15th) edition, section 16.31, you are correct that a "note number normally follows a quotation, whether the quotation is run into the text or set off as an extract" (CMOS 16.31). While this is a paraphrase, and not a direct quotation, I believe they are treated similarly, so I am going to put the reference back at the last bullet and remove the SYNTH violation. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

DeknMike recently changed in the lede the numbers given for Messianic congregations.[13] I've changed it back to the cited numbers. DeknMike, which

The source is 8 years old (published 2003, meaning researched in '02). I've been digging through the internet, documenting congregational listing on the List of Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations page. The current number is 383, and I'm not through. As a compromise, I'll keep your source and add the new number.--DeknMike (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you find a more updated source that passes

reliability and verifiability, then replace the older source. If the new source does not pass requirements, it cannot be added, even in addition. -- Avi (talk

) 18:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you would look to the referred page you will find over 190 individual congregational websites, and the names and locations of another 150+ that don't have a website.--DeknMike (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page; wikiepdia itself may never be used for wikipedia. It is an epic fail regarding reliability and verifiability. -- Avi (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case, visit http://www.man-na.com/messianic_congregations_USA.htm and check my sourcing. The wikipedia page reference is where I did the work for you.--DeknMike (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Technically there is no page with the information about the entire US, but I think that adding up the individual states is covered by the

common knowledge exemption, and it is not synth to say 2+2=4. Anyone disagree? -- Avi (talk

) 19:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. You can use the sub-pages for listing the names of specific members of the "Messianic AlliaNce of North America", but you can't tally up the names yourself from multiple sub-pages, and give that as being sourced to the mainpage. That crosses the line into

WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk)

21:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What was it the prophet Jeremiah said in 5:21? (they have eyes, and see not,... ears, and hear not)[1] By the time I and others add congregational listings from other web research the number will surely increase. Shall I add all 200+ links to this article? That would be foolish.--DeknMike (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you need to find a reliable source that explicitly states the number of congregations, rather than making your own

verifiable. Jayjg ^(talk)

14:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Deknmike, have you found a reliable, non-OR source for these numbers yet? If not please take it out now. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the addition that the Messianic Israel Alliance has "130 congregations". Add the other Messianic denominations and it's well over 150. (When I have time, I'll do the research for you.) I think that is sufficient indicator of the growth of the movement since the out-of-date source was published.--DeknMike (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

DeknMike, you don't need to

explicitly make those claims. It's been over two weeks now, have you found any? Jayjg ^(talk)

05:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

So what is it you want, a source for reliable sources or 10-year-old (i.e. out of date) number? Jayjg, you miquoted me (on purpose?) when I promised to search the literature for a single definitive source. No I haven't found just one, but I also can't find a solitary source of how many other JEWISH congregations there are in the US. Can you say? If not, I'll consider your deletion of my fair representation of the facts invalid and restore the number.--DeknMike (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If you need more information on what constitutes reliable sourcing, the best thing to do is consult

WP:OR to me. As to whether you can go to just one source (like man-na.com), well, I don't know what a RS expert would say about it, but it looks to me like the kind of opinionated source that isn't renowned for fact-checking and is reliable only as a source of its own views. --Steven J. Anderson (talk

) 05:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you chose to upbraid me on my talk page for having the temerity to make the above post, DeknMike, I'll point that my comments are on-topic, civil and appropriate. You and Jayjg are clearly having a discussion about sourcing and it's altogether appropriate for another editor to weigh in with an opinion and advice about how to resolve that dispute. At 388 edits, you're still decidedly on the new side and it's no "personal jab" to point out to a relative newcomer resources like the reliable sources noticeboard when a sourcing dispute is clearly pending. If there's anyone else here who thinks I was wrong to so post, please speak up. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Steven, difference of opinion in the middle of a discussion is one thing, but stepping in simply to throw your weight around is anotherd. Reading your post and then the response when I tried to take the discussion offline to the one-on-one talk page, I had to go check the definition: "be understanding and non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility." Therefore I will ignore your threat.--DeknMike (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)