Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 8

Please De-Christianize this Article
The language structure and conceptual framework of this article reflects Christianity, much more than it does Messianic Judaism. The theology section is CHRISTIAN theology, NOT Messianic JEWISH theology. In fact theology and eschatology, are entirely Christian focuses. 12.218.150.29 04:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

12.218.150.29, if you would, please register with wikipedia and create a screenname. Also after much talk and debate/intense discussion over this article (see this page and corresponding archives for this article) this is as Messianic as we can get it, hon. The article must come from a NPOV and the article is for the most part to cite its sources. And *sigh* there’s a guideline for all of that. Not every person that has a website is considered a viable source. Also, what you’ve LEARNED is not a viable source, either. As for the theology section – please point out what it is you consider being Christian theology, is it because they call the Messiah “Jesus” in the article? Because when I read the theology section, it seems to be inherently MJ to me. Even the Eschatology Section, which is 75% Jewish. Look forward to your repliesRivka 16:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be put back under Xianity. Messianic "Judaism" is Christian Theology with Jewish rituals in order to sucker uneducated Jews into a belief in Mashiakh. All sects of Judaism agree that Messianics are not cnosidered Jews. They believe in the Trinity, Divinity of Messiah, and the New Testament. They are Christian through and through, only outwardly do they profess Jewish rituals.User:JewEyefortheGentileGuy
 * Yes the article sounds like warmed-over Christianity--something Messianic Judaism is not. The article should not reflect an outside opinionated view. And, at the ODP there are listed 290 congregations with websites, so 280 is not accurate. There are probably at least 500 congregations as many do not have websites. Shalom.
 * Also, the graphic dubbed 'Messianic Seal' is not an official emblem for Messianic Judaism. However, the Star of David is recognized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.158.155.242 (talk • contribs).
 * Regardless of what MJ is or isn't theologically speaking, the article is bound to WP:NPOV, and therefore will not follow a strict MJ perspective. And I doubt there's many congregations of any religion in North America these days that don't have websites somewhere. If it exists, it has a website somewhere more than likely. I've seen websites for various congregations with only 20-some people that don't have a dedicated or even a regular location that have a website; it's pretty rare for there to not be one. Please see WP:V and WP:NOR. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 17:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Another New Editor!
Hello!

At the risk of stepping in to a controversial topic that appears to have had a few edit wars, but in the spirit of the "be bold" philosophy, I've taken the liberty of rewriting the lead section. I am relatively new to WikiPedia, but I have tried to write it in a encyclopedic NPOV style. I hope you'll agree, and I'm sure you'll tell me what you think! Please be specific with any comments, especially those relating to POV matters.

There is definitely too much material in there, and some should be moved to the body of the article at a later stage. But much more work is needed to restructure and expand the whole article before this can be done. I felt it was more important at this stage to provide something that mentioned all the key points in a readable and NPOV fashion.

I have included all but one of the existing references (which was effectively a duplicate) and added a couple more. There is plenty of scope for additional or better ones.

For the rest of the article, I don't feel that the current starting point of identity is helpful. The reader needs to understand why issues of identity are important first. Moving the section on history to the start seems to be the best way to approach this. What do others think?

Would now be a good time for someone to archive this talk page?

Sidefall 09:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please discuss edits here before making such broadsweeping changes. (unsigned, but log says added by 12.218.150.29)

Did you actually bother to read my changes before reverting them? I don't think that calling them "broadsweeping" is particularly accurate as (a) they only affected the lead section, and (b) the substance was largely unchanged and based on the original text. You didn't even put my username correctly in the log! It would have been polite for you to say if there was anything in my edit that you took exception to. Perhaps you could also register a username (as you've been asked to previously), and also sign your comments as recommended.

I am sorry if I was out of order by not discussing my ideas here first, although you'll note that I did ask about reordering some sections, which I considered to be a more substantial change. I'm keen to improve this article, by which I mean helping to make it comprehensive, well-written, accurate, and NPOV (none of which are currently true). But I'm not going to waste time if my contributions aren't welcome. Please could some other people offer their opinions both generally and on my edit. Sidefall 19:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I favor sidefall verision. I would like to remind everyone of No personal attacks.  Jon513 19:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sidefall, apparently someone has reverted what you wrote back to the previous version. While I feel that there could be a mixing of the two (because I think your line should come first and then, the quote from whatever Messianic Institution that is already there), I DO NOT feel that anyone should cause this to start any "edit war". To the anonymous person who said he made a broadsweeping change -- it would be appreciated by all if you would either sign your name to your comments, or register a screenname -- whichever you need to do. It is unfair for you to comment or revert anything from some secret hiding place from which no one can touch you.

Sidefall, let's work on incorporating your idea in with what's already there. Rivka 19:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Rivka, the revert was done by the unregistered user who left the comment above about "broadsweeping changes" without signing it. I've added his IP address to make it clear who wrote it. My response to him/her wasn't intended as a personal attack.


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "quote from messianic institution that is already there". There is a copy of the UMJC definition in the source, but it is commented out so doesn't appear on the page. The UMJC definition is obviously relevant to this page but shouldn't appear in the lead section on NPOV grounds. It only represents one POV and there has been some opposition to it which should also be reported.


 * What's the best way to incorporate my stuff without starting an edit war? 22:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just added a few more relevant books (with a variety of differing points of view) to the bibliography. That shouldn't cause too much controversy! Sidefall 22:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sidefall -- sorry I didn't realize that quote was just a comment. Didn't catch that. That being said, I don't see any problem with you posting what you originally wrote. I don't know if you want to wait for another vote, but that's me, you and Jon on the band wagon for your edit. Now, as for the anonymous user, since the person will not log in/create an account -- well I don't know what to do if said user comes through and reverts the edits again. Jon, any ideas? Rivka 18:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Archiving Talk Page
I also contend that this page needs to be archived. I just don't know how to do it. If there is anyone that could help, it would be appreciated by all to release us of some of the clutter... Rivka 19:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * don't have time now, you can read How to archive a talk page. leave the last 10 or so sections.   Jon513 20:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's done!Rivka 19:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rivka. This is also a note to let you know that as a fellow MJ editor that I'm still checking in on this revision. I can feel the pressure mounting for additional sources to be cited. I hope to do those in the comming days. inigmatus 07:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Much good, some not so good here...
I had to go away for a few months. I'm glad that the counter-missionaries no longer own the page. Thanks a lot to the editors who have brought this page into a more NPOV state. Having said this, there are some issues that might need to be addressed.

The first thing I note is that [Hebrew Christianity] has been redirected here. This makes about as much sense to me as redirecting Ireland to North Ireland. I'm not sure why, but the history section has been dramatically cut down, and in doing so has essentially eliminated the historic developments in the separation of Messianic Judaism from Hebrew Christianity.

I'm not certain if there is a relationship to these changes or not, but the overall tone of the article is now very Christian. There were some real howlers, which I've corrected. (A bimah is never referred to as a pulpit, and most of Judaism considers writing out any version of the tetragrammaton in this context to be near blasphemy.) These kind of slipups are not to be taken lightly. We do the antimissionaries' work for them if we come of as a bunch of Christians playing at Judaism.

The section on theology, is extremely Christian in its form and tone, especially the subsections on doctrines. The very term escatology is a Christian term, and its is presented as if there has been some great conference to decide them matter. I pretty much agree with what is presented, but I strenuously object to its being presented as definitive Messianic theology.

The section on holidays is weird at best. Why not state, "As a self-identified branch of Judaism, Messianic Judaism observes traditional Jewish Holidays, while some individuals continue to celebrate Christmas and/or Easter for various reasons, including family harmony."?

The entry on kashrut is self-contradictory.

NathanZook 01:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you could clean up the character references for the Hebrew that would be great. All other changes you made to the article were good updates in my opinion. You are correct in that this article has a Christian view - meaning that it uses Christian terminology like "eschatology" - but neither do I think that we should throw out the baby with the bathwater and not use the title at all until a better one can be found. There are no Messianic Jewish equivalents for eschatology, but I was thinking prior to your post that "End Times Theology" might work better.

If you mean that the article is "Christian" in its theology rather than its use of terms, I'd love to hear how and what you define as Christian, as opposed to Messianic Judaism.

Also, when I redrafted the article, I didn't move as much as I wanted to over from the previous version's History section. I have left this for other editors to do as I myself am still studying the history of Messianic Judaism and I do not feel confident enough to appropriately expand the section using cited resources just yet - as I am still collecting sources.

As for your holiday intro suggestion, I believe that the way the article is current subsectioned is the best way to present what is currently stated - even for the Holiday section. It allows room for growth if need be, and it provides the basis for any subsections regarding disagreements. The goal of the re-write was to present a format that could be expanded to handle all the competing POVs related to the article, and not be locked due to edit wars.

I didn't know that Hebrew Christian redirected to Messianic Judaism. For now, I think that's ok, at least until we get enough material to start creating additional Messianic Jewish pages and thus create a portal to link them all together. I am sure there is someone from J4J who would love to expound on an article for Hebrew Christians. For now, I think the subsection about this in the Identity section is sufficient - and perhaps that is why that article is redirected here.

The goal is to expand the sections with information to the point that they can be moved to their own pages, and a Messianic Jewish portal created. I would love to see that happen - as I am sure other Messianic editors would enjoy seeing that happen too.

Welcome to the editing team! inigmatus 05:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's good to be back...

When I say "form and tone", I mean "form and tone". I don't know how many mainstream Jewish sites you've visited, but I've NEVER seen anything like the doctrinal statements which are here. I HAVE seen almost identical copy from almost every Christian denomination that I've contacted. Christian creedalism is one of the things that distinguishes it from Judaism. (And I can pull multiple scholarly references on this if needed.) If that weren't enough, the subsection label "Non-essential Doctrines" has a distinctly Evangelic tone.

I've been trying to figure out how to address the issue, which must be here. Here's the problem: we are an emergent NMR. As such, even if we wanted to hammer out our ninety-five points of argument with Christian denomination X, there is no extant or even possible forum in which to agree on such points, nor would we agree with each other if such a forum were available. As much as I dislike the fact, there is an effectively unbroken continuum from Hebrew Roots Christianity, through Hebrew Christianity, to Messianic Judaism. And congregations can and have moved back and forth across whatever divide one might wish to draw. To present otherwise is to violate NPOV. Worse, (from my POV) it seems that almost no one self-identifies as Hebrew Christian without being pushed. I attempted to research the links at the bottom of the page back around March, and it was striking how many referred to themselves as "Messianic" on their sites, but when queries if they thought of themselves as being part of Judaism, they came back "no". A scholar might well conclude that "Hebrew Christian" is a term coined by people wishing to confine the term "Messianic Judaism" to be consistent with its syntactic meaning. It seems possible, even likely, that the term "Messianic" (by itself) will come to mean what I want "Hebrew Christian" to mean.

My point? Theology and doctrine must be presented as a continuum. Spurious doctrines which have/are being attached (ie: Sacred Name & Ephramite) by some must be admitted. While the Evangelic/Torah Pole sections on earlier versions of the page had its problems, it at least had the potential of presenting this unfortunate fact. I may take a swipe at reworking this section. In the meantime, please take a look at Rashi's Thirteen Principles of Faith (page 179 in the Artscroll Siddur), and the first part of Sanhedrin 11. That's about as formal as Judaism generally gets.

NathanZook 22:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In the theology section, I don't see there being a disagreement in Messianic Juadaism on the essentials of agreement of which would be seen as the absolute essential salvific doctrines of MJism that all MJs would agree on - the key phrase being "all MJs". There might be disagreement between different MJs over what is essential for salvation in addition to these (like keeping Torah), but the list presented is what all MJs do agree on as being essential for securing a place in the world to come. Granted there is no forum to decide these salvific essentials, but does their have to be for the assumption to be correct - after all we have the Scriptures! We know there are agreeable essentials of our faith, as there are other groups that deny the divinity of Yeshua, and some groups who have other Messiahs; but MJism is not these groups. These other groups and doctrines aren't the majority, nor even a growing minority in MJism. So then, the non-essentials of agreement are also listed but not all self-described MJs subscribe to those views. The Christians have sources for gathering their statements of faith - and all of our sources are theirs too. Isn't MJism defined apart from other sects of Judaism by the creeds of the Apostles, and later by their testimonies and letters? For the uninitiated, we are Christian by faith (as in saved from the eternal concequence of sin, and secured in a place in the world to come, by faith in the atoning death and resurrection of Yeshua the Messiah), but we are Jewish in practice, because our faith is Jewish - from Abraham to now. Do we then remove the dichotomy by compromising our faith and not say all that we believe in response to the Christians and Jews that seek to quiet us? Hear me out here: our work as believers in MJism is one of apologetics to three groups: Christians, Jews, and the rest of the world. An encyclopedia page on MJism should be the forum where the world can pick out our main points, where Jews can see where we differ with them, and where Christians can see where we are seperated from them.

For the world audience, this article summarizes a lot. For the Jewish audience, we use our Hebrew terms and concepts as much as possible to explain our positions. For the Christian audience, we engage them in their most familiar format: statements of faith - just like Rashi.

Now that I've said this, I would love to see your proposed changes. :)

inigmatus 00:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if by "essential doctrines", you mean "those doctrines which must be accepted for salvation", then you have a substantial logical problem, as faith alone (of the proper sort) leads to salvation, not adherance to a set of creeds. (Credenda Adgenda did a wonderful view of driving this point home recently.)

Moreover, I can pick substantially at almost all of these statements as being univerally held within MJism--especially if I were to insist that they mean the same things here as they do in evangelic Christianity. The process of salvation and santification described in items 5 & 6 is one that I cannot state that I have ever heard before. Some in MJism hold a view which is almost modalism. Others hold that the trinity is too confining, preferring the Etz Chaim model from Kaballah. I've heard the Apostolic writings denigrated to being scarcely above Talmud, which in turn is taken far more seriously (by some) than anything on this page would suggest. You might want to contrast and compare this statement on Messiah with the one that was adopted (after two days of careful debate) by the UMJC conference a few years back.

But these particulars are not my primary issue. My primary issue is that this section is saying, by its mere construction and tone, that MJism is Christianity with a twist. The details probably align precisily with a particular denomination. I am concerned that Christians don't decide that we are lost and in need of a home missions effort. But I'm not willing to dress up as a Christian to that end, in part because I take seriously Paul's implicit charge to stir up the jealousy of the Jews.

Messianic Judaism exists in opposition to Christianity on a number of key points. These differences, and the continuum on which they are held, should frame this discussion. If a reasonable man can scan signficant parts of this article and come away with the veiw that we are a bunch of wannabees, then there is no need for the antimissionaries to mess with us. We have done their work for them.

And I'll see if I can get a start of a straw man together on my talk page tonight. ;)

NathanZook 01:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Uggh. That was much, much longer than I wanted. Please critique and edit mercilessly what I have in User talk:NathanZook as a possible replacement for the theology section.

NathanZook 04:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I responded to you on your talk page. Good material so far. Let's keep working on it though. I had a few suggestions. inigmatus 05:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Christian Views of Messianic Judaism
The section on Christian views of MJ needs serious revision. As it stands, it is eaisly a MJ POV critique of Christianity rather than a NPOV discussion of how Christians view Messianic Judaism, both positive and negative.


 * To anon - I see what the issue is and agree that it is POV. (It's really one sentence that makes it that way)
 * I plan to change it as soon as I get a moment; however, please feel free to change it yourself, if you would like to.
 * Also, if you choose to update/edit the article, we would appreciate it if you logged in, or created a screen name.
 * This would also be handy in confering here in the Talk Section.

Rivka 21:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To anon and everyone else -- I have removed sentence that was POV. Rivka 22:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, to be completely honest, the link to Antinomianism is iteself POV. Certainly, it reflects our view of Christianity and not the reverse.

NathanZook 04:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nathan – I didn’t bother to check that link (because I don’t even know what that word means lol). Rivka 15:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Theology: Essential Doctinres and Non Essential Doctrines
I was wondering if we as an editing team could review for NPOV purposes, the list I posted in the subsections Essential Doctrines and Non Essential Doctrines in regards to the beliefs held by the vast majority of those who consider themselves Messianic. There are a lot of beliefs in Messianic Judaism, and the beliefs vary from congregation to congregation, even in the same city, even on the same block. However, I believe it is necessary to the encyclopedic nature of the article to list what the vast majority of Messianics do believe, and also list all other beliefs that the vast majority do not agree on. That was the purpose for the Essential (to salvation/being a Messianic) Doctrines and the Non Essential (to salvation/being a Messianic) Doctrines subsections I created. I felt it was necessary to create them, using a list from several sources (my and other congregations, Messianic Manifesto, and even older versions of this article and their sources). I feel that it would be in the public's best interests for us to work on this list. Perhaps a change in the name of the sections to "Popular Beliefs" and "Not So Popular Beliefs", or "Agreeables" and "Non Agreeables", or "Messianic Essential Beliefs" and "Messianic Non Essential Beliefs" etc. I hope I'm making sense as to my desire for something to this effect. Perhaps if we can come up with subsection headings and agree on the titles, that the content within those subsections will be easy to formulate, based on various sources. So far, I do like "Essential Doctrines" and "Non Essential Doctrines" (KISS principle) and then an explanation within the subsection and what it covers: the beliefs that a majority of Messianics adhere to, and the beliefs that are not as agreeable to the majority. I am also open to the idea that we don't fuss with what is held by the majority of minority in regards to these doctrines, in favor of just a subsection simply titled "Doctrines" with a whole list there (if the doctrine doesn't have a subsection elsewhere in the article, or have its own article, then it would get listed in "Doctrines" if there was a verifiable source for the belief).inigmatus 22:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that what you list as essential and non essential beliefs, represents not Messianic Judaism as a whole, but only the majority American-assimilated branch of Messianic Judaism (This would be like saying that Judaism doesn't believe in a literal Messiah, just because the majority of liberal Reform synagogues in America don't.) For example you list the pagen-christian trinity doctrine in the essentials; whereas Torah observant Messianic Jews reject such a notion.  And conversly You list Torah observance and non-essential; but that same segment would claim that torah observance is a at the core of the jewish identity and the teachings of Yeshua, and anyone saying otherwiise would be "least in the kingdom" 12.218.150.29 19:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be very hard to encompass all the beliefs of the multitude of Messianic Believers worldwide. I will say that I, as a Torah-Observant Messianic Believer, thought *I* was the majority until I read the wikipedia article lol. That being said – I know many different sets of Messianic Believers. All of those sets are “Torah-Observant”, at least to the best of their interpretation of the word. No Messianic Believer I know celebrates Christmas or Easter; all MJs I know observe the feasts and the dietary laws. MJs I know don’t accept the trinity in the way Christians believe it. I agree with 12.218’s last line, that to us Torah observance is at the core of the teachings of Yeshua. I do not know of one Messianic Believer that feels otherwise. I think for us the things that are often seen in different lights are the faith the sets put in rabbinical laws, and thoughts on what the Tanakh and B’rit Chadashah say in regards to clothing (Kippah or no Kippah? Etc). I will not be in a position to reply to anything from 8/30 to 9/6; I will be in Brooklyn visiting family. Shalom -- Rivka 20:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Major Adherents of Messianic Judaism
I know the article List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians already exists, and I don't like to see the duplication of effort. Having said that, after reading and editing the article I can't help but come away with the feeling that this article could use a section specific persons (preferably historical as well as modern persons) who where ethnically Jews, but belived in Yeshua (Jesus): such persons could justifibly be included (regardless of the actual lable they bore in their day). I'm sure His own talmudim (disciples) would make the list, as well as Saul (Paul); some people from the Hashalah (Jewish Enlightenment) period in Europe; and modern-era followers. Between Biblical periods and the Haskalah I'm drawing a (rather lengthy) blank. Dose anyone else here think that a concise, but well rounded section covering notable adherents of Messianic Judaism (and linking to the list for more complete treatment) would be good for the article? Any ideas where the section would start and end? And for my own personal curiosity sake: can anyone think of a Jewish followers of Jesus from the Middle Ages? &mdash;Wikijeff

---

At this time, I would much prefer that the matter not be raised, as there is almost no way to create such a list without appearing to be Christian triumphalists. I know, I know. It's normally minorities that try to point out "See all these names you know that are like us". But a Jew who converts to Christianity is 1) going from a small religion to a large one and 2) doing something I don't want. A list of major Jews who accept Yeshua as the messiah and continue to worship the God of their fathers as did their fathers--now that is a list that I might like to see linked. Starting with Yacob ha Tzadik (ie: James the Just), of course, followed by Paul/Shaul "I have not walked in a disorderly fashion." of Tarsus, and the Shaliach John, who taught his Greek disciple (Polycarp?) to celebrate Pesach.

NathanZook 03:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Messianic Jews are nothing more than devout Christians
Holy Christian Bible consists of Old Testament and New Testament

Messianic Jews follow both, unlike mainstream Christians that follow NT only.

Unsigned, if Christians are defined as those who worship God using pagan holidays like the Winter Solstice (Christmas) and Easter, then no, Messianics are not Christians. Just an FYI. You will find many Messianics object to the use of the term "Christian" for many reasons, but these are the most important. Personally I don't see why we should confuse the world who don't even know the difference between a Catholic and a Baptist; but I know other Messianics would disagree with me and do everything they can to promote the term "Messianic" - a term that I use often until I have to clarify it. inigmatus 17:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * All Christians follow both Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament and the Torah are the same thing, therefore all Christians are Jews, they simply aren't 'merely' Jews. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk • contribs).
 * Um, no. See Who is a Jew?, Jew and Judaism. You might also want to take a look at Torah, as the definition you've given is completely incorrect. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 16:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Objections Sections
the "Jewish objections" and "Christian objections" sections in the article may be factual and possibly NPOV, however they are inconsistent with standard wikipedia style and practice. If you look throughout Wikipedia it is not common practice to voice the objections to a subject in an article about that subject (you don't find any objections sections in the article about Chabad, even though many other Chasidim consider them a cult.) These sections should be either deleted or edited to to  be more consistent with standard Wikipedia practice. 12.218.150.29 20:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * critism sections are very common on wikipedia. Jon513 20:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please site several structurally/stylistically similar examples 12.218.150.29 21:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:Criticism of religion has quite a few that expanded into their own article! Jon513 21:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Those pages are of Scholarly criticisms, of the subject matter, not lists "Objections" by it''s opponents. An article called "Criticisms of Messianic Judaism", which presents objective criticism would be appropriate. 12.218.150.29 08:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The objection sections are necessary to prevent another edit war. Please see the recent archived talk discussions. inigmatus 00:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not the United Nations. The objective is the appropriate presentation of information, not peacemaking. 12.218.150.29 08:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, if all are willing, we can have a vote on whether or not the objection section should be present. I'd have to say though, that I feel the objection section is valid where it is.Rivka 21:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that without any criteria of scholarly critisms, this article will become primarily a list of every trivial objection that can be cited on any webpage of those who oppose messianic judaism. There are people who feel it is there moral obligation to make sure every negative comment about Messianic judaism heard and will make that the focus of the article. including only CRITICISMS that have substance and are of a scholarly caliber, will make this a better article, as opposed to a venue to vent biased emotional OBJECTIONS that have no academic merit. 12.218.150.29 00:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

--- Look, mister 12.218.150.29, you don't know what you're talking about. Even in its worst days, this article has never been that. If some joker were to try to make it so, even the antimissionaries would revert it.

You're coming in mighty strong about what is really a minor issue. Yes, there is another way of handling the matter--it would probably be better to merely list the distinctives, but you will get an edit war if you try.

We are a NRM, flying in the face of 1850 years of tradition of the largest faith and of the most persecuted faith. Our article is not going to be as pretty as those of more accepted movements until we gain their level of acceptance. May it be soon and in our days.

In the mean time, sit down and learn from those who've earned their stripes on this page.

NathanZook 03:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

12.218..., I doubt by formatting the article to include objections would pave the way to allow any trivial objection to be posted - as most of those that are uncited would be disputed here in Talk. I just don't see it happening. If a lot of objections were noted, then obviously we the editors would summarize them and point the reader to a more detailed article - for then there would be reason to create a new article entirely, and not clutter up this one. This article is organic. My intention was for it to grow and for individual parts to eventually replicate into full articles by themselves so a Messianic Judaism portal could be justified. Someone had to start somewhere, and you have to admit that the way this article is formatted is much better than any other that was attempted. If you have ideas or information you'd like to contribute we'd love to see it. Just keep in mind that most people don't like to see their stuff deleted from this article without at least some kind of group consensus. inigmatus 17:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Shalom in the Name of Yeshua! The problem here is terminology and lack of understanding. First of all, the true Name of Jesus is Yeshua, which means Salvation. Jesus is the English version of the Greek Name "Isos". The Greeks called Him "Isos Christos" which meant Jesus the Anointed One. Christ is the English versionof Christos, which means Anointed or anointed one. Messianic comes from the word Messiah.

There could not be a "Christian" without Yeshua, who lived in a Jewish body created by the Holy Spirit and the cooperation of Miriam (Mary, a Jewish Virgin). Yeshua is a Jew. He will return to Jerusalem, Israel. He is NOT a Christian and never will be a Christian. Christians are a sect that was formed as they were the first Believers. Actually, they were Believers in the Messiah, who was the Anointed One. The name Christian was formed from the word Christos. It is the English version of Christos. It is all about Yeshua (Salvation) called Jesus in English. He loves both the Jew, Gentile, Buddhist, Muslim etc. He is the Son of the Living God, therefore He is God on His Father's side and human on His mother's. His physical body is human,Jewish and called Yeshua. His Spirit Body is called Christos, the Anointing, Powerfilled. The difference with some Christians is that since Judaism is an Exclusive religion, way of life, and the sect of Christianity is an Inclusive religion, way of life, the Christians, who accepted Yeshua (Jesus) could not receive the proper instruction about Him. They had limited knowlege before the computer and television. So, because of this, there is lack of understanding of terminology, culture, traditions, and customs. Most Americans were never taught their native language; only English, while the people from the other countries came to the US and spoke their mother mother language as well as English. They were basically ignorant people with Great Faith, which moves God. So. from ths time on, don't fret or make chaos over trivial things. Each religion (way of life) will lead to Yeshua eventually. The Holy Scriptures tells me that. Shalom


 * Who IS that?... No signature... okay, look, anonymous, what we do here in "Talk" is discuss the article and how to put it together. What you've said is all fine and dandy, but none of that can be put into the article. Why? NPOV rules here at wikipedia forbid it.
 * This article must be as neutral as we can get it -- and using anything you've put forth here would, I'm sure, knock the article completely out of balance.
 * So good for you in knowing yourself and your beliefs; may G-d bless and keep you... Rivka 16:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Law, Grace, and the flow of this Article
The sections (4.1) Law vs. Grace and (4.2) Law and Grace are both one-liners. It seems to me they could be merged into a single section "Competing views of the Torah", (or whatever) with transitional text between the various view-points. I think that, with some additional content, would improve the flow of the article in that section. On a similar note, are their not adherents to Messianic Judaism who (a) do not observe Torah, but (b) do not hold the Torah in conflict with God's mercy and grace toward men? Or, perhaps I've misunderstood some Messianic litrature from the non-Torah observant camp? &mdash;Wikijeff 04:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiJeff -- They are one liners. They are pretty much stubs that need to be expounded on. Feel free to do that, or to make a suggestion of how to add on to the sections. As for the non-Torah Observant Messianic Believer -- speaking for myself, I don't know any Messianics like that, and have never read any literature from such people. I don't think anyone will have an issue with you even renaming the section if you'd like (if anyone does, please say so). Just remember that, if possible, to cite your references. Rivka 22:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hard article to make NPOV
I've only spent about an hour looking into this, after bumping into a reference to 'Jews for Jesus'. It seems very simple to me. I would define it as 'Messianic Judaism' as an approach to converting Jews to Christianity by offering them an alternative religion that is at it's core Christian but keeps some trappings of Judaism. A relatively small number of converted Messianic Jews are supported by a much larger number of evangelical Christians seeking to convert Jews. Critics accuse the movement of hypocricy, their main arguments being that that the majority of people supporting the movement identify themselves as Christians, that it is funded by and closely shares most of its membership with Christian organisations who's stated goal is to convert Jews to Christianity, and that Messianic Jewish organisations mislead prospective converts by concealing these connections.

Anyway, good luck to you all in trying to find an NPOV solution to what seems to me, in my humble opinion, an attempt by very ferverent Christians to be dishonest to save souls. If you can fix that, maybe you can take a stab at the 'terrorist versus freedom fighter', 'torture versus fighting terrorism' and 'pro-life versus pro-choice'. :)

12:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

How absurd! I was born a JEW and was raised by Jewish parents in the Messianic faith. I never have been some "secret Christian spy"!!! How rude! Dishonest to save souls? WTF man? Look...straight-up: I'm Jewish (last name JUDAH...can't get more Jewish than that) I adhere to Torah and I believe Yeshua is the messiah...sound like a Christian spy? Well...can't help ya, sorry :-\ -FX 65.204.232.77 11:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate more information "I've only spent about an hour looking into this". And, be fair, I never said "secret Christian spy", so I don't think that should be be presented as a quote. In more detail: 1) the messianic Jewish sites I looked at were concerned with converting jews 2) I tracked them down through some what website links to what and who is a member of what and what I found was funding from Christian organizations support from Christians and evangelical organizations who state they want to convert Jews 3) i found plenty of criticism that i paraphrased above, it seemed supported 4) i took a look at the claims of persecution and 100,000's membership and both seemed dishonest. 5) my personal opinion, a more accurate name would be Christians for the Old Testament. Jesus is the crux of your belief, but you downplay him in your public face. From what I read, the claim that you are being dishonest to convert mainstream Jews has merit. But that wasn't my point, I just don't think this can be made NPOV. TRWBW 18:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry my friend, I did not mean to be so angry. Because you are right in the point of fact that it would "APPEAR" in some elements of our faith that what you described is the case.  Because there is various POVs and opinions among our Messianic faith as well (which the article does seem to cover rather well and SHOULD cover)...  I think in order to keep it NPOV you would need to cover as many POVs in the Messianic faith as possible.  I'm sorry that our faith was misrepresented to you, and I can understand your confusion now.  Yes, I agree it is hard to make NPOV, but with a good coverage of as many angles as possible NPOV can be maintained (I think). For instance, I do not agree by opinion with One House/Jew Only theology, HOWEVER, it exists and SHOULD be included in this article, because I know Messianics who DO believe that.  I would be upset if they WEREN'T added to the article. -FX 65.204.232.77 04:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Renovations
Today I have reworded various parts of this page to make it more coherant with what Messianic Judaism actually is in my comprehensive studies: the practice of Judaism that also happens to believe Jesus is Messiah, which Messianic Judaism actually is, rather than the practice of Christianity in Judaism's clothing, which it is not. I have done so in a non-biased way that actually has some balance between the two opposing views, IMO. Perhaps this brings the page ultimately closer to having a comfortable level of NPOV. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.64.84.87 (talk • contribs) 24 September 2006


 * You made a lot of unacceptable POV changes. From the very beginning, that MJ is "the practice of the religion of Judaism" you promote MJ. Despite the deceiving name, the belief in divinity of Jesus in incompatible with Judaism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Messianic Judaism is no different whatsoever from mainstream Judaism, with the exception that its practitioners also believe that Yeshua is the Messiah. Jews that believe that Yeshua is the Messiah number in the tens of thousands to hundred thousands (at least 10,000 in Yesrael) and there are over 100 Messianic synagogues, so you have no right to treat a valid, Torah-based movement of Judaism as alien. If humanistic "Judaism", a movement now indistinguishable from culture-centric secular humanism, is honored as Judaism, then declaring that any form of Messianic belief is alien? There is nothing N about that POV. Btw, Messianic Jews do not believe that the Messiah is divine in the same way as most Christians; the Messiah is the physical manifestation of the Torah. Most Messianic synogogues/groups will have nothing to do with the Christian group Jews for Jesus, btw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.64.140.136 (talk • contribs)


 * Anon, addressing a more minor note first on your changes, please note that the style manual instructs to only capitalize first words in headings, excepting proper nouns. As far as your opinion that "Messianic Judaism is no different whatsoever from mainstream Judaism", I understand that is your opinion, but we don't put editors' personal opinions in the encyclopedia. We quote sources.  I don't think you'll find a mainstream Judaism source that agrees with your opinion.  -- M P er el ( talk 06:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Other forms of Messianic Judaism
I don't know if it's been discussed in the talk archives, but surely 'Messianic Judaism' encompasses more than just Jews who believe in Jesus? Maybe I'm widely off the mark, but I think that the term 'MJ' includes all branches of Judaism who feel that the messiah has already come, including the followers of Sabbatai Zevi, David Reubeni and Jacob Joseph Frank (only one of whom, Frank, believed in Jesus). Ayin/Yud 08:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Not so my good friend. They really ought to be kept seperate. As a Messianic, and if you were to ask others I think perhaps they would agree: They aren't related. Messianic Judaism REALLY IS ABOUT Yeshua (Jesus). That's the defining characteristic. -FX 65.204.232.77 11:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy Debated?
I noticed on the main page it says the factual accuracy is debated. What's debated!? I've read a lot of this talk page...and it's as if the WHOLE IDEA is debated! I'm finding this talk page to be a confusing mish-mash of theological whatchamacallit and noise that really doesn't have much to do with ANYTHING that is Messianic Judaism. If you guys REALLY wanna know what Messianic Judaism, then please please please, go read/listen to Eddie Chumney, Joel Chernoff, Monte Judah, Ralph Messer, Bill Cloud, Brad Scott and a whole slew of others I'm not gonna mention of the top of my head. Many of them have books, cds, pamphlets etc. that could EASILY be referenced so that people quit questioning this whole thing. Also, while I'm at it, I think the numbers that were mentioned in the first paragraph (47,000) are low...REALLY low. Ralph Messer has over 20,000 on his mailing list, want to ask him: www.simchattorah.tv. Monte Judah has some 50,000 plus on his mailing list now, ask him: www.lionlamb.net. Seriously folks, quit arguing your stupid theology on this ALLEGEDLY factual site and do just that STICK TO THE FACTS. You may disagree with the belief, but it's still a FACT and that's what wikipedia is about!! So go do some research, shut up, edit, and live free! -FX 65.204.232.77 12:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Why Messianic Judaism is actual Judaism
Messianic Judaism is Judaism, not some anomoly within Christianity. From the Frequently Asked Questions:

Messianic Judaism is not gentile Christianity in disguise.

* Messianic Jews observe traditional Jewish holidays such as Purim, Chanukah, etc. Christians do not.

* Messianic Jews observe the biblical feasts such as the Feasts of Trumpets, Tabernacles and Passover. Christians do not.

* Messianic Jews do not observe Christian holidays borrowed from paganism, such as Christmas and Lent.

* Messianic Jews worship on the biblical sabbath, i.e., Friday evening till Saturday, not Sunday.

* Messianic Jews cant the Sh'ma, and traditional Jewish blessings that most Christians have never even heard of, e.g., the kiddush and the Aaronic benediction.

* Messianic Jews cant the Torah portion in Hebrew at worship services.

* Messianic preaching is mainly from the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), although references to the B'rit Chadasha are not unusual.

* Messianic Judaism emphasizes the special relationship between G-d and the Jewish people, whereas Protestantism and Catholicism only mention it in passing.

* Messianic Judaism emphasizes Jewish traditions that do not conflict with the Bible, whereas Protestantism and Catholicism totally ignore those traditions.

* Messianic Judaism asserts that the Torah (literally, "teaching") is still in effect. Christianity claims that Jesus ended the Torah.

But Christians still teach the Ten Commandments and tell church members to tithe! 

* Messianic Jews bar-mitzvah their sons and bat-mitzvah their daughters. Christians don't.

* Messianic Jews wrote B'rit Chadasha. Christians didn't.

* A Jewish person who converts to Protestantism is called a Hebrew Christian, not a Messianic Jew.

Messianic Jews do not need to be evangelized into Christianity -- they already believe in Yeshua (Jesus).

B'rit Chadasha (the New Testament) was written by Jews, not the Roman Catholic Church. Despite its claims to the contrary, Roman Catholicism did not even come into existence until around 325-400 C.E.

Contrary to common belief, there is no historical evidence that Luke was a non-Jewish Gentile. Either he was of Jewish ancestry or he was a proselyte Jew, i.e., a Gentile who converted to Judaism--Gentiles don't hang around with itinerant Jewish preachers--Jews do.

Most adult Messianic Jews converted from traditional Orthodox or Conservative Judaism into Protestantism (i.e., became Hebrew Christians) and then went back to Judaism, while retaining their belief that Yeshua is G-d's promised Messiah.

Like about half the Protestant denominations, Messianic Jews only baptize believers and only by immersion; Messianic Jews do not baptize infants or baptize by pouring or sprinkling.

Not everyone who considers himself a "Messianic Jew" is.

For instance, for over a year I regularly attended Zola Levitt's Shalom Shalom Congregation in Dallas, Texas. He is ethnically Jewish, he was raised Orthodox Jewish, and he definitely considers himself to be Messianic. However, theologically his beliefs are mainstream Baptist. Hence, he really is a Hebrew Christian, not a Messianic Jew. (He is an ordained Baptist minister.) Almost all the attendees are gentile Protestants. All the staff ministers except Zola are gentiles and all were trained in mainstream Protestant seminaries.

In shorthand, saying that Messianic Judaism (A Hebrew-centric, Torah-based spirituality that has a majority of ethnically Jewish practitioners) is some fringe of Christianity is like saying that Kaballists are not practicing Judaism because they adhere to both Torah and Kaballah, or that Karaites are non-Judaism because they reject Talmud: Who are you kidding?

Christian objections section
The content of that section was laughable. Unless MJ presents themselves as true keepers of the covenant (vs. real Judaism), it looked more like Christian support, not objections:
 * Christian objections to Messianic Judaism are many and often start with disputes over applications of Torah in a believer's life.


 * The majority of Christians believe that, with the coming of Jesus of Nazareth, the Law of Moses was made obsolete, see Antinomianism, Christian view of the Law.


 * Some Christians believe persons observing Torah do not have faith in the Messiah and are forsaking the gift of grace and mercy that God gave to all people, after the Messiah's death and subsequent resurrection.


 * There are some Christian denominations that have what many would consider to be an anti-Semitic view of Messianic Believers because of their attempted alignment with Judaism.

May I suggest the author to add citations and make it a new section, ==Christian support== ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you smoking crack, Humus? These are clearly a list of Christian objections, not support. Reactionary statists like you that detest Messianic Judaism (a form of Judaism because it is monotheistic, Torah-based, Hebrew-centered, and has a majority ethnic Jewish participation) have no right to continue to push your half-assed edits on everyone else. Please, stop or at least intelligently discuss before doing these things.


 * Anon, I do not watch for all your sockpuppet IPs, so I'll write it here. If you are going to continue your involvement with WP, you'll need to comply with WP:RULES. I suggest you register and learn to sign your posts, but first and foremost WP:NPA. I'll ignore your attack this once but don't expect to be able to continue in this manner.
 * On the subject: The majority of Christians these days respect the ecumenical and reconciliatory spirit of dialogue among various faiths, are tolerant to other religions and reject radicalism and are against missions to the Jews. Those listed above are radical Christian objections to real Judaism, and like it or not, the Messianics are one of their weapons to make Jews believe in Jesus the Messiah, salvation, and other Christian beliefs (which BTW, I respect - until those beliefs are forced upon others). ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Messianic Judaism is not a Christian "weapon", considering that Messianic Judaism has the same basic principals of faith and Torah practice as the Conservative-Reform gamut, with the major addition that they have believe Jesus is the Davidic Messiah, and consider what sort of meaning that brings. Now, that doesn't mean that the majority of Christians don't like the movement, perhaps that is what you meant to say.


 * There is no need to invent a new name for those (born Jewish or not) who believe in Jesus the Messiah: they are called Christians with all the "sort of meaning that brings". FYI, the schism occured about 18 centuries ago. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter if there is a "need" because that is your opinion. WP catalogs and artifacts things that EXIST.  And it is a verifiable FACT that a group of people EXIST who call themselves something different, whether or not you like it.  Now knock of this pompous quoting of the rules and what not if you aren't going to follow them yourself!  If you have something more constructive to add, then please, by all means, I would love to hear it.  Otherwise, knock it off, you're just being rude. -FX 65.204.232.77 04:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The same goes to you. To our subject: this "group of people" hijacks the name and symbols of another religion (Judaism), while Judaic tradition and those who authoritatively represent Judaism are practically unanimous that Messianics are incompatible with Judaism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

A Plea
The Talk page of Messianic Judaism is to discuss valid changes or edits needed for the article. The article is ABOUT Messianic Judaism, period. It is not about your views or someone else's views of Messianic Judaism, it is about the article. Unless ANY of you have something constructive to do here, it would be good for those that truly work on the article and its contents if you would take your view-hashing elsewhere. We've all heard it before, both sides (since it only ever seems to be MJs versus Jews on here). The article was locked for a month because of nonsense such as this and I'd rather that not happen again. Repeat: Your banter is not useful here, whether it is for or against Messianic Judaism. You're just taking up space... all of you. Rivka 18:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for your statement, I agree, and support. Also, I should probably dedicate myself to helping with the editing and assisting of expansion on this page since I know so much about this.  Rivka you are a blessing, thank you. -FX 65.204.232.77 04:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And PLEASE, anonymous if you are going to type anything it would be fair and respectful if you would register with wikipedia and create a log in name, so that you and your comments can be taken seriously. You should have nothing to hide, if you are sound in your beliefs. This is not the KKK; there is no need for anyone hear to wear masks. Rivka 18:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that I agree with you. And this isn't about my viewpoint either: if Hebrew-centered, Torah based, monotheistic religion with a majority of ethnically Jewish followers cannot be objectively defined as Judaism, the matrix has a glitch. I will now start my Wikipedia account. ;)

Some required reading for the matter of the article:


 * http://yashanet.com/library/law_1.htm


 * http://www.rabbiyeshua.com/articles/index.html

Alright, I have created my account. You can refer to me as Zorkfan now ;)

Zorkfan 00:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * These groups have put themselves outside of Judaism. They crossed the red line drawn by Judaic tradition and authorities and therefore are not in the position to define or redefine what Judaism is. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What red line? The majority of Messianic Judaism is not only Torah-observant, but treats the Talmud pretty seriously (unlike the bare-bones Karaite tradition). Messianic Jews don't agree with everything Mainomedes or the Medieval Rabbis wrote, but that certainly doesn't make it non-Judaism because:

1. Those rabbis were constantly under the seige of anti-semetism, which they at least subconsciously equated with the idea of Jesus as Messiah itself, thus not giving the idea appropriate gravity.

2. Most of Jesus' disciples were either Pharisees, Saducees, or Essenes. There is ample evidence to show that Jesus himself was an active Pharisee, though I tend to believe he had one foot in each camp.

3. Most Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism doesn't look at the Oral Traditions as even possible halakha, aside from the fact that many of their beliefs actively contradict it. Though they do this, they are certainly still branches of Judaism, as Messianic Judaism is.

Mraleph 22:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am afraid you still don't get how WP works. It is not about your beliefs, or mine, or any other editor here. Unlike Maimonides, you are not in a position to redefine what Judaism is. See WP:RS and WP:NPOV. And don't remove citations that you dislike. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Understood. I am not trying to redefine Judaism, btw (something 3000 years old). Also, most of my edits have nothing to do with my views, but are simply very minor clean-ups or additions. I'm rather fine with the overwhelming amount of quotes against the movement, since it still represents the mainline response to it at the present time. My first edit to this article was outlandish, but I'm getting better at this. Thank you.

Mraleph 00:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with Messianic Judaism being considered legitimately Jewish is the insertion of non-Jewish texts (ie the Gospels and Paul's epistles) into canon. While it is true that all discourse on Torah is legitimate Jewish canon, the Christian scriptures are not discourses on Torah, they are a seperate and irrelevant set of texts that portray a significantly anti-Jewish perspective. Reform, Reconstructionist and Karaite Judaism removed the Oral Law from the canon, but they didn't add anything either except their own aggadah, which while not halakhic is still Torah-derived. Jesus's mashiachship or lack thereof is irrelevant to the discussion. A religion's canon is its heart and soul and Messianic Judaism uses Christian canon rather than Jewish canon and therefore cannot be considered Judaism. Its adherents may be Jews, but the presence of Jews does not make a religion Jewish. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 15:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter whether or not Messianic Judaism is considered legitimately Jewish. It is what they (i.e., we, since I am MJ too) call themselves and so that is who the article is about. If the article were to call them Hebrew Christians or pseudo-Christians or whatever definition you think they more properly fit, then the article would no longer be about the people in question. No one's personal beliefs (and I keep saying this) matters. The article needs to be NPOV, it needs to be factual in the beliefs of the people and their traditions. That is what matters here. Which is why I say all this constant bickering back and forth about what they believe, what he believes, what you believe, what I believe nonsense isn't helping the ARTICLE. It's just fluff, just a bunch of clutter. Rivka 13:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

should evangelism/conversion/mission get its own section?
I took another crack at trying to understand this. It seems a big issue that isn't fully developed in the article are the evangelical aspect of many (most?) Messianic Judaic organisations. This seems to be the biggest source of friction between Messianic Jews and Mainstream Jews. It appears at a few points in the article, but it maybe it should be given a section by itself? TRWBW 00:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. If you have any ideas on such a section, TRWBW, it would be good of your if you would create it and give us a look-see before it's posted (since I'm sure it would be no small blurb). Rivka 13:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

As the current article's original developer, I would support such an edition. It would fit nicely in the Theology section. inigmatus 03:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Kari is not correct

 * "The problem with Messianic Judaism being considered legitimately Jewish is the insertion of non-Jewish texts (ie the Gospels and Paul's epistles) into canon. While it is true that all discourse on Torah is legitimate Jewish canon, the Christian scriptures are not discourses on Torah, they are a seperate and irrelevant set of texts that portray a significantly anti-Jewish perspective. Reform, Reconstructionist and Karaite Judaism removed the Oral Law from the canon, but they didn't add anything either except their own aggadah, which while not halakhic is still Torah-derived. Jesus's mashiachship or lack thereof is irrelevant to the discussion. A religion's canon is its heart and soul and Messianic Judaism uses Christian canon rather than Jewish canon and therefore cannot be considered Judaism. Its adherents may be Jews, but the presence of Jews does not make a religion Jewish."


 * Once again, Kari, you have gotten it completely wrong, and I will explain why. Christianity is such a baseless and corrupt religion that non-Messianic Jews may not even have the proper foundation to make a decision. Because:


 * 1. The "New Testament" (actually, Apostlic Writings or Brit Chadasha, if you will) never has any anti-Jewish perspective whatsoever, and are Jewish texts. First of all, how can there be anti-semetism if, referring to every person that wrote a part of them, there was no NON-semitism! It was written by Jews and for Jews (and gentile proselytes, of course), most of them possessing some at least some rabbinical authority. The fact that pagan Romans desecrated the Jewish Temple in CE 70, then adopted a completely hellenized, paganized version of the Jewish teachings of Yeshua and his contemporaries, a most unfortunate coincidence in history. This is proven: http://yashanet.com/studies/index.htm
 * 2. The Brit Chadasha isn't Christian canon, because it wasn't written by or for Christians (not like they existed in the first place, at that time). It was later adopted by Christians, and has been interpreted completely out of its Hebraic context for 1800+ years. Yes, that's going to cause definite translation biases that only an understanding of the Hebrew-Aramaic languages those texts were written in can even begin to reverse. This is proven: http://yashanet.com/studies/romstudy/rom1.htm and http://yashanet.com/studies/romstudy/rom3.htm and http://yashanet.com/studies/romstudy/rom4.htm


 * 3. You said Messianic Judaism uses Christian canon rather than Jewish canon. Incorrect. The correct statement is: Messianic Jews use Jewish Scriptures, some of which are canon for all other Jewish denominations (Tanakh), and some of which is the main canon for Christianity, the Brit Chadasha (albeit, poorly interpreted by that religion). This is proven: http://www.messianicjewish.net/jntp/complete-jewish-bible.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Stern


 * 4. Most Messianic Jews are just as opposed to Christian missionizing of Jews as their non-Messianic contemporaries. Here is one example: http://yashanet.com/library/signs.htm and http://yashanet.com/library/sbcletter.htm


 * 5. Want to learn more? Here is a good place to begin: http://www.rabbiyeshua.com/articles/index.html


 * Luzadi7 00:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't know why you started a section 3 indents in, I'm starting from 0 indents. The purpose of the article is not to decide whether Messianic Judaism is legitimately whatever. It's to give all the perspectives and give the reader as much information as is relevant. Besides, we all know that that only true religion is cutting our testicles off so that when the Hale-Bop comet returns we can be raptured into the alien spacecraft. TRWBW 01:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I they wanted to give "all the perspectives", perhaps they would insert even one quote that was not in opposition to the movement? Also, I wouldn't refer so lightheartedly to one of the greatest cult-related tragedies of all time. Luzadi7 01:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't that what Jews do? Laugh at tragedy? TRWBW 01:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Those are stereotypes. Luzadi7 01:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Christianity is such a baseless and corrupt religion" isn't a stereotype? Zing! TRWBW 03:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Once again, Kari, you have gotten it completely wrong, and I will explain why."
 * Once again? I haven't discussed the subject before. Moreover, you really need to go read WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Preferably sooner rather than later.
 * "The "New Testament" (actually, Apostlic Writings or Brit Chadasha, if you will) never has any anti-Jewish perspective whatsoever, and are Jewish texts."
 * Explain the very satirical portrayal of the Pharisees in the texts then. Being that virtually all Jews today are Pharisees according to Christian Scripture (dress them up with Jewish titles if you want, but they're still not Jewish texts), hate of Rabbinics is hate of Jews just as hate of Zionism is hate of Jews.
 * "First of all, how can there be anti-semetism if, referring to every person that wrote a part of them, there was no NON-semitism! It was written by Jews and for Jews (and gentile proselytes, of course), most of them possessing some at least some rabbinical authority."
 * None of the authors of any of the Christian books had any Rabbinical authority whatsoever.
 * "The fact that pagan Romans desecrated the Jewish Temple in CE 70, then adopted a completely hellenized, paganized version of the Jewish teachings of Yeshua and his contemporaries, a most unfortunate coincidence in history."
 * 'Desecrated'? They destroyed it to the last stone!
 * "The Brit Chadasha isn't Christian canon, because it wasn't written by or for Christians (not like they existed in the first place, at that time)."
 * Sorry, but you're not given any free license to rewrite history as you see fit. Christianity, in a primitive form, did exist at the time (go read Acts of the Apostles, one of your own books) and Christian canon was compiled by Christians for Christians. Both religious and secular scholarship has confirmed the obviousness that only one of the Gospels (Matthew) was actually written with Jews as its target audience.
 * Furthermore, the source you provide exists to "Re-establish the foundation upon which faith in Yeshua the Messiah stands; correcting the disassociation from the Judaic culture, teachings and framework on which faith in Yeshua rests." It doesn't matter whether you call it Fundamentalist Christianity or slap a tallit on it and call it kosher. It's still Christianity, not Judaism. Read WP:V and WP:NOR. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 17:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I'd advise reading WP:NOT too. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 17:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Refutations to Kari:

"Once again? I haven't discussed the subject before. Moreover, you really need to go read WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Preferably sooner rather than later."


 * You discusssed it once before (though briefly) in Talk:Judaism

"'Desecrated'? They destroyed it to the last stone!"


 * Almost. The Wailing Wall still stands.

"Sorry, but you're not given any free license to rewrite history as you see fit. Christianity, in a primitive form, did exist at the time (go read Acts of the Apostles, one of your own books) and Christian canon was compiled by Christians for Christians. Both religious and secular scholarship has confirmed the obviousness that only one of the Gospels (Matthew) was actually written with Jews as its target audience."


 * The gospel canon was later COMPILED by (antisemetic and helenic by that point) Christians, but was WRITTEN by generally orthodox Jews (most of them Pharisaic or Sucuceeic), in Hebrew-Aramaic, with Yeshua as the main subject. The Account of Matthew was written mainly for Jews of the faith of Israel, the Account of Luke written mainly for gentiles coming into the faith of Israel, and the Accounts of Mark and John written for BOTH (with the former written in a more matter-of-factly manner, and the latter more mystical). So we see that, with the Messiach being not only a redeemer of the Jews but also a universalistic redeemer of humanity, there is no reason not to retell the same account four times for people of all walks. Did I mention that Yeshua quoted from the rabbinical Mishnah Talmud frequently throughout the Gospels? This is proven!: http://yashanet.com/studies/matstudy/mat3a.htm
 * I guess then you DIDN'T visit any of those valuable articles concerning Shaul. His writings and letters are the least important portion of the entire Hebrew Scriptures, since they are simply one man's opinion. Nonetheless, what he writes is very valuable and of no departure from the Torah, and the only other possible conclusion is one that is not fully based in the historical and Hebraic context that it was written in. Read the following articles, THEN come back and tell me if you still have doubts about the Judaism of Shaul the Pharisee: http://yashanet.com/studies/romstudy/rom3a.htm and http://yashanet.com/studies/romstudy/rom1.htm and http://yashanet.com/studies/romstudy/rom3.htm and http://yashanet.com/studies/romstudy/rom4.htm AND ESPECIALLY http://yashanet.com/studies/romstudy/rom3b.htm
 * Speaking of Revelations, that is a deeply esoteric and mystical text that requires a rudimentary understanding of Jewish mysticism and is written natively on the Drush and Sod levels.

"Furthermore, the source you provide exists to "Re-establish the foundation upon which faith in Yeshua the Messiah stands; correcting the disassociation from the Judaic culture, teachings and framework on which faith in Yeshua rests." It doesn't matter whether you call it Fundamentalist Christianity or slap a tallit on it and call it kosher. It's still Christianity, not Judaism."


 * These people that maintain the website are Orthodox Jews (IIRC), and will not even associate with current Messianic Judaism because it is still too close to Protestantism, as shown here at http://yashanet.com/library/sbcletter.htm . Yes, they believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, and no, they're not Christians because they have no sympathy with the beliefs that 1.) Jesus is G-d incarnate, hardly scriptural and 2.) that the Messiah replaces the Torah, which is 100% unscriptural. Also, I am not a fundamentalist, but a rationalist; though not really humanist since I fully affirm the existance of G-d, I believe that there is a rational (and generally utilitarian) conclusion for virtually every portion of the Scriptures, and that one can at least tap into many of these conclusions in this life if they truly wish to and study the texts from P'shat thru Sod level, in their contexts. I also know that it is IRRATIONAL to expect that some of the Brit Chadasha hasn't been at least mildly corrupted in the translation after 1800+ years of anti-semitism, post CE 70 diaspora.


 * No one has the right, I think, to make their judgement on Messianic Judiasm until they've dug into some of the required reading on the subject, namely http://yashanet.com/library/law_1.htm and http://www.rabbiyeshua.com/articles/index.html and, preferably, Brit Chadasha studies here at http://yashanet.com/studies/index.htm


 * Don't think that peaceful Jews that simply believe Yeshua is Messiah aren't being beating and harassed by the ultra-orthodox, right-wing haredim, because they are: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/30/story_3073_1.html ironically enough, they were using the same Torah scrolls and liturgies and bibles as the haredim. Also, http://www.messianicassociation.org/arad.htm don't agree with many of their views, but I definitely sympathize with what they must endure.


 * Shalom

Luzadi7 23:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "but was WRITTEN by generally orthodox Jews (most of them Pharisaic or Sucuceeic)"
 * Give some evidence of this besides Messianic sources which state their intent to convert Jews. A source with a goal that is not only blatantly obvious but plainly stated in their about us page cannot be considered objective.
 * "the Account of Luke written mainly for gentiles coming into the faith of Israel, and the Accounts of Mark and John written for BOTH (with the former written in a more matter-of-factly manner, and the latter more mystical)."
 * Jewish, Christian and secular scholarship has determined that this statement simply isn't true. Again, read WP:NOR. You have no free license to rewrite history.
 * "So we see that, with the Messiach being not only a redeemer of the Jews but also a universalistic redeemer of humanity, there is no reason not to retell the same account four times for people of all walks."
 * 'Reedemer' is a Christian concept, by the way, not a Jewish one.
 * "Did I mention that Yeshua quoted from the rabbinical Mishnah Talmud frequently throughout the Gospels? This is proven!:"
 * Well, considering the fact that the Mishnah postdate's Jesus's death by about 170 years and the Talmud Bavli by about 500-600, I have serious doubts that Jesus quoted from it. Unless Jesus had prophetic abilities (which would require a Christian rather than a Jewish worldview), it doesn't make any sense for him to be able to quote a book that didn't exist yet. Your source's credibility seems to be falling apart.
 * "His writings and letters are the least important portion of the entire Hebrew Scriptures, since they are simply one man's opinion."
 * You nonetheless consider them canon above the responsa of any given rabbi. Christianity.
 * "Speaking of Revelations, that is a deeply esoteric and mystical text that requires a rudimentary understanding of Jewish mysticism and is written natively on the Drush and Sod levels."
 * Are you an kabbalah expert? May I see your credentials?
 * "These people that maintain the website are Orthodox Jews"
 * I have serious doubts about that. 'Orthodox' is generally a bad term to use anyway for reasons irrelevant to this discussion, but one of the hallmarks of Orthodox Judaism is adherence to Judaism, not Christianity.
 * "Yes, they believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah,"
 * Chabad at least in part believes that the Rebbe was the Mashiach. I've started to wonder if a Lubavitcher Jew can really be considered Jewish religiously speaking, but that's another question entirely.
 * "Also, I am not a fundamentalist, but a rationalist; though not really humanist since I fully affirm the existance of G-d,"
 * What you believe, or what I believe, is immaterial.
 * "Don't think that peaceful Jews that simply believe Yeshua is Messiah aren't being beating and harassed by the ultra-orthodox, right-wing haredim, because they are:"
 * I never said they weren't. Violence against you by Charedim does not make your religion a form of Judaism, though. By the way, most non-Charedi movements have been the target of Charedi violence in the past, so your argument is irrelevant.
 * Bottom line as, to this point, you have not produced a single verifiable and reputable source to support your argument. Assume good faith and remember that if you want the wiki to contain information, it needs to fall in line with our policies regarding neutral point of view, verifiability, original research and what Wikipedia is not. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 11:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

>Frowning< Can't you both take this to some private forum, perhaps to your own talk pages? What you're saying is not productive in relation to the article. You could both go and talk about this elsewhere, convince each other that you're the better debator or whatever you're trying accomplish here. All people here want to do is create an article for people to read, to gain information on Messianic Judaism. To waver in either direction (anti-missionary or pro Messianic Judaism) is to make the article into what it's not supposed to be. I keep saying it and I'll say it once again -- YOUR VIEWS ARE NOT WHAT MATTERS HERE. So take it elsewhere. I think it's stupid to have to get another mediator involved in something that doesn't have anything to do with creating a non-biased article for Messianic Judaism. Ultimately, the article will never be totally deleted from wikipedia. Just because you don't like Messianic Judaism doesn't make it something that's not real to some people. Satanism gets a page and I don't agree with it. But I don't go on their talk page and tell them how their beliefs are a bunch of hooey. It's none of my business even tho they stand against all that I am. Analyze that however you want. Rivka 14:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm defending consensus and wiki policies. This isn't a debate over whether or not Messianic Judaism is a legitimate religion or whether or not the one variously called Jesus, Yeshua, Christ, et al is the Jewish Messiah. That sort of discussion, according to WP:NOT doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia, even in the User_talk namespace. My opinion on that subject is something that I haven't even represented here. 'Hate' would absolutely not be the word I'd have for it, though. This is a discussion of whether or not Messianic Judaism is to be considered a form of Judaism or a form of Christianity for purposes of this article, Judaism, Christianity, Wikiproject Christianity, Wikiproject Judaism and Wikiproject Jewish History. It is, therefore, a highly relevant discussion. WP:NPOV is itself a point of view, the point of view that represents all relevant points of view as fairly and equally as is humanly possible. This article is the property of the wikipedia community, not of Messianic Jews or Jews in general and therefore must reflect the consensus of the entire wikipedia community. Consensus is that Messianic Judaism is a form of Christianity. Remember, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, an anarchy or a democracy. Consensus is our method of resolving disputes, and this dispute has been (repeatedly) resolved by such means. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 15:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Rivka, I will oppose her, because she is wrong. I can't stand (or understand) the stupid, pathetic belief that majority is directly proportional to correctness. Because she repeatedly refuses to inspect the required reading concerning Messianic Judaism, it is apparent that it is not in her full interest to be educated in the subject. That's what should be governing the articles we write, not some vague concept of "concensus" from a editorbase that hardly knows subjects in depth in the first place. That is how "real" encyclopedias are written.

''Did you just refer to my so-called "beliefs" as being stupid? Are you the end-all-be-all in knowledge around here, or something? There is nothing apparent in what I wrote execpt a wish for the bickering to CEASE, since it IS stupid and useless. What "required reading" is there concerning Messianic Judaism? I AM Messianic. You don't know what I know or what I don't know. I don't say much here anymore because I have a JOB to tend to, and I'm VERY pregnant right now so I don't have the TIME to read every nonsensical statement provided here and to reply to it. I want you to know that I've taken your statement to be a personal attack against me. I just asked for people to focus on the situation at hand and not go all into their personal beliefs -- which is what seems to be happening on here, what with all the Jews on their anti-missionary kick and all the MJs on their "we're not Christians" kick. It's exhausting and fills up this page constantly. I simply feel that time would be better spent not pursuing such things because no one here on either side is going to change their views. So Why Not Focus On The Article and it Being NPOV and acceptable? Sheesh. Rivka 17:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)''

"Give some evidence of this besides Messianic sources which state their intent to convert Jews. A source with a goal that is not only blatantly obvious but plainly stated in their about us page cannot be considered objective."


 * Yes, it can, because in every single study, for every single article they always state their sources at the bottom of the page, signed and numbered, and at the beginning of a study always list the full library of sources they used and corresponding links to that source's Amazon.com page. They are well-versed in middle eastern history and religion. I consider that objective enough. Make sure you examine some of the Torah Parsha, they are wonderful: http://yashanet.com/shabbat/parsha.htm and http://www.cmy.on.ca/toraportions2000/torahportions.htm

"Well, considering the fact that the Mishnah postdate's Jesus's death by about 170 years and the Talmud Bavli by about 500-600, I have serious doubts that Jesus quoted from it. Unless Jesus had prophetic abilities (which would require a Christian rather than a Jewish worldview), it doesn't make any sense for him to be able to quote a book that didn't exist yet. Your source's credibility seems to be falling apart."


 * First of all, the dates you provide are when the works were assembled, not written. Also, because the Messiah is the closest possible physical comparison to G-d (and human because mankind is made in His image), you would only expect the Messiah to be utterly engrained with the knowledge of Torah and the truth about G-d, past, present, and future. Also, how would it require a Christian worldview? It was said in the Talmud that after Malachi, the prophecy passed from Israel, but unlike Sacred Scriptures, the Talmud is merely commentary and advice, of entirely valuable but also entirely human authorship. I'm stating no unique idea, but the one most commonly held within Judaism (Conservative thru Reconstructionist). Perhaps "quoted" was not even the best term to use; "moral teachings 100% compatible with those in the Talmud" is probably more fitting. Many of his teachings were also extremely similar to those of Rabbi Hillel.

"'Reedemer' is a Christian concept, by the way, not a Jewish one."


 * This response practically made me laugh. The Messiah is many things, and one is a redeemer. According to Orthodoxy, one of the Messiah's roles is to REDEEM Israel and the Jews from the evil and suffering that has overcome them, into a glorious existance with HaShem. From the very earliest section of the Torah (temptation of Adam), it is made crystal-clear that mankind is in some redemptory need.

"You nonetheless consider them canon above the responsa of any given rabbi. Christianity."


 * There are hundreds if not thousands of rabbis in Messianic Judaism. Speaking of Shaul himself? He was a Pharisaic, Orthodox Rabbi. How do we know this? Let's start with the fact that he stated this in his own letters. Don't be a six-year-old about it. Simply stating that Messianic rabbis are not authentic Jewish rabbis is profoundly ignorant; they are no less educated in halacha, Torah, and the Oral Tradition than other rabbis.

"I have serious doubts about that. 'Orthodox' is generally a bad term to use anyway for reasons irrelevant to this discussion, but one of the hallmarks of Orthodox Judaism is adherence to Judaism, not Christianity."


 * Why is Orthodox a dirty word? I agree with you, one of the hallmarks of Orthodox Judaism is adherance to Judaism not Christianity, which the founders of Yashanet do not practice. How is that difficult for you to contemplate?

"Chabad at least in part believes that the Rebbe was the Mashiach. I've started to wonder if a Lubavitcher Jew can really be considered Jewish religiously speaking, but that's another question entirely."


 * Lubavitcher Jews are Jewish religiously speaking because they believe in the necessity of observing Torah, one true G-d, and the Oral Tradition. That's Judaism by every standard I know of.

"What you believe, or what I believe, is immaterial."


 * Did I say everything in this discussion was directly and intimately tied to the textual content of the article? You said fundamentalist, and because that isn't the case it beared explanation.

"I never said they weren't. Violence against you by Charedim does not make your religion a form of Judaism, though. By the way, most non-Charedi movements have been the target of Charedi violence in the past, so your argument is irrelevant."


 * Christians and Muslims are given near-equal protection under Israeli law to Orthodox Jews in legal issues such as marriage. It is ultimately unjust and ironic that Masorti (Conservative), Reform, and Messianic Jews do not enjoy the same rights of recognition. According to the state of Israel, they don't exist. The Haredim have serious problems with Conservative, Reform, and Messianic Jews even going to the Western Wall to pray. This is beyond acts of violence: this is the story of 5-10% having more voice than 90-95%, with little dialogue as to why.


 * Now, the number of reputable sources about Yeshua would be legion within the rest of the Jewish world if Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform decided to begin treating Rabbi Yeshua as some form of issue within their own interests rather than a non-issue. Presently, they don't seem to be doing this (at least, not very publically).


 * The feast of Sukkot will be celebrated. Here is one interesting way to learn about why it is celebrated: http://www.rabbiyeshua.com/articles/2001/ushpizin.html


 * Of course, I would be surprised if you didn't take the normal route and simply reconcile to yourself: "they practice Judaism no fundamentally differently than most other religious Jews, but because they believe that Jesus is the Messiah, they're Christian missionaries very well disguised." And thus comfortable ignorance triumphs. Luzadi7 00:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Luzadi7: this is a wrong place for sermons. The fact is, it's not Kari that you have problems with, it is the mainstream Judaism. Please do read WP:NOT. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not even going to bother giving the above a response. We have content-management policies, developed by consensus, and we have a reason for having them. If you have a problem with the policies, propose changes. If you don't want to work within the Wiki system to make an encyclopedia of verifiable facts, why are you really here? Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 17:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * All well understood, Kari. While I am here, one of my goals at Wikipedia is to fight for the verbal rights of Messianic Judaism to be represented as it actually is. I'm not sure just how well concencus is going to work for that (considering that RJs greatly outnumber MJs here, and most of the former have no interest in systematically examining B'rit Chadasha for validity, almost out of some strange feeling that pesky "other" Jewish Scripture will "corrupt" them). It is important to understand that Judaism by no means has to be completely Maimonidean (it wasn't for thousands of years!). Messianic Jews agree with most of his 13 principles and his rationalized way of looking at Judaism (in fact, the only truly major objection is the "I believe with perfect faith" that prefaces each stated principle, because noone truly believes with a perfect level of faith), but the man knew virtually nothing about Yeshua, though pretended to. When referring to him Maimonedes regularly made the statement "may his bones be ground to dust", quite violent and disturbing. He made sweeping and incorrect statements such as "Jesus taught against the Torah" and "His father was a gentile", and various other remarks without any shred of truth to them. Perhaps his eyes were blinded with tears from antisemetism, wrongly commited in the Messiah's name (actually, every problem RJs have with Yeshua seems to stem from what was wrongly done in his name, rather than any focus on his Jewish teachings). Christians are no more sympathetic to Messianic Judaism, because MJ carries the distinct and direct challenge that their faith (or at least, how they practice it) is completely wrong. One of the heroes of the cause is Michael Rood (http://www.michaelrood.com/about.htm and http://www.michaelrood.com/index.htm), who, if I am not mistaken, is an Orthodox Jewish proselyte by conversion.


 * P.S.: Another discovery! Refer to Talmud, Yoma 39b, where it is said that the Yom Kippur sacrifice was rejected by G-d for 40 years before the Temple was destroyed, which, consequently, is exactly when Yeshua passed from this world (a generation before the destruction of the Temple. :)


 * Luzadi7 20:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Consensus is the means we use in order to determine our policies and our content. It doesn't matter what you think is true or what you believe is true, regardless of how strongly you think it. If consensus rejects it, consensus rejects it and that's all there is to it. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 03:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)