Talk:Christianity and Judaism/Archive 5

Terminology
Alastair, thanks for the kind words! Dor = Generation. L' = To.

I'm making a new category here for nomenclature in general, and as soon as I can figure out the formatting I'll add a table. I figure I can throw it out here, and if it looks right to everyone it might have a place in the article. Tim (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Two smart plans. Thank you. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, I really do like the concept of your idea and appreciate the effort you have given here !!! .......... I would like to bring to attention that there are synonyms to nomenclature such as " organization  " which implies catagorizing and division, and " terminology " which implies expressions with requisites and stipulations .......... " lexicon " is also another word which comes to mind ........... serious sensitivity to what every member of every faith would feel about certain definitions to their respective " faith name " would seem to be paramount when analyizing criteria for such descriptions ........... { would you  include children of God and the elect or chosen into this table for me to consider ?? } ......... thanks in advance, Pilotwingz (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I've added Chosen and Elect. "Children of God" seems to mean "All humankind, especially my religious group" to everyone. Tim (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I like pilotwingz' suggestion of terminology best among the synonyms. It better describes the scope of this polyglot dictionary of dialects. I'll drop another note after I've considered the entries carefully. I'll try to add suggestions for sources as well. The gold standard would be examples of the usage in context. This is such a good idea, and so helpful, I propose we think which articles, policies and project pages should link to it, and open a guideline or new topic entry. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Alastair. I made one change to the Messianic cell for "New Testament." Also, I added a good bit. If we ever use this for others to refer to, I'll have to alphabetize it. I didn't this time because everyone was still reviewing the original list.Tim (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Great work! I particularly like the phrase "pre-existing national condition". Some comments:
 * It is my understanding that a convert remains a Jew even if they start practicing another religion. You can be a good Jew, a bad Jew, but once a Jew, you can't unJew yourself.  The only way a conversion can be "undone" is to claim that it was (a) fraudulent at the time of conversion (b) forced, without free will (c) never happened in the first place (e.g. non-halakhic, invalid bet din, etc).
 * If we have original sin, shouldn't we add yetzer hara?
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egfrank (talk • contribs) 16:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Good catch on the Yetzer HaRa! Sometimes I still have my Christian hat on when I'm categorizing things, and I forgot all about it. As for Gentiles who convert to Judaism and then convert BACK, I've seen disagreement about whether he is still a Jew. I agree that Halakhically he would be (I'm Orthodox), but there are some differences in Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform on this. Tim (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have details on differences? I think the litmus test would be: if X renegs on the non-Jewish religion would they need to do a second conversion. Do you know of anyone that would? The closest example, I can come up with involves a religious person becoming secular.  I do recall in Israel that the Rabbinut has tried to after-the-fact delegitimze conversions when the convert decides to become hiloni (secular) - claiming that the conversion was fraudulent. I also know that IRAC (sponsored by the World Union for Progressive Judaism) has been active in court cases defending the secularized convert and I've heard talks on this issue that cite religious reasons for it - citing halakha and other rabbinic material that says converts are not supposed to be treated differently from born Jews. Egfrank (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I know of a couple of cases, so I can answer you. If there's reason to believe that the convert was insincere at the time of the conversion, the convert can be considered hozer l'suro and the conversion invalidated retroactively.  This is very rare, and some authorities hold that it only pertains if the convert returns to idolatry, which raises the whole question of whether Christianity is idolatry or not.  The dominant Orthodox Jewish view is that Christianity is not idolatry for non-Jews, but it is for Jews.  The reason for this is that there is a category called shituf, which means worshipping God, but associating another deity with Him.  Shituf, according to most authorities, is permissible for non-Jews, but no different than out-and-out idolatry for Jews.  Those views which see Christianity as non-idolatrous do so because they view it as shituf.  Which means that Christianity is idolatry for Jews.


 * In any case, I knew a guy online who had converted. He was more than sincere at the time, but he is now a complete apostate.  An atheist who argues against Judaism.  Unfortunately, since he was sincere at the time of his conversion, we're stuck with him.


 * Another case, closer to me personally, was a friend of mine who I met at a women's seminary in Israel. Her father was Jewish and her mother was Catholic.  Both were raised that way, in any event, but were atheists when my friend was young, and she was raised without any religion.  She converted to Judaism when she became an adult, and was religious.  But she felt a pull to her mother's religion, and gradually started attending mass.  I asked a rabbi whether her conversion could be nullified, and was told that her years of obvious commitment to Judaism made that impossible, even though she was now an idolator. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Egfrank -- there really should NOT be any differences. I think the exceptions are as you have noted, legal fictions to try to negate the Halakha. Since you were exactly right on your first call, I've updated the cells. :-) Tim (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Alastair, looks like we're starting something here! You're digging even deeper into theological concepts. I'd suggest something about the redeemer-kinsman in relationship to Jewish thought (think of Boaz and Ruth). God is frequently called go'el yisrael in the prayers. Also, hilasterion is the word used in the LXX for the Mercy Seat on the Ark of the Covenant (in fact Martin Luther translated it that way in his German Bible instead of some kind of equivalent for the English "propitiation"). It was the cover. The Hebrew kopher you cited also means to cover. I think the difference between Christianity and Judaism here is that Christianity is using the operation of another (the Son) to appease the Father, while in Judaism God is not in need of appeasement, but is himself covering over the sin. However, that's modern Judaism. Temple era Judaism may have had more of a sacrificial aspect to kopher than it's modern equivalent.Tim (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I find redemption an amazingly beautiful picture of practical love, and Ruth and Boaz are the classic example. Atonement is scary and the various etymologies and discussions rather labyrinthine. Not only are they great ideas, I'm sure the English words would be similar in each tradition, but with significantly different interpretations. I've added covenant, which is deceptively similar across the traditions. Christians are much more free in how they use the term.
 * PS apparently hilasterion is cognate to "hilarious", which I found a bit of giggle when I read it. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where to begin here .......... OK, is it agreed that the objective is " Perception " ??? ........... I have a lot to say regarding the section " Christian Perception, I think it is , ( um ) how to say , amiss on many of the terms !!! ........... questionable on some others , not just Christian ......... now , what do you all think I should do about that ??? ........... I also want to ask some questions right now , OK ??? .......... Alastair , why do say Archaic for covenant ?? It's not an archaic ( outmoded , no longer in ordinary language , ancient ) term by any means at all .. Not Biblically, Legally , not by ordinance or even a Christian perception of a marriage ........... question for a Jewish person : isn't there anyone who is a Jewish person given the title of " Rabbi " today . I thought there where many Rabbi's today ??? .......... I have to have my say about what is written in the Christian section of " Cross " and other terms , but not yet because I have to find a way not to hurt others with my words ( my first thought is to use anothers words , like Matthew's and probably will )....... And the Neutral section for Cross, ( Historic Connotation ???? ) . A connotation is an implied additional meaning . There is nothing implied about the Cross of Jesus in any way, it is what he was crucified on . I don't think I would be too far off by saying the Cross of Jesus is the most familiar term in history of the world including the present , everyone knows what the Cross means . Being it's so familiar , what could make it additional ?? .......... Alright , that's enough for me right now , but I will say more later , probably much more , and will probably have a lot more questions too ....... peace , and I still think this is a great idea you got here Tim .... Pilotwingz ... Pilotwingz (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Pilotwingz (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Pilot, I think use of the word covenant as in marriage covenant is a wonderful use of the word. To my ears, it has the association of decisiveness, lastingness and of long tradition in humanity of taking marriage, in particular, very seriously. Nowadays however, secular marriage is a legal partnership that can be dissolved like any business partnership, with certain important additional constraints and procedures. Covenant, exactly like you say, means more than contract and is still in use. I didn't like my term archaic either for the word or the idea, but the point is, an 18-year-old from Japan, with a good level of English, is not likely to know the word, or its history. None of us hear it on the TV news, or read it in the newspapers. The point of me saying archaic is not that I think marriage or covenant to be superseded, it's just that neither the word nor the idea are universally understood. That is precisely why it is important that we explain them carefully. Who knows? Maybe people will read Wiki, like the idea, and write letters to editors of newspapers about lost family values in current society. But our job is to 1. understand ideas clearly from where they've been published historically, and 2. explain those ideas in contemporary language and concepts widely understood. Between you and me, calling things archaic or old, if they are good things, condemns where we are at now, it doesn't condemn the past. I was trying to be neutral and accurate, not passing judgement. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Pilot, I apologize if I've not gotten something right on here. That's really the whole point of it, though -- people saying one thing and the other group hearing another. What is the Christian perception of Yetzer HaRa? There really isn't one. It's an unfamiliar term. And it goes beyond that. Even the actions are misread. When Christians witness to Jews, they believe they are doing a loving thing – a respectful thing – caring about the other person’s soul. Jews hear disrespect. When Jews do NOT try to change a Christian’s religion, they do so because they respect the Christian’s right to be himself, as himself. But the Christian hears disregard. Both are trying to give what they believe to be good, and the other is perceiving something that is not good. Of course the cross is well known – but that’s part of the problem. It is known to Jews in a far different way from the way it is known to Christians. Tim (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Tim ,, the Lord has shown my eyes much, though I have often thought it a burden .. The Holy Spirit declares you desire to practise rightiousness, so no apology needed , but for you as my brother I will accept because you have felt it nessasary ......... what you have commenced here is a high task for the strongest of us , and I am one of the weakest ......... onward I say , the cause is worthy and glory to God .......... peace be with you , amen .. Pilotwingz (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Made a slight alteration to Sha'ul and Paul...... comments please ?? Pilotwingz (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have made some modifications to the table in the "Jewish Perception" column. I'm an Orthodox Jew, and I disagree with some of the items you've put there. I hope you'll take this as constructive criticism.

"New Testament". Fairly self-explanatory.

"Salvation". I disagree with the comparison of membership in the covenant and the Christian concept of "salvation". I explained why.


 * I understand your disagreement, but having seen both sides of this, those are the equivalents. There once was a Christian bumper sticker going around "I found it."  The Jewish response was another bumper sticker "We never lost it."  Christians are trying to help people "get saved", which is a restoration of a broken relationship with God.  Their understanding of being "unsaved" is being spiritually separated from God.  Jews aren't trying to obtain a relationship because we are born (or converted into) a covenantal relationship with God.  I think the reason you don't see them equating is because you see "salvation" and "damnation" as merely individual conditions, and not primarily relational ones. Tim (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Works". I removed the parenthetical "salvation" from this item, because the concept of "salvation" is foreign to Judaism.


 * We use the term all the time in our prayers. We don't have the Christian concept, but we do have our own concept.Tim (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Yetzer HaRa". The Yetzer HaRa is not a state we are in, according to the Jewish view, but rather a tendency. If you like, you can think of the cartoon image of a devil and an angel sitting on your shoulder. The little devil guy is the Yetzer HaRa. We oppose the Yetzer HaRa by choosing not to listen to it.


 * And yet there would be no survival without it. What I was trying to express is something that Christians wouldn't expect from our concept: The Yetzer HaRa cannot be an equation with Original Sin because it is a good thing when working in harmony with the Yetzer HaTov.  A person with only the Yetzer HaTov might feed other people's children, but would never have any of his own (remember the first commandment p'ru ir'vu is a mockery and an insult to our spouse if we try to fulfill it with only the Yetzer HaTov).  And a world full of aesthetics would die off in a single generation.  Do we listen to the Yetzer HaRa?  Our spouses would be devestated if we didn't!  Do we listen to the Yetzer HaRa?  I hear it every time my stomach growls.  I could go on -- but the point is that even though it's called the "Evil Inclination" it is only "Evil" in isolation.  And in fact the Yetzer HaTov is also evil in isolation -- since we would end up starving to death.  By "Evil" we're meaning "selfish" and not "diabolic".

Tim (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Christ". I realize that this may offend some people, but this is supposed to reflect the Jewish perception.


 * I thought your wording was helpful. We're trying to help the people in other cells understand what's going on in ours (and vice versa). Tim (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Atonement". I made a pretty major change there. I hope it isn't too long. You might want to have a look at http://www.ou.org/chagim/elul/selichotthree.htm for a good explanation of the difference between the three levels of forgiveness.

"Redemption". I changed this to add the fact that this is not a purely secular term in the view of Judaism.

-LisaLiel (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Lisa -- Thanks so much for the help! I haven't had time to review everything yet. Having been both an Evangelical pastor and an Orthodox Jew, I'm trying to translate the terms in phrases each side would understand (and that we can also find examples of). For instance, "Christian Scriptures" is NOT just the New Testament, but includes the Hebrew Bible and sometimes the Apocrypha as well. The idea is to use terms in each cell that is native to the column, UNLESS they are indecipherable or misdirecting to the people represented in the other columns. My Rabbi and I had a long debate over the term for the New Testament, for instance. He wants to refer to it as the "Christian Bible" because he doesn't like "New Testament". I do NOT want to refer to it as the "Christian Bible" for two reasons 1) "The Bible" is the Tanakh, and 2) "Christian Bible" or "Christian Scriptures" is our Tanakh and their New Testament combined. Now, what either of us like and dislike is immaterial to Wikipedia (unless they generally reflect documentable likes and dislikes for a group). But things that misdirect or confuse whole portions of readers is material to Wikipedia, which is what I'm trying to figure out how to do. Tim (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I hear what you're saying, Tim, but "Christian Scriptures" is still an appropriate term for the part other than the Tanach if we're talking about Jewish perception. We don't see Tanach as belonging to everyone.  In fact, during the Second Temple period, there was an annual fast day commemorating the anniverary of the translation of the Tanach into Greek, because we knew that the result would be massive misinterpretations by the rest of the world.  And in our view, that's what happened.  You may have a point when it comes to general usage (though I think the point could be argued), but when it comes to Jewish perception, "Christian Scriptures" is probably best.  I prefer not to even use the term "Bible" in it if I can avoid it. -LisaLiel (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Lisa -- a suggestion -- ask ten people at random what the "Christian Scriptures" are. Only Jews will think it's the New Testament. Anyone else on the planet will think you are talking about the Protestant Bible, or even the Roman Catholic Bible. The Jewish perception doesn't communicate to anyone else. The only other possible terms are "Christian Greek Scriptures" (also misleading to Eastern Orthodox, who will think you are talking about their Bible (LXX plus Byzantine NT), or "The Christian books from Matthew through Revelation." I've also tried to communicate this on the row for "Christian Bible." Tim (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't seriously propose it for Wiki, but Christian Testament is attested by writers to address some of Lisa's concerns. The main problem is somewhat intractable though, imo. Frankly, I think Jewish people have every right to treat with suspicion Christian claims to accept and interpret the Tanakh. Unfortunately, we cannot deny that Christians do this.
 * Catholics have the same problem. Protestants claim to be Christian, although they no longer accept the authority of the Catholic magisterium to interpret the Bible for them. Catholics claim to be the original Christianity, but now Protestants claim to be the authentic Christianity. And Wiki let's them get away with it!
 * For good or ill, popular English usage distinguishes between Jews and Christians, but not between Catholic and Protestant Christians, unless absolutely necessary. Indonesian is different, Katolik and Kristen are mutually exclusive words, and ESL Indonesians frequently ask me, "are Catholics Christians?"
 * With regard to scriptures, English reflects a long history of Christian assumptions (back to Anglo Saxon translations of "The Bible"), which presume the Tanakh to be scripture because the Christian tradition includes it. The etymology reflects a cultural ignorance and/or bias. It's not logical, but it's real.
 * I hope this article will help people realise some of these issues. Perhaps language will change to accomodate the logic better over time. In the mean time we're somewhat stuck with what we have. I am very sympathetic to your POV Lisa. Although personally I am a Christian who lays claim to accepting the Tanakh, I also dispute the legitimacy of some groups that lay claim to the Christian Testament. So I "feel" both PsOV. That helps me understand the importance and also the difficulty of presenting certain things from a NPOV at Wiki.
 * It is not fashionable to be exclusive in contemporary Western society, however, genuine respect for other cultures involves allowing exclusivity. Distinctions are real and important. I particularly value your observations, Lisa. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Alastair. Tim, I do hear what you're saying, but the discussion here is about the chart at the top of this section.  Since this chart is about perceptions, and since the header on the column I modified says "Jewish perception", it's appropriate for it to contain the Jewish perception, whether or not it communicates to anyone else.


 * Also, Tim, if you use indenting, it makes things a lot more readable. Just FYI. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Lisa, thanks for the reminder on the indentation. I definitely agree that we need to show that Jews think of the New Testament as "the Christian Bible" or "the Christian Scriptures."  And, I appreciate your help in adding that nuance to the cells.  Are you okay with the caveats I'm trying to weave in there?  The only thing I'm trying to avoid is something like Jew: "we don't believe in the Christian Bible" (meaning New Testament).  Christian: "you don't believe in the Bible?" (meaning our Hebrew Bible and their New Testament).  We absolutely want to say what we mean.  And we also want Christians to get the same meaning we are saying, and not think we are all atheists! Tim (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It may be necessary to mention "Christian scriptures" for the article, but in general I always prefer that no one use "scriptures" for the NT since the NT itself is always referring to the Tanach when it mentions "scriptures" (Mat. 21:42, 22:29, 26:54, 26:56, etc.), it just causes confusion. -Bikinibomb (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Only have a minute here right now, so I thought it might be helpful to make a statement about what I believe to be a fairly consolidated Christian view of the New Testament writers , which automatically includes Jesus as a speaker ............. you see , I don't think Christians have ever thought of any of them ( the writers and Jesus ) , as converted Jews .......... I have always thought when I am hearing them speak to me , that I am listening to a Jewish person , not someone who has abandoned there roots or any prior beliefs , but someone who has discovered what all their roots and beliefs have come to ......... I know there are Jews who do not believe Jesus is/was their promised Messiah ( they don't believe it ) so the whole notion of what is called the Christian belief is disregarded and obviously some sort of insult to Jewish people who do not believe it .......... so in summary what I am saying is , " we ( believers in Jesus as Christ ) , believe the intire story ( doctrine ) is 100% from beginning to end , Jewish ........ from Adam to Christ , to all God's creation ......... 100 % Jewish knowledge and Divine revealed wisdom ............ as for someone who doesn't believe this , we would just understand that as , they don't believe this ............ just as a personal reflection , I would like to say , the more I hear what all of you who are Jewish are saying and speaking , the more Jewish my Lord Jesus , the Apostles and disciples become to me ........ Pilotwingz (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Pilot, I agree that the Christian view is as you stated (or at least has grown to include what you stated). Marcion tried create a Christianity that did not include a Jewish background, and was roundly condemned as a heretic.  The New Testament writers identified themselves as Jews (with a few exceptions, like Luke).  The location of Jesus' actions was Israel.  The debate at the Jerusalem council was not about whether to allow Jews into the nascent church, but whether to allow Gentiles.  Further, it is perplexing to a lot of Christians that "believing in the Jewish Messiah" would somehow make a person less Jewish.


 * That's the Christian view. It is both a valid and necessary view for Christians to have about their own religion.  To have any other belief is problematic, as we have seen with Marcion.


 * In the same way, Muslims believe that accepting the Koran and the Prophet makes you more faithful to Jesus than you were before, since he was a Muslim prophet. This also is both a valid and necessary view for Muslims to have.  To have any other belief would be problematic.


 * Jews, however, have their own religious definition of their faith and what it constitutes (and excludes) -- just as Christians do. And, that definition excludes the scriptures that Christians have added.  In spite of the Christian identification of their faith as "completed Judaism", Judaism sees their own religion as already complete. Tim (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Question: are we ready to launch this table in a more visible setting and keep tweaking it from there? And if so, where should we put it? Tim (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is already a wealth of information in the table. Yes, I think launch. Many places would work. Perhaps you wouldn't mind providing a lead-in and presenting it as an article -- Judaeo-Christian terminology or something. Longer titles will always be available should a move be desired. I'd say the main thing is thinking through where we place links to the article. All Wiki projects at this page, and probably the Bible page also, should have a prominent link to the article from somewhere in their project space. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been sitting here for the last 30 minutes reading over and over again what has been written in the Atonement section ( at present ) ........... It may just be me, and I may have an intirely complete lack of understanding of what the the accepted doctrinal Christian statement for Atonement would express , though I've read many , many ........... anyway , I just have to say this , " what is written under the Jewish column for Atonement is exactly ( and could not be expressed better or improved upon ) as I personally understand it's meaning to be ........... the reason I think I'm a Christian , is because I see my Lord Jesus as the one who has told me , that this most precious gift of God's grace , has been given and is available to me also , that I will never have to be seperated from Him again , ever .......... you see , I would be lost ( death , eternally seperated from my Father in Heaven ) without that way provided for me ............. again , what is written in the Jewish column , is exactly what these eyes see ............ is it possible that I see this because I really am seeing through the Jewish Jesus' eyes now ??? Pilotwingz (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, isn't it wonderful. The more we understand the Jewish way of thinking (bearing in mind that this has changed in some respects over thousands of years), the better we can understand the New Testament, and the better we can understand Jesus' own view of things. It is absolutely essential for serious Christians to study and understand the Jewish scriptures, in the way they were originally understood. Take away the Jewish scriptures and Christianity is a nice idea among many nice ideas. However, if Christianity is genuinely grounded in Jewish scripture, it's depth and authority are much deeper.
 * Having said all that. There are important issues that an honest Christian should be willing to check. Is it reasonable to suppose that the New Testament writers were indeed who it claims they were. Did they accurately represent Jesus' teachings? Are those teachings valid understandings of the Hebrew Bible? Are the writings of the Hebrew Bible itself consistant with one another?
 * Of course one can take on trust that answers to all the questions above are yes. Others can dismiss all as unlikely, without even examining the evidence. Neither of these approaches seems ideal to me. The more one studies, the more one realises why the best minds have been able to argue a number of different positions quite pursuasively. The Bible is not so obviously false that it is easy for those who think it wrong to dismiss it easily. But nor is it so obviously true, that those who believe it can easily dismiss those who don't. Jesus is reported as saying, "those with ears let them hear". Exodus reports Pharaoh's heart as being hardened, so as not to be humbled by the miracles shown to him.
 * Isn't it a funny thing. The Bible has to explain why people didn't believe in God when they actually saw miracles. It's a lot easier to understand why people who have not seen miracles doubt both miracles and God. If I did not believe in God, I wouldn't doubt the Bible on the basis of a claim that people saw the sea parted for them, or on the basis of other people claiming to see a crucified man come back from the dead. It seems possible that these things could happen if there was a God. However, what is staggering, is the claim that people saw Jesus heal, raise the dead, feed crowds, stop bad weather, cast out demons, and still did not believe him to be special! Yet that is what the Bible claimed happened. That is an exceptionally bleak picture of humanity.
 * What do people think? Alastair Haines (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very much so my brother ( response to your opening statements )......... I said to you once before , " you understand me perfectly clearly " , I assure you those things of God spoken of as miracles and messengers throughout the Holy Bible , are not simply claims ........... now you understand me perfectly clearly ( response to the latter parts of your statements ) ......... does this answer your question sufficiently ?? ......... thank you Alastair ......... ps., was just now able to read your answer about archaic, you're probably correct .... Pilotwingz (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like archaic as I said, and as you pointed out, but yes, it probably is. Regarding biblical miracles, I believe they are true claims. In a way, it is not fair to call them claims, they were generally written by believers to believers so claim is not the nature of the discourse. However, I use that word, and a range of other words when talking about the Bible because it allows people to hear me. By using the word claim rather than record, for instance, I do not invalidate other people's opinions, rather I show that I recognize and acknowledge legitimate contrary positions, while at the same time I do not compromise my own position.
 * That's part of the point of this terminology section. The better we understand what others think, the better we can design our language to talk about differences in an accomodating and neutral way, that allows polite interaction for mutual benefit. Who knows, some Christians like Tim, may actually sincerely commit to Judaism. If any Messianics join us, they will be people who have moved the other way. But whether people change or not, we share this world and we share Wiki, and sharing is good! and fun! I am content to leave people to do their own business with God. I am certainly content to leave God to do his own business with people! ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 08:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay... we're off! I alphabetized the glossary, added sections for "Antichrist" and "Failed Messiah" and added some wikilinks. I also added a rationale statement and a link to it at the top of this article Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic Terms (the groups are also in alphabetical order). We'll need to add a lot more wikilinks to the terms in the glossary, and links from those terms' pages to this glossary. Thanks for getting this idea off the ground! Tim 15:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see The Gospel added to the terms ........ could someone do that please ?? ........ I looked at the new article and read the Antichrist, what's that all about under the Christian perception ??? ......... I never in my life have heard Jew and antichrist mentioned in the same breadth !!! .......... there certainly isn't any mention of Jews in particular believing in their Messiah, attached to Christians believing the Jews will be worshiping an antichrist messiah .......... the Christian view would include , that the antichrist will actually sit in the Temple as god and claim to be god , showing himself that he is god , and make war on God's people ......... this is the antichrist " who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped .......... I still want to compliment you for your very good work on this terms table , Tim ..........Pilotwingz 17:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Christians have suspected everyone under the sun. Jerry Falwell for one said that the Antichrist would be a Jew. Anyway I changed the Antichrist view over in that article. I don't know about actually claiming to be God, some Christians I know take such verses to mean the Antichrist is an atheist who exalts humanity over God. -Bikinibomb 04:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, many have speculated , but I can not hear them ......... I am only able to hear what those who have raised me have said in the Word of God ........... I am able to hear some paraphrase of their words , but not speculative thesis of what the original speakers were actually trying to say , because it becomes as confusing as static to me , as I have heard the first person words in person and they have spoken sufficiently well that another could not say what they have meant better than they who spoke first ............ please forgive me this short coming I am bound to ......... Pilotwingz 02:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

edit break
I have several of comments regarding the terminology table:

1. The term "believe in Jesus Christ" needs expanding. Many if not most Jews believe Jesus existed, was a Jew, maybe said good things.

2. Why is there a column devoted to "Messianic perception"? There are many other sects with varying points of view on these questions, Mormans, Reform Jews, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. Why emphasize Messianics, a rather small group? The extra column might be appropriate in an article about Messianics, but this article is about Christianity and Judaism.

3. I think Yetzer HaRa should be paired with Yetzer HaTov in the first column.

4. Chosen, under Jewish column: I think "Israel, chosen by God at Sinai" needs to be expanded.

6. Tanakh should explain where word comes from.

7. HaShem should make clear that Jews today never attempt to pronounce the Divine Name.

8. Paul. I find "Understood as being generally ignorant of Judaism." unnecessarily provocative, even as a reaction to what is written in the Christian column. I would prefer "One of the founders of Christianity" perhaps adding "Jews do not agree with many of the statements about Judaism attributed to him."

9. Cross. Under the Jewish column, I would just put "The symbol of Christianity." I don't think what is currently written is a consensus position of Judiasm.

10. G-d. What's presently written in the Judaism column seems like OR. This is obviously a difficult entry to get write. Less maybe more in this situation.

--agr 01:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For item 1 if you say you believe in Jesus Christ it means you believe in Jesus as Messiah. To believe in someone at all means you have some kind of faith in them, which isn't quite the same as saying you believe someone existed. But I guess you could also say "believe Jesus is Christ or Messiah" if it is clearer.


 * For item 2 Messianic Jews ideally practice both Judaism and Christianity and fall in the middle of the two religions. While Mormons are generally not identified as Jews at all but just Christians, and reform Jews are not generally identified as Christians. Etc. -Bikinibomb 01:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think something like "believe Jesus is Christ or Messiah" would be clearer. As for the second point, I don't believe any Jewish authority would accept the notion that Messianics practice Judaism. They  believe Jesus is Christ or Messiah; Jews don't. They are not in the middle at all, they are Christians, period.  Any interfaith dialog must be based on a minimum of respect and that includes allowing each faith to set its own boundaries. Including a column for Messianic Jews gives undue weight to a tiny minority position.  Christianity and Judaism is not a three way conversation. --agr 17:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Arnold, I agree that it is not a three way conversation. But it is not so cut and dried.  The paradigm difference is this: 1) if Jesus is the Messiah, then belief in him is the ideal of Judaism; 2) if Jesus is not the Messiah, then belief in him is not the ideal of Judaism.  Although Messianics are clearly a missionary movement, they do not perceive themselves as non-Jewish -- but in fact as more authentically Jewish than observant Jews.  The core of the problem is term-switching... using Jewish terms with Christian meanings.  Since term switching involves the Messianic coloring of Christianity, it becomes an essential column to include in that two way conversation.  Messianics are Christians who believe and try to make others believe that this is Judaism.  Only clarity of definition can resolve the issues and allow people to evaluate the claims based on the actual meaning of terms, instead of misdirected meanings.  Although Wikipedia has no business telling people what to believe, it does have a role in conveying the meaning and usage of terms as they fall in each group. Tim 18:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are really two types of Messianics. One are Christians who take on Jewish qualities to appear Jewish, those are usually the dreaded missionaries. Then there are "real 100%" Jews who just start believing in Jesus. I had one as a teacher, Mr. Cohen was his name. He was a Jew through and through and observed Torah, he just believed in Jesus as well.


 * Given that, Jewish authorities say once a Jew always a Jew no matter what, so if a Jew once converted to Judaism or born to a Jewish mother starts believing in Jesus, they are still Jews, they aren't suddenly transformed into Gentile Christians. That alone pretty much establishes such Jews fall in the middle of the two religious cultures. So for purposes of the article, we need to report what they say they are, we can't really have one religion saying they should be excluded or only belong on one side of the issue. That may be a fine boundary in an article just about Jewish views or in an interfaith discussion forum but that's not really what the article is. -Bikinibomb 18:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Judaism is not a "religious culture," it is a religion. When your Mr. Cohen started "believing in Jesus" he stopped practicing Judaism and became a Christian, just as when a Jew accepts Mohammed as a prophet, he stops practicing Judaism and becomes a Muslim. Do Christians view a Christian who accepts Mohammed as as still practicing Christianity? This article is about Christianity and Judaism. Granting Messianics a special status is highly POV. If we are going to break down Christianity into more than one category, then other groups that consider themselves Christian but with variant views on the terms listed, such as Unitarians and Mormons, should be included as well.  --agr 20:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Arnold, the inclusion of the Messianic column was not bowing in favor of Christianity, but in favor of Judaism, so that the term switching would be clarified. I started the column, and I'm Jewish.  If there were an Islamic group that called itself "Christians for Muhammad" and used Christian terms with Muslim meanings, there would be an equivalent need for such a column as you described.  Thankfully, Muslims are suffient in their own religion to not need Christian terms in their support.  However, Messianics are in a tough spot.  Are they Jewish?  Yes, if they were born Jewish or Halakhically converted beforehand.  Are they Christian?  Again, yes.  Judaism is both a religious national identity.  Christianity is solely a religious identity.  That leaves a niche in which people can be claimed by both groups -- and in which they claim membership in both groups for themselves.  Honestly, had there been no Messianics at all, there would hardly be a need for ANY of this table. Tim 22:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well you have your Judaism column to state that Judaism doesn't view Messianics as practicing Judaism. But it can't be the law of the land as far as general categorization of them, anymore than some Christian can come in and dictate Catholics and Mormons aren't allowed mention in Christianity articles. Anymore than me as a Muslim can come in and declare Christians embracing Trinity as being pagans not practicing real Christianity and Jews antichrists not practicing real Judaism and remove the whole lot of you from both categories. We're just supposed to report, not make judgment calls like that. -Bikinibomb 23:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Messianics can believe whatever they wish. The question I am raising is how much weight their views should have in an article titled Christianity and Judaism. There are many sects that consider themselves Christian whose views of on the topics in the table are more divergent than the Messianics.    If the the only reason this table exists is to explain the Messianic position, then it belongs in one of the articles on the Messianic movement, or in its own article in that category, say Messianic terminology, not here.--agr 03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * When Christians view them as practicing Judaism and Jews view them as practicing Christianity, then their own views weigh somewhere in the middle. The criteria here is not how deviant some other Jews or Christians are, the criteria is who is viewed to be practicing both Judaism and Christianity. And that would be Messianics.


 * Your argument seems to be based on the premise that they are just Christians and we're creating another column for another sect of Christianity. It might hold up if all the world agreed with that but a lot of people accept that they also practice Judaism. So the neutral thing to do is mention them where appropriate in articles about Judaism and Christianity, and if there is criticism against them being part of Judaism, then it can also be stated. That's why there are criticism sections, so you can object to things like that.


 * But criticism from one religion doesn't define what another religion is or isn't, the religion defines itself. If we went down that path we might see Jews deleting Christians out of Abrahamic religions and classifying them as pagans, or Christians deleting Jews and putting them in with atheists. Or Muslims putting both in with the heathen like I said. So we don't want to do that. -Bikinibomb 04:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What a powerhouse of clear thinkers and clear writers we have at this page! Anyway, if I may add something, I think a message is coming through loud and clear that editorial caution is needed when dealing with Messianics.

Both Judaism, as it is normally known, and Messianics are very clear that there is a dividing line between them. Wiki cannot do with Judaism and MJ what it does with Protestants and Catholics and lump them in together. There is overwhelming precedent for conflating Catholicism (despite its claim to be the only authentic Christianity) with other groups that claim to be Christian. In short, if "they're into Jesus they're Christian", is the natural language usage. Joe Blow would consider MJ, likewise to be Jewish Christians, not Messianic Jews, the second being a term he doesn't really understand.

Having said that, just as Bikinibomb points out, MJ definition of themselves is, however, just precisely what an encyclopedia needs to start with. There would be something weird about an encyclopedia claiming neutrality while consulting only the Chinese government for the "correct" definition of Falun Gong. But even if we start with the minority's self-definition, we cannot stop there.

I guess this whole discussion shows the genuine value of considering all the terminology and having three columns. MJ are not strictly speaking either Jewish or Christian under some definitions, while being strictly both under others.

It strikes me that a US census figure (or some such thing) could help a lot. If we make it abundantly clear that MJ are very small in comparison to regular Judaism, it would protect us from giving the misleading impression that Judaism is divided in its opinion of Christianity. MJ is wonderful from an academic point of view in showing the relationship between Judaism and Christianity, but we shouldn't let our intellectual taste obscure our consideration for very practical minded readers.

If MJ is not dealt with in detail under the main articles of J-ism and C-ity, I could understand that, but in this article MJ are stuck right in the middle of the cross-fire!

Finally, I really liked Tim's post about how laying out terminological differences helps objectify and clarify discussion. Speaking as a Christian, I find the Jewish column very eye-openning. We use the same words but with different meanings quite often. It's frustrating, but it's real! ;) Alastair Haines 09:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In general I agree, though "if they're into Jesus they're Christian" could also be applied Muslims since we believe Jesus is Messiah too, yet Muslims aren't lumped in with Christians. We Muslims wouldn't like that since even though we believe Jesus is Messiah, we don't agree with Trinity and a lot of other Christian doctrine. Messianic Jews say they don't like being lumped in with Christians because they don't agree with Christmas and a lot of the pagan feasts and customs, they observe Torah and Jewish customs.


 * So anyway, why is this lumping in with Christians trying to be done with the Messianic Jews and not Muslims since both groups believe Jesus is Messiah? Well, it's because Muslims aren't also claiming to be Jews, many of us see ourselves as Gentiles practicing Noahide. But I bet you $100 if we claimed to be Jews practicing Judaism, someone would want to lump us in with the Christians to get us out of their hair.


 * I'll be blunt because I like to cut through BS. Judaism as with many other religions is like a big dysfunctional family. There is Orthodox Grandpa and Grandma who everyone respects but doesn't always listen to. Then there is Reform Mom and Dad who were once seen as radicals but are mellowing with age. Next we have Sis who delves into Buddhist-Hindu mysticism and is into Kabbalah. Then Atheist Brother who is rebellious but spoiled as the baby of the family. There is wacky Aunt Lubavitcher who believes exactly the same as a Christian does about the nature of Messiah, but everyone tolerates her anyway. Finally we have the Messianic love child that no one in this family wants to deal with.


 * So you can see why to me this all looks like some kind of bizarre paternity case, and if I was a judge I'd rule that Judaism needs to claim its own. As a Wikipedia editor, "not wanting them in there" isn't a good enough reason for me not to categorize them as a sect of Judaism, however fringe, with Christian associations. I don't like bin Laden and his ilk being categorized as Muslims either, but you know what? They are Muslims, just rotten ones, and I deal with it. That's my advice here. -Bikinibomb 10:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Messianics are well covered in Wikipedia. They have their own category with over a dozen articles and 7 subcategories. I have no problem with that and I have no problem with Messianics being mentioned in this article. But there are some 2 billion Christian alive today and roughly 14 million Jews. Messianics claim 340,000 adherents. Nor are they the only followers of Christ who claim to also follow Torah commandments. There are the Sacred Name Movement, Assemblies of Yahweh, Seventh Day Adventists, and so on. And there are much larger groups that call themselves Christian whose views are not well represented in this table, including, based on my limited knowledge, nontrinitarians and Mormons. I do strongly object to Messianics being treated a third pillar in the Christianity and Judaism article. Doing so is not neutral. Per Neutral point of view:


 * "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.
 * Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." --agr 12:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Arnold, we are not talking about numbers, but terminology. Numerically, Messianics are insignificant. But in respect to terminology, they are at the fulcrum of the muddy waters in discussions between Christians and Jews. They aren't determinative by any means, but they are extremely symptomatic -- that is, they don't create the distinctions, but rather they are the effects of it. They are what happens when terms between Christianity and Judaism get blurred. They do not themselves create that blurriness. It's difficult to even conceive of Jewish and Christian dialogue in which the vagaries of their niche of terminology don't crop up. Tim 14:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agr, If we go the numbers route, maybe we could give the billions of Christians view most of the article, millions of Jews just a paragraph, and thousands of Messianics a sentence? Probably not a good idea. Numbers don't matter much, notability does. And in many online interfaith discussions with Christians and Jews, Messianics are mentioned very frequently. Christians are on a big kick to help Israel and convert Jews before the end comes, Messianics play a big role in that. And heck, Jews for Judaism was created just to combat them, seems to me they are a big deal in the Jewish anti-missionary world too. Very notable. Besides I think Neutral point of view undue weight is referring to a real dispute, not a comparison of terms intended to be helpful for readers to understand who is talking about what at any given time.


 * You also keep naming Christian denominations, but those guys can be mentioned in Christian articles as Christians adhering to Torah, I don't believe they claim to be Jews do they? If you find some other group that claims to be Jewish following Judaism (though I don't really know of any notable), then the correct thing to do is not say, "oh ok, let's throw them all into Christianity" but rather put them in with Messianic Jews under the banner of Judaism with Christian associations, however bastardly and fringe it may seem to other Jews, since once again, if they are by law Jewish, having converted or born to a Jew, then it is much harder to prove that they aren't observing at least some form of Judaism if they say they are. -Bikinibomb 15:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what Tim means by muddy waters. While there is a spectrum of opinion on both sides, there is no shortage of authoritative Christian sources on Christian terminology and Jewish sources on Jewish terminology. Any Christian Jewish dialog has to be based on respect for the integrity of each side's views. If there are any Jewish terms you're unclear on, I'd be happy to help you find a well-sourced explanation. I'm not aware of any authority on either side who looks to Messianics to clarify any terminology issues, much less view them as a fulcrum. Certainly no Jewish denomination would.  Do you have a source for this fulcrum  view? I pointed out above Wikipedia's policy on giving undue weight to minority views. I'd also call your attention to no original research, which bars novel synthesis of ideas.


 * As for Bikinibomb's, comments, certainly there are far fewer Jews than Christians and numerically there is no reason why Christians should concern themselves with Jews at all. But they seem to, none-the-less. I'm not sure Wikipedia needs an article about Christianity and Judaism, but if we are to have one, WP:NPOV says both side should get equal attention and minority views should not get undue weight. Yes it's true that Judaism considers a Jew to still be a Jew even if he or she violates Jewish norms. As I understand it, Catholicism takes the same position about Catholics and Islam the same position about Muslims. That doesn't mean that any of these groups gives consideration to the views of those who stray from the faith as that faith defines itself. --agr 16:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Arnold -- you take my breath away here. First you say, "I'm not sure what Tim means by muddy waters" and then you say, "I'm not aware of any authority on either side who looks to Messianics to clarify any terminology issues".  EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!  They are symptomatic of the need for clarity, not the source of clarity themselves. Tim 17:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So let me get this straight: in your view the two thousand of years of literature on Christianity and the somewhat longer written record on Judaism, each written by some of the greatest thinkers in human history, each filling entire libraries, are not clear enough. And therefore we should turn to a small sect that claims to be both Christian and Jewish and is thus in the best position to clarify things for us? Sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. We base our articles on what recognized authorities say, noting minority views as we go, but not giving them undue weight. --agr 19:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Arnold -- no, you didn't get it straight. In my "view the two thousand of years of literature on Christianity and the somewhat longer written record on Judaism, each written by some of the greatest thinkers in human history, each filling entire libraries, are" precisely "clear enough.  And" yet somehow "a small sect that claims to be both Christian and Jewish" (many of whom actually are by the views of both larger groups) "is... in the best position" to confuse the terminology that was previously clear.  And yes, that is exactly how Wikipedia works.  This is an Encyclopedia, and properly used terms are essential to the proper functioning of the articles it contains.  My only question is, how in the world do you keep reading the exact opposite of what a Jew (me), a Muslim (Bikini), and a Christian (Alastair) all understand?  If nothing else, your own notes are the best argument for a need of clarification -- because no matter how clear something may appear to be to most people, it isn't necessarily clear to every reader. Tim 19:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Christian column does list some minority Christian views including Calvinism on Satan so I'm not really following your idea that we just have black and white Jewish and Christian views only, then Messianics held up as being a third. I mean, would you rather they just be listed in the Jewish column as a minority view for Judaism on Jesus and related terms? Probably not.


 * And we can't just throw them in the Christian column either because the waters are muddy as has been said, they are Jews claiming to practice Judaism with an adoption of a certain Christian concept, namely belief in Jesus. So it doesn't make them mainstream Judaism, but it doesn't necessarily make them Christians either. Lubavitchers have done a similar thing by adopting the Christian concept of a resurrected Messiah God incarnate but they haven't been entirely booted from Judaism, so the Wikipedia editor asks, why should we do it with Messianics? Most Christians I know view Mormonism and JW as cults and not really Christianity, but lo and behold there they are in the Christian denomination category. What would happen if I removed them citing that the majority of Christians don't think they should be there? Most likely a revert.


 * So we don't have a Wiki precedent removing groups from Christianity who say they are Christian even most Christians may not think they are. And we have the situation of Lubavitchers embracing decidedly Christian concepts and not being removed from Judaism either. So all precedents tell us that we can't really remove Messianics from Judaism if they say they are practicing Judaism.


 * And here is the interesting thing, even though numbers may be majority to say Messianics, or JWs, or Mormons should be moved out of their banner religions, here on Wikipedia a majority view can in fact carry less weight if it is deemed to be biased against a minority. This would seem to be the case when examining acceptance of Lubavitchers but rejection of Messianics when both hold to Christian ideas generally known to be unacceptable in Judaism.


 * Christians concern themselves with small numbers of Jews of course because their religion came from Jews, but also because they are looking for a mass conversion to Christ before Armageddon. And Christians concern themselves with even smaller numbers of Messianics because they are seen as fulfillment of that. So the Messianic view is notable to the Christian view for that reason, minority in numbers or not.


 * The Messianic view is also notable to the Jewish view because they are seen as a great threat to Jews, maybe the greatest seemingly more than even Islam. Even if we did decide Messianics are a Christian sect we don't see Judaism concerning itself the same way with any other Christian sects, not JWs, Mormons, Baptists, etc. So again, the Messianic view, though a minority numerically, is up there in equality as far as notability.


 * Everything thus far says they can't just be shoved to one side or the other, or ignored either. So I think the best solution is to leave things as they are. -Bikinibomb 19:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the difference is that Lubavitchers, while many of them have adopted an extremely unorthodox position about their late Rebbe, do not worship him. I can bring any number of solid sources that say that (a) worshipping Jesus is idolatry (literally; not metaphorically)for Jews and (b) idolatry is the antithesis of Judaism.


 * Are you suggesting that so-called Messianic Jews only hold Jesus to have been the Messiah, as the Lubavitchers do about their Rebbe, and do not worship him? If that were the case, we'd have a different situation here.  It would still be an iffy proposition, as I can offer you a multitude of sources which say that Jesus is now inherently a figure of idolatry, so that even labeling him the Messiah without worshipping him would be considered avak avodah zarah (literally "dust of idolatry"), which is also out of bounds for Jews, but I don't think that's the case.  I think that this group is made up of people who worship him as a deity.  Which is very different from the suggestion you made above about Muslims, who certainly do not worship him.


 * I think the issue is that they are a tiny group, and one which seeks publicity. It does seem that this article, and the new glossary article, are overemphasizing them, as though they are anything but a small sect. -LisaLiel 19:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Most Messianic Jews worship Jesus as God, some only honor him as Messiah same as Muslims. As for Lubavitchers you can check out The Lubavitcher Rebbe as a god for one of a lot of sources on their worship of Rebbe as God. Yet they still remain in Judaism, which sets the unfortunate precedent of not having a clear leg to stand on if you want to cite deviance from accepted Jewish beliefs as a reason for rejecting Messianics. -Bikinibomb 20:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Lisa, Arnold -- I do agree on one thing: it doesn't belong on a page called "Christianity and Judaism"... which is why it's on a separate page clearly labelling all groups. As an aside, I did an experiment and deleted the column from a copy in Word.  Once I removed the center of confusion, there wasn't much need for a table at all.  If you don't mind, try it yourself and see if you agree. Tim 20:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The table is still a useful thing to have. I'm thinking of revising the whole thing to make it Jewish, Christianity, Islam terms. Then for a term like Brit Chadasha, make a note that Messianic Jews believe it is for Gentiles too. The problem still is, do you pigeonhole them into the Jewish column and irritate all other Jews, or into the Christian column and irritate Messianic Jews? The dilemma will undoubtedly come up over and over again (deleting the column on this particular project or not) so someone may as well take the reigns now and set a precedent. -Bikinibomb 20:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Bikinibomb, - you are right it doesn't make sense that Messianic Jews are rejected and Lubabavitchers are not. But I think you are seeing history in action.  It took many years for the Christian sect of Judaism to be rejected as Judaism.  Other messianic movements (Frankists, Shabbateans) simply died out before they could be kicked out.  My guess is that if the Lubabavitchers continue down this path for too long, don't die out and continue building rituals and theology around their beliefs that the Rebbe is God, they too will eventually be on the outs.  But the Rebbe died less than 20 years ago.  The Rebbe=God stuff hasn't been well publicized until the last few years and I think most Jews just don't want to believe its true - even if it is.  Jews don't like losing their own.


 * As for removing the Messianic column - I really wish you wouldn't. As stated before the problem with Messianic Jews is that Judaism considers them Jews by identity (halakhic, ethnic), but not religion and this table is about religion.  Putting them in a third column is the only way we can honor the self-concept of the majority of Jews and the self-concept of the small number of people who call themselves Messianic Jews.  Lump them in with the Christians and the Messianic Jews will get upset.  Lump them in with the Jews and the non-Messianic Jews will get upset.  The three columns is in fact the only way to be WP:NPOV - that is, acknowledge all notable views.  Egfrank 21:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim, Bingo! My major concern is that this table doesn't belong on a page called "Christianity and Judaism." Besides some other editorial suggestions I made at the top of this section (1,3-6), I have no problem with the table being in an article titled Comparison of Messianic, Christian and Jewish terms or the like, with a Messianic column, of course, and in the Messianic Judaism category. A separate article like Comparison of Isalmic, Christian and Jewish terms would also be valuable, but I don't think the two should be mixed due to complexity and undue weight concerns.--agr 21:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'm one of those who feels that it's taking too long to read the Lubavitchers out. But in the case of Christianity, it took a war to get us to finally do that, so I imagine this will take some time, too.


 * With regards to the self-concept of so-called Messianic Jews, I'm sorry, but I don't think that needs to be a priority. There are Christians who believe they are a continuation or fulfillment of Israel, but that doesn't mean that an article on Israel needs to mention that.  The religion they practice is Christianity, period. -LisaLiel 21:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Arnold, maybe it is just a misunderstanding then? Since I think the table has its own page now and it's not going to be in the article. Egfrank I won't change it but as a solution if the table itself was a problem I'd suggest just putting a Messianic row below C/J terms spanning both columns. Then they would be placed in both religions. Lisa I know Jews feel they are just Christians but a lot of people don't so all sides have to be represented somehow. For example a lot of ex-Mormons I know say the religion Mormons practice is Masonic, period, but that's not enough to get them out of the Christian category.

I suspect Jews will always be afraid to do anything about Lubavitchers since although some may reject what they do, rejecting them altogether is easily seen as rejecting Rebbe and he is too revered by most Jews, Lubavitcher or not, to do that. Seems to me that rather than the fringe group they are often painted as, through him they are dictating a lot of what goes on in Judaism today and I don't see it changing anytime soon. -Bikinibomb 21:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I see it is at Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms. That's fine with me. I added it to the Messianic Judaism category. In that context the three columns are fine. Does anyone object to the other edits I proposed way above? By the way, I find this discussion of Lubavitchers off topic and offensive. The purpose of the talk page is improving the articles, not attacking individual groups. --agr 22:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately some here need it spelled out in blunt terms why it is biased POV to insist one group doesn't belong in Judaism for reasons of idolatry, but then say it is ok for another group in Judaism to practice idolatry. That can fly amongst themselves but not here on Wikipedia, sorry if it is offensive to you but it was necessary. -Bikinibomb 22:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The suggestion of a bar below streching across columns does IMHO present problems of WP:UNDUE. It would give greatest visual weight to the thing in the bar. Perhaps one day Messianic Judaism will be the hottest thing going, but for now its a relatively small group with very little critical scholarship, if any.  By contrast there are hundreds of active academic scholars studying the history, beliefs and culture of both Judaism and Christianity. Egfrank 23:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I was thinking it would be less visual than an entire column and satisfy Arnold's concerns, plus show they are both C/J in nature. Doesn't matter now I guess. -Bikinibomb 01:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: Arnold, I think he was talking to me and Lisa, not you. Egfrank 23:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: Lubabovitchers. Most Jews I know simply are indifferent about the Rebbe.  He was never part of their world.  A few I know actually met him and think of him as a good man who happened to have died, like the rest of the good men and woman who enter this world.  Do you think it possible that your assessment of Jews and the Rebbe may perhaps reflect the Jews you happen to know and may not be generalizable to all Jews? Of course, the same could be said of my friends too :-).Egfrank 23:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I was referring mainly to religious Jews, they usually know their stuff and have a definite opinion, mostly Rebbe a great leader of Judaism, Lubavitchers misguided but not enough to say they should be out of Judaism. Secular Jews can swing either way, like one of my atheist friends, she knows little about Torah or Jewish culture and history. -Bikinibomb 01:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see bottom of page for my response. Egfrank 07:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Terminology housekeeping question
I'd like to move this entire "Terminology" section over to the talk page of Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms. Two reasons: Any objections? Egfrank 22:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * its important history to that page
 * this talk page is way too big - it currently only has november/december discussions and it is over 240K!
 * I don't know about anybody else but a page that big is a real problem when an edit conflict occurs - which it does fairly often on this busy page.


 * Ok by me. Just please leave a note here saying what's been moved. --agr 03:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Third-ed by me. ;) Alastair Haines 03:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)