Talk:Jews for Jesus/Archive 1

POV is hostile
I don't know that much about this subject, but anyone with half a brain can tell that this article is written by someone(s) with WikiPedia shouldn't be a soapbox. Bwood 19:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I would agree that the article is unbalanced (as well as incomplete) and needs major work. I know a fair bit about JfJ and will try to do some work on it if I ever have the time! DaveDave 11:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree as well, I don't understand that "don't observe the Torah" comment at all, if their supposed to be a Christian group, well then, Jesus changed a wide variety of ways we are supposed to do things, I mean he commanded that animal sacrifices were no longer necessary and that cancels almost the entire book of Leviticus. Also, it seems almost all the article is just a long list of various "problems" people have with this organization, and it would be nice if someone could put in what sort of particular methods they use to convert Jews to Christianity like if they reference any particular verses in the Bible or something, some figures might be nice too, or things along that line.Homestarmy 15:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The war cry of Jews for Jesus is "You can be both Jewish AND believe in Jesus!"  but in rejecting the Torah, you are rejecting the "Jewish" side of the token.  And incidentally, Jesus also said he was not trying to abolish the law but to fulfill it.  He in NO way just "made the book of Leviticus obsolete"  68.116.75.96 16th Jan 2006


 * That is itself a POV definition of Jewishness. The main Wikipedia article makes clear that there are a number of different definitions of Jewishness accepted by different groups - Jewish mother, adhering to rabbinic Judaism, Jewish culture, Jewish ethnicity.  While Jews for Jesus are outside the Jewish mainstream, their members can claim to be Jewish and believe in Jesus and the rejection of that claim (rather than noting mainstream Jewish authorities reject that claim) is unencyclopedic. Paulleake 02:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You can be a Jew ethnically, religiously, or both, if you were born a Jew then there isn't a "can believe in Jesus while being a Jew" about it, you will always ethnically be a Jew and you will just happen to believe in Jesus. And I didn't say Christ made Leviticus obsolete, rather, because Christ was the ultimate sacrifice for our sins, (Hebrews 7:27) continuing to make sacrifices (Which most of Leviticus is dedicated to describing proper procedures for)becomes redundent and pointless. There's only a small percentage of Leviticus that isn't dedicated on proper sacrifical procedure as far as i've read it. There's also other stuff he cancelled, such as Sabbath-keeping (Sabbath made for man, not man for the Sabbath), but that's a whole other can of worms, the point is, you can't be under "The curse of the Law" as the Bible puts it and still religiously believe in Christ compleatly. The stuff Jews for Jesus is saying should be compleatly ethnically related, almost as though they are trying to say all ethnic Jews do not have to be Jews just because many of them might seem to dislike people trying to witness to them. Homestarmy 16:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The Anti-Defamation League of B'Naii-B'rith (hope I spelled that correctly heh) repeatedly asserts in many publications on their website that JFJ is a fringe element whose definition of the "Jewish Identity" does not conform with mainstream Judaism, or the (disputed) concept of a "Jewish Ethnicity".It seems that these JFJ people believe they can reconcile with Christianity by saying they support their prophet. However, is there any mention of such a thing in traditional Jewish doctrine? [Subhash Bose]]


 * This is not about some reconciling but rather a veiled attempt to make Jews stop being Jews. We've seen enough of that. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Humus, veiled insults are not arguments "We've seen enough of that" 'indeed'. According to these people, one can be both.  You or I may disagree, but that's our POV.  What it is to be a jew is an open question, depending on what sect you're part of.  If it weren't an open question, the Israeli S.C. wouldn't become involved with JFJ. Zenosparadox 01:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

General Comments
US Viewpoint Bias- In the opening, the article states that JFJ's activities have gone "as far" as the Ukraine. There is an incorrect assumption that the reader will always be in the U.S. or somewhere "far" from East Europe and the Ukraine.


 * The above is unsigned and I don't know who wrote it, but JfJ is a US-based organisation and hence I don't regard the statement as US-biased. If they were based in the Ukraine, it would be valid to say that they've gone "as far as" the USA. DaveDave 11:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

In my sporadic contexts with this Christian sect, I have found their street missionaries fairly convincing as having been Jewish (at least before their conversions to Christianity). --Ed Poor

Significantly less than half are. Danny

Socially vulnerable group like the childern of the survivors of the holocast away from their families. University students are as a group vulnerable. If this is not obvious call the admissions office, pretent to be a parent and ask about services for students: express a concern that your special child is sensitive doesn't make freinds easily and sometime lacks self confidence. See how extensive the services that are provided. Let's stop putting in words like 'allegedly' where the statement is clearly factual. Like many Christian groups, Jews for Jesus, in their haste to evangelicize miss out on the 'good neighbour lesson' provided by the parable of the good samaritan.

What do cult awareness and monitering groups have to say about JFJ?

Original research
I've removed these two recently inserted paragraphs as original research:


 * This thinking is very similar to the Two House Theology recently adopted by the Roman Catholic Church, which states that those who are born Jewish have their eternal fate determined by different criteria than those who are not. Conservative and Evangelical Christians object that the New Testament clearly teaches that only those who believe in Jesus will go to heaven, regardless of genealogy.


 * Supporters of Jews for Jesus, and evangelization of Jews in general often argue that, in the framework of traditional Christian theology, which requires belief in Jesus for salvation, singling out Jews as a group exempt from evangelization would actually amount to a form of anti-semitism, as it would systematically consign the Jewish people to hell.

These kinds of claims need to be backed up with specific references, and quotes would be even better. Also, please remember that this is a page about the Jews for Jesus organization, not a place for theological debates. Jayjg |  (Talk)  19:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't found a source for the remark about two-house theology, but the second paragraph turned out to be very similar to a remark in the FAQ on the Jews for Jesus web-site. I'm inserting the quote in its place, with an appropriate link. --kpearce 20:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The term two-house theology is incorrect in this context. The normal phrases are two-covenant or dual-covenant theology, which is the idea that God treats Jews differently to Gentiles. However, note that some (non-mainstream) messianic groups have developed a two-house theology which basically says that Jews are decendants of the house/tribe of Judah and Gentiles are decendants of the house/tribe of Ephraim. This is an extremely controversial viewpoint and is vehemently disputed by all the major messianic organisations. Great care needs to be taken to get the terminology right. DaveDave 11:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding some comments about the definition of "who is a Jew": My understanding is that both views (a person is a Jew if traced through the father, or, a person is a Jew if traced through the mother) can both be argued. In the Tenach (Old Testament) it is clear that Jewishness is traced through the father (. ."the son of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.."); however, this is not what current Rabbinical law says. Though I haven't studied all of the rabbinical texts, both Jewish and Christian scholars have told me that this definition was changed sometime in the Middle Ages as a result of very un-Christian behavior by the Crusaders and other Gentile men. Too many Jewish women were being raped, usually within the attempt by Christian men to either convert (the resulting child would not be Jewish) or destroy Jews. Because the women could not proclaim before a Rabbi that the father of her child was Jewish, the definition of being Jewish through the line of the father was eventually changed.

Though I can understand the fervor of Jews to attack Jews who claim to be "for Jesus", I think there are other stronger, and more effective issues to discuss.--ShoshM 20:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Purported cult
This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 11:00, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * ''Jews for Jesus
 * ''Some Jewish critics have called Jews for Jesus a cult or claim it uses cultlike tactics to seek converts. They claim that it often deceives people in saying who they are and exploits people's religious insecurities. Many of the critics sharply disagree with the organization's claim that it is possible to become a Christian yet remain Jewish.


 * ''The organization says in a letter to a member on its Web site that those concerned about Jews for Jesus being a cult have "been influenced by propaganda promulgated by those who would detract from the credibility of your witness and ours. Some Jewish community leaders spread this kind of misinformation in order to counteract Jewish evangelism, which they erroneously consider a threat to Jewish survival. ... If your friend finds Jesus as her Savior, she will measure our doctrine and our conduct in the light of the Scriptures. Then she will know that Jews for Jesus is not a cult." However, former members of Jews for Jesus have stated that the leadership of Jews for Jesus have used deception in finding converts and have used threats and intimdation to control their staff members.

JfJ is not a religious movement, but a missionary organisation. It does not have members (other than its employees) or followers as such. It encourages people to become part of established churches or messianic congregations. Confusion arises because JfJ has a high profile and leaders within the Jewish community have frequently equated it to the messianic jewish movement. (For example, groups of jewish believers in Jesus are often disparagingly referred to as "Jews for Jesus" even if they have no connections whatsoever with the organisation). The messianic jewish movement is much larger and made up of numerous independent organisations and groups, some of which have publicly distanced themselves from JfJ on both theological and practical grounds. Writing from an NPOV, it would be difficult to conclude that JfJ is a cult as it doesn't have members as such, but claims that it is cult-like as far as its employees are concerned need more careful evaluation. DaveDave 11:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

References:

 * Jews for Judaism FAQ
 * A group of former Jews for Jesus members
 * An excerpt from Hawking God, a book by former Jews for Jesus member, Ellen Kamentsky
 * Jews for Jesus official site
 * Dozens of Former Jews for Jesus staff post their stories

POV check
About the neutrality nomination: Why does this article only include a critique of this group and not any more information about them or even more than a parragraph of a response to the critique? ShaneDenny


 * Is there any response you had in mind? Jayjg (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Not specifically, I'm not actually involved with this group. Just in looking up information on them here, the article struck me as being more of a one-sided opinion rather than a neutral Wiki-entry. ShaneDenny

Was this article written by a 'Jew For Jesus'
It reads like it--205.188.116.65 06:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to agree that the article is POV, but not in that direction. We need a thorough review.  Constructive criticism is welcome; snide comments are not helpful. Zenosparadox 01:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

!!! POV CHECKS WON'T MATTER !!!
I hate to be so "in your face", but we need to be real.

I am a Messianic gentile. For awhile I made some contributions to the Messianic Judaism article.

The bottom line is that any topic dealing with Jews who believe in Jesus or trying to get Jewish people to believe in Jesus will constantly have severe POV problems. Even if it is edited to NPOV, within a week people will come along and add essentially the same things that were taken out. For that reason, eventually I just outright stopped contributing to almost anything regarding "Messianic".

Jews for Jesus has never claimed to be Messianic. Messianic organizations encourage Jewish people to believe in Jesus and to maintain a Jewish lifestyle, e.g., learn Hebrew, cant Torah, attend a Messianic synagogue if one is within reasonable distance, observe the levitical feasts, Purim, Chanukah, bar and bat-mitzvah their sons and daughters, get married under the chupah, etc.

JFJ, on the other hand, doesn't care about lifestyle. They don't care if the person becomes Messianic or Protestant or Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox and they have never claimed otherwise.

The bottom line on all this is that the vast majority of gentiles couldn't care less, which means that most of the people who will edit this either will be Jews with anti-JFJ views or will be Christians with very strongly held beliefs who represent varying severely minority views.

The same continual POV violations happen in certain other controversial articles, like Intelligent Design. Because anyone can edit and there is no enforced requirement of documentation, and because the sources used as documentation are strongly biased themselves, it is impossible to have anything approaching NPOV.

This is the type of article that just needs a non-removable template at the top saying in effect:

Or someone could come along as a dis-interested 3rd party, find some real reaserch on this group, (There are people out there who do that kind of thing) and then put this page under protection with an admin's help.....just because something is a controversial topic doesn't mean someone can't find the truth about it. Homestarmy 13:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Moishe Rosen
"...nevertheless claims to be of Jewish heritage..."

Moishe Rosen claims a great number of things that are to say the least debateable. He is a controversial figure, perhaps an apostate; but he isn't a gentile, and one does not become a gentile by being an apostate or heretic. The wording suggests that he does not live up to his claim. Matthew Platts 02:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

a position which is usually characterised as Christianity
Why does the introduction make the following commant?


 * Jews for Jesus' long-term goal is one of conversion of all Jews to accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah — a position which is usually characterised as Christianity.

Nowhere does the article imply that they're trying to hide their Christianity, so the comment is somewhat mysterious. Anybody know what it's about? --Yath 20:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur, it's part of a fairly pervasive POV. At the very least, this should not be in the introduction, but in a critical section. Zenosparadox 01:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I notice you use the word conversion above. That is vocabulary that is not consistent with the position of Jews for Jesus that there is no such thing for conversion regarding a Jewish accepting Jesus. When a Jewish person accepts Yeshua/Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, s/he isn't converting, but rather completes his/her faith, so the phraseology of the Jews for Jesus vernacular is not conversion but rather completion... becoming a whole Jew. I have often heard Moishe Rosen say, "Accepting Jesus is the most Jewish thing you can do." -SHLAMA 13:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it certainly depends on whether you consider modern Judaism today to be the same as Judaism about 2,000 years ago.... Homestarmy 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)