Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

"other Christians"

I recently changed the phrase "other Christians in America" in the Reception section to "some Christians in America". The edit was reverted User:Avraham; I don't have a problem with the revert, but I still think the wording is just slightly in violation of policy. To me it looks like a clear-cut case of WP:YESPOV ("Avoid stating opinions as fact."). I'm making no judgement as to whether Messianics are Jews or not, but I think we need to be as neutral as possible. While there are sources that would state definitively that they are Christians, there are also sources that would say that they're not. Where opinions are a matter of dispute (as they are here), NPOV requires that we avoid stating those opinions as if they were facts. I believe that "some Christians" is as neutral as possible, and doesn't compromise any level of accuracy. But I would appreciate any and all input on this topic. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

However, the vast majority of the sources, not our opinions, are clear that it is Christianity, and it is only a minority that beleive it is not. As such, I believe that WP:NPOV, and in specific the phrase "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources," would indicate that an implication that MJ is not Christianity would be giving undue weight to the minority opinion. I, too, welcome all input and, as always, reserve the right to change my mind due to cogent, well-formulated, and convincing arguments. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It would really help if I saw a bit more of the context of the change, rather than just the phrase itself. So far as I can tell, as a citizen of the US, there are a rather large number of Christian groups which are not counted as fully Christian by other Christian groups, so I myself have some questions about the use of the comparative word "some," because it lacks context. Also, so far as I have seen, there is a general concensus among academics that the MJs are Christians of some sort, although there are some Christian groups which question that. In this particular instance, I might favor something like "some Christians [preferably substituted with more descriptive terms or names of groups if possible] do not believe MJs qualify as Christian because [reason]." That would seem to me to be the most informative and useful phrasing possible. However, I myself have reservations about the use of the nonspecific "other", which might be seen by some as indicating all other Christians, as well as with the word "some" without additional modifiers. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

As reliable sources in the article already point out, "while many evangelical Churches are openly supportive of Messianic Judaism, they treat it as an ethnic church squarely within evangelical Christianity, rather than as a separate entity". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You are all right in pointing out that the preponderance of RS's consider adherents of Messianic Judaism to be Christian, but I think that's exactly what WP:YESPOV is addressing here:

"Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that 'genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.'"

As I understand it, to apply that policy to this article would be to make no judgement, sourced or not, as to whether or not adherents of MJism are Jews or Christians. It's my understanding that that's one of the reasons we don't call it a "Christian religious movement" (or something of the sort) in the lede or elsewhere in the article. We can state that the sources have the opinion that MJism is a branch of Christianity, or of the Church, etc. But we cannot state any opinion as a fact; since there is no objective, scientific method of determining someone's religious affiliation, those sources are expressing only opinions. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You make a valid point, Evan. I'd want to review the pertinent policies in that light. However, the phrase under discussion has been unsourced for 11 months now, and, as such, I have removed it from the article, which also goes to make this particular issue moot for the time being. Should a source be found, we can come up with a better way to phrase it. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that solves it, then, I think. I certainly don't object to unsourced material being removed. Cheers! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Weasel Words

I don't recall any recent discussion of "weasel words". I will remove the tag for now, but if I am forgetting ongoing issues, please list them here and then restore the tag if necessary. -- Avi (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Not about improving the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can you draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which you let down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.179.9 (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how the above comment makes any sense whatsoever, actually, and support Avi on the removal of the weasel words tag until and unless specific indications of use of weasel words in the text are given. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I was the one who put the weasel tag there. I just looked again and I still see the same WP:WEASEL-y sentences, like:

• "Some adherents of Messianic Judaism are ethnically Jewish, and many of them argue that the movement is a sect of Judaism"
• "Some Messianic Jews affirm both the Shema and the Trinity..."
• "Some Messianic believers profess only a strict view of monotheism, rejecting Trinitarian doctrine, but this is not common."
• "Most Messianic Jews, in line with mainstream Christian theology, consider Jesus to be the Messiah and divine as God the Son."
• "Many also consider Jesus to be their "chief teacher and rabbi" whose life should be copied."
• "Many English-speaking Messianic Jews prefer to refer to Jesus by the Hebrew name "Yeshua" rather than by the English name "Jesus"."
• "Certain congregations outside mainstream Messianic Jewish belief do not ascribe divinity to Jesus, with some considering him a man, fathered by the Holy Spirit, who became the Messiah."

among others. Some of these are supported by possibly/probably cherry-picked primary sources like websites of individual congregations. I'm not really actively editing this article at this time, so I'll leave it up to you guys to determine whether to put the weasel tag back and what to do with these sorts of sentences. Zad68 19:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"Some," "many," and "certain" are fairly clearly weasel words of a sort. I'm not sure if there have ever been anything like "census numbers" on the MJs, which might be problematic as I'm not sure that there exists a standard "definition" of Messianic Judaism, or whether any polls have been given to the effect of "(X)% of MJ's believe (x)." But let me look to see what I can find. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that this is pretty weasly. "Some" certainly may believe certain things, but that doesn't inform us about how prominent and influential those beliefs are, nor how many the word "some" represents. Could be 10,000 or could be 4. Eastcote (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

As a self-organizing movement without an heirarchical governing body, there is no clear unifying set of beliefs. There is also currently scant scholarly research on the movement. Even finding a count on the number of congregations is problematic, though 10k would be 'some' and 4 would be 'a few' (and thus not worth mentioning).--DeknMike (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If there is "scant scholarly research" to support the claims then we should remove the claims. We depend on scholarly research to do our articles. If the research doesn't exist, per WP:OR, we must not attempt to do it ourselves. As Jimbo Wals said, "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information." Zad68 14:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If there were RS's that specifically said something like "some MJ's believe..." that statement could certainly be included in a direct quotation. Alternately, if RS's were found which said something like for instance, "Chosen People Ministries and associated groups believe...." that could probably be included as well. Any instances like that, where we could use some sort of specific name or names instead of the weasel words, or where the weasel words could be included in a direct quote, might be acceptable. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem with articles like this, as mentioned above, is that there is extremely little third-party coverage of the specific beliefs and practices that are common within the movement. There are a great deal of web-based Messianic congregations and the like (which are acceptable sources for some statements, but we need to be careful how we word the material), but other than that most of the coverage it gets is from anti-missionary Rabbinic organizations and certain Christian groups. To my knowledge, there really hasn't been an in-depth independent scholarly analysis of the movement.

So, in order to make sure that we don't have a dearth of information, we shouldn't (and are not required by any policy or guideline to) discount primary sources entirely. As John Carter said, we just need to be careful about how we use them. The concern over weasel words is a legitimate one, though I'm not sure, with the current sourcing situation, there is a more preferable way to word those statements. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Evan, again, "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information." WP:PRIMARY sources are very difficult to use, and nearly impossible to use without a WP:SECONDARY: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." (emphasis mine)--this is policy. What is currently in the article right now clearly violates WP:PRIMARY policy and really must be fixed, for example:

• In the lead(!): "some within the movement do not hold to Trinitarian beliefs" sourced to primary source The Jerusalem Council's statement. I challenge you to read the statement and explain how it supports the article text without interpreting it yourself (doing so is forbidden by policy).
• "Some Messianic Jews affirm both the Shema and the Trinity, by understanding that the phrase "the Lord is One" to be referring to "a differentiated but singular deity,”[71] and "eternally existent in plural oneness."[72] Source 71 is an MJ blog, source 72 is a position statement of a particular association of MJ groups, both primary sources, and the article interprets these primary sources against policy by saying they "affirm the Shema and the Trinity."
• "Worship services are generally held on Friday evenings (Erev Shabbat) or Saturday mornings.[122]" This is another kind of misuse of WP:PRIMARY. Source 122 (a dead link now) is to Rick Reinckens' personal website (fails WP:SPS), and it appears he has since scrubbed the "Messianic Judaism" angle of his site--he appears to now equate "Messianic" with "Protestant." Assuming the original page can be found, this primary source is generalized to the practices of all of MJism.

and that's just a small sample. It's very dangerous to use WP:PRIMARY sources in this way to support religious statements especially, because (as you can see above and in the article), primary statements of religious movement insiders can be inscrutable, and must be interpreted by a reliable secondary source for us to use them. In fact, it's beyond "very dangerous," it is disallowed by policy. Zad68 15:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me first say that this article is a lot better than it used to be. In the past year, Avraham and I and several other editors have made great strides in removing the vast majority of weasel-word statements. But it's still not perfect. This article is chock-full of problems, and you've rightly pointed out a couple of them. Regarding the Jerusalem Council thing, I think it's pretty clear that it's disowning, at least in name, trinitarian beliefs. So based on that, we can say that there is at least one Messianic congregation that doesn't believe in the Trinity (and there are others). Prior to an edit I made earlier this year, the Jerusalem Council source was being cited to a statement which implied that trinitarian beliefs are ubiquitous within the Messianic movement. That's just flat-out wrong; regardless of how one wants to read the source, it would be an exceptional display of mental gymnastics to infer that, based on a handful of primary sources, we can conclude one thing or another about the beliefs and practices of the entire movement. That's not a matter of interpretation; Jerusalem Council flat out says that their view is that trinitarianism as a theological construct is incompatible with the other views they espouse.

So the alternative, perhaps, is to remove all mention of trinitarianism entirely, until we can get an accurate (that being the key word) appraisal from a reliable secondary source.

As to your second point, without delving deeply into the sources myself (I'll do so soon), I'm not actually seeing the problem. If the sources mention the Shema and the Trinity, it's not interpretation to say that they affirm both. We're just mentioning two things in which they happen to believe in the same sentence.

I agree with your third point entirely, and I think generalization is a major problem with the article, both in the past and as it currently stands. But the root of the problem, as I said before, is the lack of sources. On that note, I think we can all agree that the use of primary sources in this article should be minimized to the degree possible. I see John Carter and Deknmike have mentioned some secondary sources below, of which I was not previously aware. I'll look into it. Thanks. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

very confusing article

Pardon me for ignorance, but I think the introduction of this article is very misleading. If I'm not mistaken they are just evangelical christians trying to appropriate jewish rituals and pratices? There are congregations in my city and not a single one of them have jews, yet the article mentions that "Some adherents of Messianic Judaism are ethnically Jewish" and that jews started the movement (while simultaneously claim the movement is just an off-shot of jews for jesus). Isn't the history section very biased? There is no historical or traditional connections between early christianity and mj. And how the criticism section be so small when not a single jewish religious authority recognize them as legitimate, yet they call themselves a jewish religion? 201.29.224.144 (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the article is education. As the history section indicates, a significant number of what are commonly called christians were - in the first century CE - jewish. Some within the movement insist on a connection and that paragraph was left in deference to them. As for your observation of a particular congregation acting jewish but not being jewish, that is one problem in the modern movement. Examination of the wide swath of congregations worldwide finds some to be exclusively jewish, using none of the christian forms, and some on the other end of the spectrum being christian churches who have overlaid some forms of jewish ritual and terms on their services (often Kabala) and calling themselves messianic. However, the mainstream sections of the movement (MJAA, UMJC, Chosen People, AMC, etc) hold to a conservative or orthodox liturgy and practice, led by jews or mixed-race jews (one gentile parent), which has been modified to incorporate christian beliefs more in line with their interpretation of first century theology. As for the jewish religious authorities' lack of endorsement, that was also the case in the first century.--DeknMike (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Reception among Jews

The ‘Specific response to Messianic Judaism’ subsection within ‘Reception among Jews’ is particularly non-encyclopedic, reading instead like an opposition position paper.-I have condensed the text but kept all the references. My edit follows:

Mainstream Jewish organizations object to the movement using the name “Messianic Judaism” and claim use of the term is misleading; they explain that while Judaism is a messianic religion, its messiah is not Jesus, , . Most American Jews see the person of Jesus as a clear dividing line between Christianity and Judaism, and therefore Messianic Judaism is perceived to be incompatible with any form of Jewishness. .

Several counter-missionary organizations, such as Outreach Judaism and Jews for Judaism oppose Messianic Judaism on theological grounds, usually from an Orthodox Jewish perspective. The Reform Conference affirms that claiming that Jesus as savior removes that person from the Jewish community as an apostate.

Some, such as Canadian B'nai Brith, consider Messianic activities as antisemitic incidents.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DeknMike (talk • contribs)

I 100% agree with DeknMike that this section is WP:UNDUE as it is far too large and detailed. I generally like the direction of DeknMike's proposed rewrite although some of the wording and details need a bit of work. Zad68 14:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that DeknMike's re-worked version is more succinct, I do not think the principle of WP:UNDUE applies here. WP:UNDUE says that "articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views". If Messianic Judaism is indeed a form of "Judaism", then it is the Messianics who hold the "minority" view, and mainstream Judaism that holds the "more widely held view" of what it is to be a Jew. With this in mind, the core issue of the identification of Messianic Jews as either Christian or Jewish, but not both, deserves more than brief mention. Eastcote (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I myself disagree whether DUE applies in the way the above editor implies. The subject of this article is the MJs, not the Jews. While the MJ position would be a minotiry opinion among the Jews, and in articles about Judaism, the MJ position is clearly the majority position among the MJs themselves, I think, and on that basis, for the purposes of this article, their opinion is the majority opinion. It would be different in articles about Judaism per se, of course.Taking that into account, the proposed changes are good, but like Zad68 I think they would need some tweaking before they could be added. Also, having not been particularly involved in the discussion recently, I think it might help if the exact quotations or links were provided for the above claims from the Jewish perspective, because I am myself a bit too lazy to look everything up but I do realize that we want to convey as accurately as possible the opinions of the Jews, and also avoid any OR regarding claims of what "most" Jews think. I'm not sure I see that specifically sourced in the comments, although I might have missed it. John Carter (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism is indeed a minority view. The somewhat extreme analogy to illustrate the point would be the Flat Earth Society. Certainly, among Flat Earthers, the majority (unanimous?) view is that the Earth is flat. That does not make their's a "majority" view in the sense intended by WP:UNDUE, even for purposes of an article specific to that topic. It is a fringe view. Granted, matters of belief cannot be proven or disproven by science in the way that the shape of the Earth can. However, within the whole that is Judaism -- and Messianic Jews claim to be part of that whole -- theirs is certainly a minority view. The views of the majority within that whole should be represented prominently relative to who is or isn't a Jew. Eastcote (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There would be no justification for trimming away some of the material that is a direct consequence of the naming choices of the movement. A nondescript term was not chosen. Jews are responding to the confusion introduced by a relatively new Abrahamic religion calling itself "Judaism" but embracing as central tenets such concepts as the Messiahship of Jesus. The magnitude of this issue argues against trimming back material relating to it. Bus stop (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Eastcote, and Bus stop, I do indeed mean WP:UNDUE. For an article to avoid WP:UNDUE, the emphasis the article should give to each viewpoint about the subject needs to be in proportion to the viewpoints found in reliable sources. By WP:UNDUE here, I mean that if you were to take all the information reliable sources have to say about the subject, the amount of emphasis the article gives to each viewpoint should be in proportion to the emphasis the sources give--and "emphasis" is often determined by the amount of space the article devotes to the viewpoint. Nearly one quarter of Messianic Judaism is taken up with criticism (called "Reception") of it. To avoid WP:UNDUE, roughly one quarter of all the information reliable sources have to say about MJism would have to be criticism. I really don't think this is the case. Yes, the (nearly) universally negative critical reception MJism has gotten from Judaism (and also several branches of Christianity) is notable and should be included, but it shouldn't take up a quarter of the article. Zad68 14:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that there is significant controversy about MJ is itself extremely noteworthy, and it is not undue weight to discuss this. I agree the criticism should not take over the article, but it should not be minimized. The "reception" section contains information concerning various controversies within Judaism itself, in Israel, and in the US military. There are volumes of "sources" out there specific to MJ, but they are generally written by MJ organizations themselves. MJ is by its nature a proselytising movement, and generates "sources" as part of that proselytising effort. This has to be taken into account when determining what is or isn't a reliable source. Wikipedia does not consider a group's own PR to be necessarily reliable. There are ample reliable sources (that may or may not address MJ directly) that state that "Jewish" is incompatible with a belief in salvation through Jesus. The controversy surrounding Jewish identity and MJ is central even to the definition of MJ. The weasling discussed above includes phrasing such as "some adherents of Messianic Judaism are ethnically Jewish". Does this mean "most" are not? If MJ defines its members as Jews, yet only "some" are ethnically Jewish, then who are the rest? Because this question of identity is central to the beliefs of MJ, and also central to controversy concerning them, then controversy and criticism should be relatively prominent. Eastcote (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying zero, I'm saying less, and in proportion with what's found in the reliable sources.

The self-promoting MJ materials are WP:PRIMARY and if we could (as discussed in the other section above) get the article to comply with policy by removing so much of the material dependent on primary sources and replace it with secondary-supported material, we could solve that problem. Fixing the primary issues as pointed out would condense the article, and then the suggested size of the criticism section would make sense. Both need to happen. Zad68 16:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree a discussion of the movement should include note of significant opposition from Judaism and some parts of Christianity. My point was to remove the copy/paste enumeration of a couple of primary source authors providing interpretive claims detailing their organization's opposition to the movement. I left all references to avoid the appearance that I was conducting a scorched earth revision of the material.--DeknMike (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Available reliable sources

As some of you might know, Highbeam Research and other newsbanks have some information available on the subject of the MJs, including most of the academic journal articles on the subjects and several book reviews. I can and will e-mail to anyone who requests them and gives me their e-mail address the reviews and journal articles I can find. I do think in this case it would be useful to have separate articles on the major books on the topic which meet notability, so that we can know the academic views of those books, as well as the material in the academic journals and other highly reliable sources. Like I said, drop me an e-mail with your own e-mail address and I can send anyone who requests it the information I can find. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That's an excellent source. I've already read a couple articles I linked from there, including one from the Minneapolis Star Tribune from January 11, 2008, which has the director of organizational development for the Minnesota Council of Churches calling MJ a "denominational no-man's land" He notes "They call themselves Jewish but the Jews don't accept them. And the Christians don't relate to them. They're a loose band that exists all by themselves." [1] --DeknMike (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Minneapolis' Star Tribune did an article on one of their local Messianic congregations in 2008. It cites two Messianic rabbis and a pastor with the Minnesota Council of Churches. The article says "Although the MJAA was founded in 1915, the Messianic movement really came into its own thanks to cultural forces beginning in the late 1960s." The article notes that "Jews for Jesus was founded in the mid-1970s, but is not officially associated with either of the national Messianic organizations." Perhaps that's where some of the confusion lies. Some people believe that J4J is the penultimate Messianic organization, when in reality it is a Christian missions group staffed primarily by Jews who are friendly to the Messianic movement. The article also supports the Jewish opposition to the movement paragraph: "Rothman's parents were shunned by some members of their Conservative Jewish synagogue when he broke away from the fold" and "Messianic Jews are left facing the worst of both religious worlds. They're subject to anti-Semitism by some non-Jews and shunned by some of their fellow Jews. It could be worse. In Israel, Messianic synagogues have been burned down in protest." http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/13707616.html?refer=y --DeknMike (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

edits of 11/25

Hi. The recent edits have not been sourced. Posting an internet link to the Bible verse you are interpreting is not referencing. Your interpretation of any verse of the Bible, or the Talmud, or even the Koran is not relevant here. It may very well be what you are claiming may be true. What you will need to show is some publication (possibly a theology text, or a magazine devoted to religion) that states what you are trying to state in the article and reference that, not your interpretation of a Bible verse. What you are doing is called original research, and that is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is deemed a tertiary source. That means that we only report on what others have written. We don't publish anyone's direct interpretations of anything. That would be true of medicine, theology, philosophy, anything. Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above. No Bible verse is in and of itself considered sufficient sourcing for any matter of theology or practice of any Christian group, as they have not only widely differing phrasings according to their various translations but also widely different interpretations of the phrasings. This topic is, much to my personal regret, one of the most contentious religious topics, at least in part due to the rather inadequate discussion of the topic at any real length in independent reliable sources. I very sincerely wish that were not the case, but my wishes don't really matter. The fact that there are more than one theological "schools" within the MJ movement doesn't help either. I am more than willing to forward to anyone requesting the most relevant material I can find on the subject from the various subscription databanks available to me, although I very much doubt anyone would want me to send them the comparative mountain of material which discusses only single incidents, local events, and the like, which seems to be most of the independent reliably sourced material on this topic. I wish that there were more that could be done, but the lack of good sourcing makes that problematic. John Carter (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

As the first user to revert last night, I guess it’s appropriate for me to comment here. I think Gtwfan52 and John Carter have adequately identified the problems with the edits themselves, so I won’t needlessly reiterate them. What I would like to say, though, is that I think any time an article is identified as having any kind of bias, even if the person making the claim is themselves biased, it deserves to be looked into. I and others have done a significant amount of work to improve the neutrality and accuracy of the article, but there is still work to be done. As I’ve said before, a large part of the problem is that the movement is not monolithic. There are many subtleties to be considered and many potentially euphemistic self-definitions to be worked through. In short, if this article ever stops attracting some level of controversy, I think it might be time to worry.

I am not a member of the movement, but I have done a significant amount of research into primary sources on the topic, and it is regrettable that the majority of them do not meet the requirements of WP:SELFSOURCE. Based on that research, though, I can say that the article doesn’t do justice to the variety of beliefs held by Messianic Jews. In cases like this, I think it’s always helpful to have the input of editors who are sympathetic to the article’s subject, and we should do our best to encourage that to the extent possible without compromising on quality. I think it would be great if we could set a goal to work this article up to Good Article status sometime next year. I am confident that we can work out any outstanding POV and neutrality issues in the meantime.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the above? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

My only purpose in posting here was to get the active participants on this article talking. By design, I try to stay away from religious articles (with the exception of religious music) simply because they are such contentious subjects. But I do hate drama on the project and I came here last night with the sole purpose of trying to stimulate some talk after seeing a bit about this article elsewhere. Best of luck to all involved and many thanks to Mr Carter, whose sage advice is always welcome. Happy editing! Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(e-c) I agree that the article gives the impression that MJs are much more monolithic than the facts would warrant. I also note that academic journals and other sources refer to multiple historical groups as being forms of "Messianic Judaism", including the NRM the Twelve Tribes, which is described by some sources as a restoration of 1st century Messianic Judaism. Personally, I've always found the easiest way to try to structure an article is along the lines of the structure of articles in other reference sources, but Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions is the only such substantial encyclopedic content I know of, and it is probably too short to be of much use that way. I am willing to do what I can to try to help, though. John Carter (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think there are enough real sources to make a GA out of this article. The current sourcing needs to be gutted and the article largely rewritten. I am sure it will take some effort to keep well-meaning editors from adding lots of primary-sourced or WP:OR content, but that's true for many other articles which have made it to GA. I probably won't be a driving force doing the editing here but will offer input. Zad68 04:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

My profoundest apologies

to everyone when I stupidly indicated that I couldn't find many extant reference sources regarding this topic. I wasn't looking in the right place. There are two substantial articles on Messianic Judaism in encyclopedias of Charismatic and Pentecostal Christianity. I just didn't think to look there. That was, really, stupid of me, and I offer my apologies to all for that mistake. I have e-mailed the two main articles from those books to Jayjg, Zad68, and Evanh2008, and also kept some copies for myself. I think they might very easily serve as very useful in developing this article, although, I admit, I did find some of the material in them surprising. John Carter (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi John, I started to look at the sources you sent. They are both tertiary sources edited by Stanley M. Burgess. Burgess seems to be a very good academic, he holds a Ph.D. in religious studies and has been a university professor, and his works are well-regarded. Something to notice is that he is involved with evangelic Christian academic institutions--he taught at Evangel College, he is on the Board of Trustees at Oral Roberts University, and he has works published by Zondervan. I would expect this would color his perspective.

The first work is an article by Johannes Fichtenbauer in Burgess's (as editor) Encyclopedia of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity. The publisher of the work is Routledge Taylor & Francis, a good academic publisher. But looking further, Fichtenbauer is a Catholic deacon, a leader in the "ENC" evangelical movement, and an executive with "Toward Jerusalem Council II" (TJCII) which concerns Jewish-Gentile "reconciliation." The TJCII vision statement makes clear that they are involved in the promotion of the Messianic Judaism movement and evangelism of Jews. I have significant concerns that Fichtenbauer's work will not be distanced and indepenent enough from the Messianic Judaism movement to be used without qualification or attribution.

The second work is an article by Daniel C. Juster in Burgess's (as editor) The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. This is published by Zondervan, which is not an academic publisher but rather an evangelical Christian press (mission statement: "To be the leader in Christian communications meeting the needs of people with resources that glorify Jesus Christ and promote biblical principles."). Daniel Juster is an active religious leader in the Messianic Judaism movement and founder of the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations. He is clearly connected to and involved in a specific Messianic Judaism movement and his work can only be used with attribution.

So, the sources you sent are interesting but they need to be used carefully and in a limited way. I think we have other sources that would be better to use. Zad68 17:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Factual editorial suggestions

The article currently states: Pre-19th century Efforts by Jewish Christians to proselytize Jews go back to the first Century when Paul preached first at the synagogues in each city he visited. Suggested addition: Jesus (Yeshua) of Nazareth began his ministry to the Jewish people many years before Paul. Most of Jesus' first disciples, and all of the 12 apostles, were Jewish. So the Jesus movement, now called Messianic Judaism, or began with the ministry of Jesus himself. The 12 apostles then continued outreach to Jewish people and gentiles, joined later by the apostle Paul and others.

The article currently states: Messianic Judaism is a syncretic[1] religious movement that arose in the 1960s and 70s.[9] Suggested change: Messianic Judaism began with the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. His Jewish followers were part of the wider Jewish community. Later a separation developed in the Jewish community between the Jewish people who followed Jesus and those who did not. When the Jesus movement or "church" became predominantly Gentile, another division happened between Jewish and gentile believers in Jesus. So the Messianic movement of the 1960s and 70s was not a new syncretism combining elements of evangelical Christianity and Judaism, but the reemergence of the movement Jesus began in the First Century. Since then, Jewish believers in Jesus have been trying to rediscover what it means to be disciples of Jesus, but in a modern context.

Thanks and God bless,

Yoel85.250.80.97 (talk) 15:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the suggested change is that it is, basically, not supported by the independent reliable sources. I found two sources above, both of which are in reference works, which (I think) have received substantially good reviews in other sources, which if I remember specifically state that the current "Messianic Judaism" is a recent development of largely Evangelical type which, if I remember the phrasing accurately, follows more or less "standard" Evangelical beliefs and theology, but which has chosen to phrase those beliefs in specifically Jewish language. If I remember correctly, neither of the articles I sent out even explicitly stated that the MJs were "Jews" at all. Also, it should be noted that you have provided no sources to support the specific changes you wish to make, and all content must be supported by independent reliable sources. John Carter (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Well said, John. There is a strand within current religious life that has created a "Messianic Landmarkism" which argues that the early church changed the teachings and practices of Jesus & the disciples to accommodate the gentiles, and their brand of what they call Messianic Judaism is (in their lexicon) the only true expression of first century faith. Without arguing that particular point, it is not the mainstream position within most of the Messianic Jewish denominations. The focus of this article is on the movement as it exists in the modern context, eg. a Jewish-themed evangelical movement supporting Jesus as the promised Messiah.--DeknMike (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

There is an EXTREME BIAS in the article by saying Messianic Judaism is a recent phenomenon. Christianity arose out of Judaism. Is anybody seriously going to dispute this? The New Testament contains four gospels recording story of Jesus, his life and mission. The remainder of the New Testament chronicles the spread of the believers in Jesus as the Messiah. The real question is why someone is not going to accept the New Testament as a reliable source of information regarding the spread of Christianity. Is anybody really going to question the Jewish origins of Christianity? It ought not to be controversial that the first individuals to believe in Jesus were Jewish. It ought not be controversial that part of that belief was that those first believes accepted Jesus and the Jewish Messiah. It was only after a few centuries that the divide between Jews and gentile believers in Jesus result in a distinct religion. This is basic history in which no real scholar will dispute. DeknMike does is at least honest to frame the issue within a more modern context of say the last 75 years or so. But if that is the case then the article ought to state it is an analysis of the Messianic Judaism within the last 75 years. But there are basic errors in even quoting the sources which dates Modern Judaism to 1960. For instance, the same source which dates the movement to 1960 also dates back to 1880!!! Feher, Shoshanah. Passing over Easter: Constructing the Boundaries of Messianic Judaism, Rowman Altamira, 1998, ISBN 978-0-7619-8953-0, p. 143. The article is deliberately provocative when it begins by stating the movement is syncretic religious movement. Now if all that is meant by this is that it combines elements of the Evangelical Christian movement with elements of more traditional Judaism that would be fine. The problem of this is that it is misleading. Compare the opening words for Wikipedia's entry for "Judaism". It begins by providing some word definitions and explains Judaism is a monotheistic religion. A fairer introduction would be to say that Messianic Judaism is a monotheistic religion which accepts the Christian Trinitarian formula for God. There is nothing to preclude an explanation that traditional Judaism rejects the belief that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. This is not, however, a justification for opening an article describing the Messianic Judaism as a syncretic movement. The syncretic opening is also inaccurate in the sense that it seeks to elevate cultural distinctiveness to a place of importance over doctrinal issues. Messianic Judaism accept falls well within the orthodoxy of traditional Christian beliefs. Olympic1012 (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Improving the article

Hi, everyone! As we discussed some time back, I intend to work with others here to take this article through either a GA review or (if I have the time) an FAC. What I'd like to ask of everyone is what in particular you might feel is currently amiss in the article; anything that causes any issue at all, whether it be policy violations (neutrality and the like) or simply something that impedes the most comprehensive range of coverage possible. Next month I intend to put the article through a major overhaul to address outstanding issues, and I welcome the help and input of anyone and everyone who is interested in assisting with that. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "something that impedes the most comprehensive range of coverage possible." Can you clarify that? Do you have something in mind specifically that "impedes the most comprehensive range of coverage possible"? Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, if I remember correctly, there was concern expressed at one point that the article focused too much on Messianic Judaism vis a vis Orthodox and other movements within mainstream Judaism, to the detriment of coverage of the particular beliefs and practices unique to MJism. I apologize if any of my wording was unclear; I haven't slept in a while. :) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

But is there the possibility of separating out the term and concept of "Judaism" as found in Judaism from the term and concept of "Judaism" as found in Messianic Judaism? Or are they to a great extent linked? Bus stop (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on whom you ask. There is a fine line to be walked between laying out competing claims neutrally and elevating one side of the argument over the other. While presenting certain MJ claims as fact (MJism as the legitimate outgrowth of Jesus' original ministry, for example) would introduce WP:NPOV issues and likely violate WP:FRINGE, there are also similar issues (WP:NPOV at least) With flat-out categorizing it as a Christian denomination without qualification. I think I said earlier that since there is no objective measure of "Jewish-ness", it's really a matter of laying out the claims ("MJs are just as Jewish as others who claim that descriptor" versus "MJs are Christians masquerading as Jews for the purposes of proselytizing") in as netural a manner as possible, without making a judgement call or presenting one of the claims as truth. That means that neither side of the debate should be minimized in preference to the other. We have more leeway at an article like this with WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE than we would at, for example, the article Judaism. Going into some amount of detail regarding the self-understanding of Messianic Jews is expected at an article like this, whereas there it would be clearly out of place.

Regarding the issue of the two being "linked", I think it's clear that there is a link. MJs see themselves as an outgrowth of Biblical Judaism, so it's neither desirable nor possible to completely sever the two. The issue to be addressed is how that link is best described within the context of this article, and that's what discussion and reliable sources will help us determine. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

They are "linked" by the identical term: Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course, but the article must deal with their relationship beyond the mere sharing of a word. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Generally two different things have two different words representing them. Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, yes. I'm not sure what that has to do with the article, but that's true. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that something is "generally" the case does not mean that it is "specifically" the case. Also, there is another question as to whether the current forms of Judaism are the only forms of Judaism. Some, although apparently not all, MJs really do see themselves as being a form of "Jewish revivalism", and it would certainly make sense to indicate that in the article. Honestly, the same can be said about any number of dubiously Christian groups, like for instance the Mormons. More than one other Christian group has said that they are not Christian in any meaningful sense at all, but we still describe them as such. If someone can produce specific more or less doctrinal statements from Jewish groups regarding Messianic Judaism, that would certainly be acceptable, but probably would not merit any particularly great level of coverage in this, the main article on the topic, unless it clearly addresses MJs as a whole and can point out specific areas regarding each of the various groups which they see disqualify them as being "Jews". Given the broad number of MJ groupings out there, I would be rather stunned if that has been done. The fact that in a popular sense Jews do not consider MJs Jews is another matter entirely, but even there, I don't remember much if any content relating to that issue in the reference book articles I found and e-mailed out, so I tend to tink it probably doesn't deserve much more weight here. John Carter (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Evanh2008, there are huge swathes of this article that are not supported by reliable secondary sources. This is particularly acute in the "Theology and core doctrines", "Religious practices", and "Culture" sections, where almost every source used is primary, and few are reliable. If you could find reliable secondary sourcing for these sections it would be very helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree, every good article needs to start with good sourcing and this article doesn't have good sourcing. It appears maybe a third of refs listed are primary sources for the particular beliefs of a variety of hand-picked individual MJ religious organizations or associations, many of which look like they fail WP:SPS, and most of which are being used in the article in a way that fails WP:SYNTH, in that the belief statements of these individual organizations are being used to represent general beliefs. I've started doing GA reviews and I'd fail this article in about the first 30 minutes of review for that alone. This article is probably many dozens or possibly hundreds of work-hours away from being ready for GA. Zad68 03:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, everyone! I agree that sourcing is the main problem with the article, and that's going to comprise a good portion of the work necessary to get it up to standards. Dozens of work-hours or hundreds, I should have time to begin on it within the next few weeks. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If you haven't seen Issue 26 of Kesher: The Journal of Messianic Judaism, go read the article ["The Hebrew Christian Shoah and Its Soteriological Legacy"] by Daniel F. Jonathan Nessim. Nessim works for Chosen People, but offers a scholarly review of the numbers and practices of Jewish Believers in Yeshua (JBY, the term he uses) in the early 20th Century. --DeknMike (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Improving sources

I have added references to both Pentecostal dictionaries to the article, replacing a few WP:SPS sources, and will be doing more work on the article in the next few days. I'd also like to add some references to the works of Dan Cohn-Sherbok and the Harris-Shapiro book, as long as no one objects. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No objections here, although I personally think that Cohn-Sherbok's opinions regarding MJs as Jews might not deserve any particular weight. Also, FWIW, more or less consistent with the content of the Charismatic-Pentecostal books, I do note that about the only RS which seemed to cover the group extensively was Christianity Today, which is more or less a Charismatic-Pentecostal journal. Some of its content does seem to relate to matters of CP theology, and on that basis I do think that some of that specific content would qualify as "academic", but most of the articles on the MJs weren't of that sort. Also, although I don't know this, I can try to find any of the sources used in the reference books in the local libraries, if anyone gave me a clear indication as to which specific sources were being sought, and, if possible, for what specific information. John Carter (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

From my reading of Cohn-Sherbok, I've found that he doesn't seem to view them as Jews per se; he just foresees a point where they will be as accepted as Jews in much the same way as Humanistic Jews or Jewish Buddhists, all the while remaining radically neutral as to whether or not that's a good thing. If I remember correctly, someone from this very talk page asked him about that, and was essentially told as much. In any event, the main thing I'm looking to use Cohn-Sherbok as a source for is the finer points of the Theology section, sources for which are woefully inadequate at the moment. Thanks for the tip on Christianity Today; I'll look into it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is the thread I was remembering. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Evanh2008, maybe the sources John Carter mentions can help with the problem Jayjg notes (and which objectively should be agreed with) "particularly acute in the "Theology and core doctrines", "Religious practices", and "Culture" sections," In ictu oculi (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, and they are both a large part of my plan for revitalizing those sections. Cohn-Sherbok's works being book-length, they may go into depth that short articles of a few thousand words may not, so for some topics it may be best to reference them in addition to the two Pentecostal/Charismatic dictionaries. It may be that the dictionaries will be enough and we won't have to look to other sources to cover it, but I am preparing for the eventuality that we might have to do just that. Cohn-Sherbok being one of only a handful of academics who have touched the topic, I find him to be as reliable a source as the dictionaries, at least as far as his objective account of the movement is concerned (his opinions on the subject, whatever those may be, excluded for obvious reasons). Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

One of the external links recently removed was a "wayback machine" link to an article from Messianic Jewish Online, which is a site run by David Rudolph (Ph.D., Cambridge University) as a compendium of source materials on the movement. It could serve as a portal for individual editors to find reputable sources.--DeknMike (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

External links

The External Links section has been pared down from several dozen links, many of which were dead, to just seven. I would appreciate any input on which of those remaining, if any, deserve to stay. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I am just starting here, but this topic is of interest to me. Many organizations exist world wide which are not listed here. Many variations of theological positions now exist world wide. http://www.wilburministries.com/messianic-jewish-coalition-accuses-the-church-of-scotland-of-promoting-christian-anti-semitism/ is an article referencing many of them, and the contents of this article represent an authentic defense of a world wide coalition of Messianic organizations. Persons listed should be considered leaders of these respective organizations. Paul Wilbur, who's site this document is posted on is I believe now executive director of the IAMCS. Michaelrempel (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Deja vu

Hi, everyone-

Some might remember me having worked on this article off and on since 2011, and that earlier this year I expressed an interest in taking it to FAC. That's still a ways away, and it will take a lot of work to get it to that level of quality, but I do have a few ideas moving forward. Barring any major objections, I'll probably be going ahead to implement these myself, but any help is more than welcome.

First, as has been noted a few thousand times now, the biggest and most obvious problem with this article is the reference situation. I and others have done a lot of work to remove primary sources, but I don't think (!) anyone is of the opinion that these are completely worthless. Per WP:SELFSOURCE, primary sources can be used to cite information regarding the organization responsible for the source. I'd like to take this a step further and suggest that we eliminate all primary sources (i.e., Messianic organizations, J for J, etc.) except where they substantiate a quotation directly attributed to the organization or author. In other words, it would be okay to cite Jews for Jesus in the "Theology" section regarding their own stance on, for example, kashrut observance for gentiles, but we would want to avoid citing them in the "History" section with regard to a broad overview of the history of Messianic Judaism as such. The same would apply to affiliated authors such as David Stern or (more loosely) Michael Brown.

Second, I have begun compiling a list of what I believe to be reliable sources vis a vis Messianic Judaism at my sandbox. I have access to every source listed, and will be going through them one at a time beginning in December. Anyone is welcome to take a look there and see if anything seems particularly helpful. Some of them are a bit obscure, and some (Greenberg and Galambush, for example) are only useful in a very limited way, where they refer to Messianic Judaism in relation to the topic of their own books. I'll probably be adding to this list within the next few months.

Third, uh... there is no third. :) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a very good approach. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Very good sense displayed here. I think, maybe, one thing which might make it easier for everyone involved, particularly Evanh2008, is maybe if we could come up with some sort of basic agreement regarding the structure of the article. I recently have been going over the Worldmark Encyclopedia of Religious Practices (which unfortunately doesn't have anything of consequence on the MJs) and it might be worth seeing if there is relevant information on the various topics they cover (sometimes, quite obviously, in a kind of "not applicable in this case" way), and they include (1), Overview (2), Glossary (which we probably wouldn't include), (3) Moral Code of Conduct, (4) Early and Modern Leaders, (5) Major Theologians and Authors, (6) Organizational Structure, (7) Houses of Worship and Holy Places, (8) Holidays and Festivals, (9) Rituals, (10) Social Justice, (11) Social Aspects, (12) Controversial Issues, and (13) Cultural Impact. Now, a lot of those might not be at all relevant here, and some could probably very easily be combined into broader sections, but it is at least one starting point for what material to include. John Carter (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeshua, Jehoshua and Joshua

Yeshua is the transliterated shortened name for the name commonly pronounced in English as Joshua found in Nehemiah Ne 8:17. The fuller transliteration of יְהוֹשֻׁעַ is Jehoshua, and this is the suggested acronym in what has been claimed to be Yitzhak Kaduri's last note.Cpsoper (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Request to fix error in article

The sentence in the lead:

Belief in the messiahship and divinity of Jesus, which Messianic Judaism generally shares, is viewed by many Christian denominations[21] and Jewish religious movements[22] as a defining distinction between Christianity and Judaism.[28]

Clearly is wrong and rediculous (most likely vandalism), it should be:

Belief in the messiahship and divinity of Jesus, which Messianic Judaism generally shares, is viewed by many Christian denominations[21] but is rejected by all Jewish religious movements[22] and is a defining distinction between Christianity and Judaism.[28]

you can read citation number 22, notes.109.66.179.131 (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: your version and the existing version essentially mean the same thing, that the way jews and christians view jesus is a defining distinction between the two religions Cannolis (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Jewish religious movements share the belief in the messiahship and divinity of Jesus? really? Hallelujah ! LOL79.177.133.36 (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

try re-reading the sentence. the existing sentence does not say jews believe in the divinity of jesus, only that they view the divinity of jesus one of the points that make christianity and judaism distinct religions, i.e. jews do not believe in the divinity of jesus, christians do, so they both view his divinity one of the defining distinctions between their two religions. Cannolis (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

New information - third of the Jew in the US accept Messianic Jews as Jewish

Can any one add the information found here http://www.haaretz.co.il/st/inter/Hheb/images/jewish-american.pdf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.12.201 (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but could you please point out the page number in this document where it says that a third of the Jews in the US accept "Messianic Jews" as Jewish? I may have missed it in reading the document. Eastcote (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

page 58 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.8.119 (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Page 58 does not say that "a third of the Jews in the US accept 'Messianic Jews' as Jewish". It says "a sizable minority (34%) says a person can be Jewish even if he or she believes Jesus was the messiah". There's a difference between a Jew who believes Jesus was the Messiah, and members of "Messianic Judaism". Note that many "Messianic Jews" were never Jews to begin with. What the survey says is open to interpretation. My personal interpretation is that, if one is a Jew (i.e. born of a Jewish mother, etc.) and believes Jesus is the Messiah, then 34% of the people surveyed say that is still compatible with being Jewish. The survey says nothing about "Messianic Jews". One must be careful with surveys. Eastcote (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

We can rehash the discussion of halachic qualifications to be a Jew, or accept that most Americans agree that someone who has at least one Jewish parent and self-identifies as Jewish consider that person to be a Jew. And 34% is pretty close to a third.--DeknMike (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

How deadly can one talk of God ?

Calmly and civilly said, the sentence "Efforts by Jewish Christians to proselytize Jews began in the first century" (for instance) is to langage what a rotting corpse is to joyful life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.207.222.38 (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Since it is a true statement that you do not dispute, you seem to be just expressing your POV (that you not like it). Wikipedia is not censored, and this page is reserved for discussion on improvement of the article. tahc ^chat 15:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2015

God: Messianics believe in the God of the Bible, and that he is all-powerful, omni-present, eternal, exists outside of creation, and infinitely significant and benevolent. The vast majority of Messianics adhere to trinitarian views of God, while a few insist upon strict, unitarian monotheism. Sin and atonement: Messianics define sin as transgression of the Torah (Law/Instruction) of God. Some adherents atone for their sins through prayer and repentance—that is, acknowledgment of the wrongdoing and seeking forgiveness for their sins (especially on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement). Other Messianics disagree with these rites and practices, believing that all sin (whether committed yet or not) is already atoned for through Jesus's death and resurrection.{Hebrews 9:26} 190.53.236.10 (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

2 sentences are NOT confirmed by the citations provided. They are misleading and need removal.

These sentences need to be removed, unless *real* sources can be found to substantiate them. (The sources linked do not.)

"Some adherents of Messianic Judaism are ethnically Jewish,[29] and many of them argue that the movement is a sect of Judaism.[30] Many refer to themselves in Hebrew as maaminim (believers), not converts, and yehudim (Jews), not notzrim (Christians).[31]"

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The statements appear to be well sourced. Why not open a discussion and tell what you believe is wrong with the current sources? -- Sam ^Sing! 14:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

How many Messianic Jews?

Is there some reason this article contains no estimate of how many Messianic Jews there are on this earth? This report by the Pew Research Center, puts the number of American Messianic Jews at 159,000 (3 percent of 5.3 million Jews in America). The reference to the JTA article (footnote 33) on the number of Messianic synagogues is a dead link, so we need a reference for this, also. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Messianic Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150219172737/http://www.mjaa.org/files/EphraimiteError.pdf to http://www.mjaa.org/files/EphraimiteError.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"syncretic"

The opening sentence currently states:

Messianic Judaism is a syncretic religious movement that arose in the 1960s and 70s.

The word syncretic is sourced to a certain Edward Kessler, who, based on the quoted snippet ("confuses Christians and Jews") appears likely to be an opponent of the movement.

Now, I'm not saying Kessler is not an RS; he probably is. But I question whether the very first nontrivial word in the definition should be provided by an opponent of the movement.

I am speculating, but I suspect that Messianic Jews themselves do not consider themselves syncretic at all, but rather restorationist — that is, restoring Judaism to what it would have become had it not taken the wrong path after AD 33.

Perhaps the word could be removed at least from the opening sentence, with a balanced discussion to follow (even in the second sentence) attributing claims of syncretism to Kessler specifically, or to whatever consensus exists among comparative religionists. --Trovatore (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree here. tahc ^chat 15:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, too. This is not a syncretic movement, and adherents would not see it as such. Proponents generally believe that Messianic Judaism is the true Judaism.--TMD Talk Page. 21:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

No objections to removing the word. I wouldn't necessarily object to having the lede say that MJs see themselves as being broadly restorationist, but I would prefer sourcing any such information if it is to appear in the first paragraph to some independent source, rather than one clearly internal to the MJs themselves. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@TMDrew and Tahc: I think John Carter hit the proverbial nail on the head. We can't use self-published and primary sources for anything aside from well-established factual trivia. Any analytical remark or statement would need to be supported by references to third-party reliable sources; regarding this subject, they would almost necessarily have to be academic ones. While Kessler is used as the support for that word, I've found round about a half dozen other RS citations saying the same. Anecdotally, as an anthropologist and scholar of religion, I can affirm that this is more or less the general consensus among scholars in the relevant fields. Regardless of whether they regard themselves as restorationists, it also happens to fit the classical definition of syncretism rather matter-of-factly. Despite the call for its removal here, I'd rather the "syncretic" descriptor be restored, as the consensus appears to be based on original research and "feeling", rather than the term being WP:UNDUE per NPOV. We can certainly likewise include what Messianics believe themselves to be, but that would need to be qualified, and likewise cited to an RS.

That being said, User:Trovatore, I'm more interested in why you believe Kessler to be an "opponent" of the movement. As his article states, "The Times Higher Education newspaper described him as 'probably the most prolific interfaith figure in British academia'". I've read his work; where exactly do you see this 'opposition'? Quinto Simmaco (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Trovatore. Well put. Someone needs to find referencable supporting material that articulates this. As it is, the article is very wrong, and a huge offense to MJs, as they do not define themselves this way at all. I understand the significance of independent sources, but the references cited for the "syncretic" view are by the opponents of this belief. "Syncretic" and "1960s and 70s" are pejoratives here. It is the people who believe it who define for themselves what it means. Although there is debate within the community of people who call themselves MJs as to what extent observance to the Torah is integral, I don't see how any MJ would say this is a new religion, and certainly not a lukewarm one that tries to combine two religions. I have no reason to dispute that there may have been an emergence of people with this view in the 1960s and 70s, however, this is certainly not when the religion began. It makes it sound like it is something new that has been recently invented, but its tenets are from ~33 AD, if not earlier. Cubetronic (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

As a Messianic Jew myself, I know that the movement is not haphazard syncretism, but a return to the ancient roots of the Bible. The modern movement arose in the '60s and '70s, but the roots are almost 2,000 years old. The facts might be stated in these sentences: "Messianic Judaism can be considered a restorationist movement, especially among Christians," and, "The modern Messianic Jewish movement was founded in the 1960's & 1970's by people wishing to revert to the "essentials" of the Bible." In spite of the many citations surrounding the information, Messianic Judaism is not syncretism, neither is it one of those crazy cults of the '60s and '70s, but a perfectly normal way of life. RuneMan3 (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cubetronic: In line with what I asked Trovatore above, is there anything you can show on which you base Kessler as being "an opponent" of Messianic Judaism? I don't mean to be confrontational, at all, but this entire section to me looks like editing based on WP:OR and not following WP:RNPOV. E.g., Cubetronic, I don't see how your personal feeling that the article as a whole is "offensive to MJs" is relevant, or how anyone's feelings that the 'roots are ancient' trumps WP:NPOV- that is, what's reported in reliable sources. It being a New Religious Movement is indisputable, even if its felt that it has a historical basis for the beliefs presented. User:RuneMan3, I also don't see anywhere it's stated, inferred, or implied that Messianic Judaism is a "crazy cult of the 60's and 70's", nor any editor who questions the apparent 'normality' of the movement. Nor do I understand how your bolded statement of it being "not syncretism" is an effective argument against, as you yourself state, "the many citations surrounding the information". I'm sure that this is all in good faith, but I'd remiss if I didn't state that whether intentional or not, this appears to be tendentious editing contrary to policy. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism may look syncretic at first, but if one looks more closely, one will find that it is actually a restorationist movement at heart. Take, for example, the Biblical Feasts. Read Leviticus 23. There one will find that Pesach, the Festival of Matzah, Yom Kippur, and the Festival of Sukkot are all mandated, even today. The other three feasts are told to be mandated elsewhere in the Bible. Shabbat is another example. In its beginning days, Christianity (which was basically Messianic Judaism by another name at that time) followed Friday sunset to Saturday sunset as the Shabbat, just like traditional Judaism. When the Roman emperor Constantine claimed to convert to Christianity, he changed the Shabbat to Sunday without divine authority. He also replaced the Biblical Feasts with Christmas, Easter, and Halloween, again, without divine authority. Messianic Judaism is a reversion to the path Yeshua HaMashiach wishes us to follow, not haphazard syncretism.RuneMan3 (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

As one previously booted from this page over this very issue, I note that the idea that the movement 'arose' or 'emerged' comes from an offhand remark by Shoshanah Feher's "Messianic Judaism" book, which was a sociologic study of the beliefs of one congregation in California, and not a review of the literature writ large. The problem really is a lack of formal scholarship. Christians, generally, do not study the movement, except for the ones already inside (which is seen to be a disqualifier); most of the sources I presented were thus disqualified, even if by those with PhDs from reputable universities. Conversely, opponents rarely dig deep except to discredit the movement. John Carter is often the lone voice of reason. Trust his judgment, but I urge you to dig for sources.DeknMike (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

First, I am more than somewhat shocked by my being called a voice of reason. Having said that, I think the term syncretist is probably less than optimal here. First, as has already been implied if not actually clearly expressed, Christianity is, in a sense, a form of Judaism (maybe heretical Judaism, but still Judaism), so there are some questions as to whether a specific subgroup within a larger group can be said to be "merging" two groups when the larger group is itself, in a sense, itself already a subgroup of that group. God, I hope that makes some sort of sense. Second, most importantly, I'm not seeing it described as such in reference sources, at least those reference sources I have quick and easy access to. The Burgess Encyclopedia of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity" does not use the term in its rather lengthy article on the MJs, although it does, obviously, include the movement in the Pentecostal/Charismatic tradition. The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements indicates on p. 874 "Messianic Jews are predominantly charismatic in orientation," seemingly supporting their being pentecostal/charismatic, but it also avoids suggesting that the MJs are "syncretic". And, in general, although we are in no way obligated to follow the lead of other leading reference works, particularly when dealing with subsequent developments, it is kind of hard to say that something which is not included in the lengthy printed reference overviews on the topic is something that has to be included here. John Carter (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

While Kessler may be the one to use the actual word "syncretic" we have a half-dozen sources which describe Messianic Judaism as a combination of Judaism and Christianity. The way the sourced sentences read, the word "syncretic" is no longer in the text, but a wikilink to the word "combining" in "combining Christianity with elements of Judaism." As a matter of fact the word only appears in the quotation to Kessler. If the wikilink itself is being considered offensive, I guess we can delete said link without affecting the text. -- Avi (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I've de-wikilinked from Syncretism. -- Avi (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes to lede require both sourcing and an explanation as to why they are more NPOV

In the recent changes by Runeman, the original lede is well sourced, the revised lede is absent sourcing for the new text, which may or may not have POV issues as well. In an article which can be considered contentious, proper sourcing and adherence to Wikipedia policy takes on extra importance. Please bring both proper sourcing for any intended change and explanation as to why the new sourcing is more NPOV—why it better reflects the preponderance of literature, with preference given to English language sources. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me reiterate. The second sentence originally read "It emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Combining Christianity with elements of Judaism,[8][4][9][10][11][12] Messianic Judaism holds that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah and "God the Son" (one person of the Trinity). [13][14][15]". The sentence had the following sources:

1. Feher, Shoshanah. Passing over Easter: Constructing the Boundaries of Messianic Judaism, Rowman Altamira, 1998, ISBN 978-0-7619-8953-0, p. 140. "This interest in developing a Jewish ethnic identity may not be surprising when we consider the 1960s, when Messianic Judaism arose."
2. Ariel, Yaakov (2006). "Judaism and Christianity Unite! The Unique Culture of Messianic Judaism". In Gallagher, Eugene V.; Ashcraft, W. Michael. Jewish and Christian Traditions. Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America 2. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 191
3. Ariel, Yaakov (2006). "Judaism and Christianity Unite! The Unique Culture of Messianic Judaism". In Gallagher, Eugene V.; Ashcraft, W. Michael. Jewish and Christian Traditions. Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America 2. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 194
4. Melton, J. Gordon. Encyclopedia of Protestantism. Infobase Publishing, 2005, ISBN 978-0-8160-5456-5, p. 373. "Messianic Judaism is a Protestant movement that emerged in the last half of the 20th century among believers who were ethnically Jewish but had adopted an Evangelical Christian faith... By the 1960s, a new effort to create a culturally Jewish Protestant Christianity emerged among individuals who began to call themselves Messianic Jews."
5. Lewis, James R. (2001). Odd Gods: New Religions & the Cult Controversy. Prometheus Books. p. 179. ISBN 978-1-57392-842-7. "The origins of Messianic Judaism date to the 1960s when it began among American Jews who converted to Christianity."
6. Cohn-Sherbok, Dan (2010). "Modern Jewish Movements". Judaism Today. London; New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 100. ISBN 978-0-8264-2231-6. LCCN 2009045430. "In the 1970s a number of American Jewish converts to Christianity, known as Hebrew Christians, were committed to a church-based conception of Hebrew Christianity. Yet, at the same time, there emerged a growing segment of the Hebrew Christian community that sought a more Jewish lifestyle. Eventually, a division emerged between those who wished to identify as Jews and those who sought to pursue Hebrew Christian goals.... In time, the name of the movement was changed to Messianic Judaism."
7. Şenay, Bülent. "Messianic Judaism/Jewish Christianity". Overview of World Religions. Division of Religion and Philosophy at the University of Cumbria. Retrieved May 14, 2012. "Hebrew Christians are quite happy to be integrated into local Christian churches, but Messianic Jews seek an 'indigenous' expression of theology, worship and lifestyle within the whole church. The latter group emerged in the 1960s when some Christian Jews adopted the name Messianic Jews ..."
8. Kessler, Edward (2005). "Messianic Jews". In Kessler, Edward; Wenborn, Neil. A Dictionary Of Jewish-Christian Relations. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. p. 292. ISBN 978-0-521-82692-1. LCCN 2005012923. "[Messianic Judaism's] syncretism confuses Christians and Jews ..."
9. Ariel, Yaakov (2006). "Judaism and Christianity Unite! The Unique Culture of Messianic Judaism". In Gallagher, Eugene V.; Ashcraft, W. Michael. Jewish and Christian Traditions. Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America 2. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 194–195. ISBN 978-0-275-98714-5. LCCN 2006022954. OCLC 315689134.
10. Cohn-Sherbok, Dan (2000). "Messianic Jewish mission". Messianic Judaism. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 179. ISBN 978-0-8264-5458-4. OCLC 42719687. Retrieved August 10, 2010.
11. Ariel, Yaakov S. (2000). "Chapter 20: The Rise of Messianic Judaism". Evangelizing the chosen people: missions to the Jews in America, 1880–2000 (Google Books). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. p. 223. ISBN 978-0-8078-4880-7. OCLC 43708450. Retrieved August 10, 2010.
12. Cohn-Sherbok, Dan (2000). "Messianic Jewish theology". Messianic Judaism. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 170. ISBN 978-0-8264-5458-4. OCLC 42719687. Retrieved August 10, 2010.
13. "What are the Standards of the UMJC?". FAQ. Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations. June 2004. Retrieved September 13, 2010. "1. We believe that there is one G-d, eternally existent in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 2. We believe in the deity of the L-RD Yeshua, the Messiah, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory."
14. "Our Beliefs". Memphis, Tennessee: B'rit Hadasha Messianic Jewish Synagogue. 2005. Retrieved October 20, 2010. "We believe:...

• There is one God as declared in the Shema [Deuteronomy 6:4], who is "Echad", a compound unity, eternally existent in three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit [Isaiah 48:16–17; Ephesians 4:4–6]. *In the Deity of our Lord, Messiah Yeshua, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious atoning death, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, in His personal future return to this earth in power and glory to rule."

Follow the links, read the texts, those sources provide clear support that the movement, as it appears today, developed in the 60s and 70s (although based on earlier forms of Christianity) and it combines elements of Judaism and Christianity. These are not newspapers or blogs, these are encyclopedias and scholarly works.

The changes by RuneMan3 include adding "restorationist" to the first sentence, sourced to a newspaper, as opposed to the half-dozen scholarly works above, and the second sentence was completely changed to " Messianic Jews believe that Jesus, called Yeshua, is the Messiah, but also follow certain Jewish beliefs, e.g, the Levitically mandated holidays. " without any sources at all! This is clearly against the prevalence of opinion, which is what we need to follow for NPOV, and is unsourced and potentially OR/SYNTH as well. I will be reverting the text once again to the cited, sourced, and predominant opinion. To change it, please first bring the suggested text, the reasons why it is ostensibly better than the current, the sources which support the suggested text, and the breadth and depth of sources which would demonstrate how it is more widely held as opposed to the gamut we have now. -- Avi (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I have added a number of quotations from the Gallagher/Ariel work to make it clearer how the sources support the text. I've also done some minor cleanup, and eventually should move all "full" refs down to the ref section and just leave anchors in the text. -- Avi (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• While cleaning up the citations and other elements of the article, I did take a stab at streamlining the opening sentences. I do not think that "restorationist" is suitable for the first sentence, as per WP:NPOV we need to follow the preponderance of sources to remain neutral, and most sources do not call it restorationist. I have added the phrase "current form" emerging in 60s/70s, as there are sources which describe small, but similar movements going back much earlier. -- Avi (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Kessler source?

Please explain any valid reasons for removing the source. Not liking the author in and of itself is not a valid reason. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

misspelled word

I believe that the following quotation contains a misspelling which should be corrected: "To embrace the radiocative [should be: radioactive] core of goyishness"78.43.239.32 (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That is in the block quote in "Reception among Jews," and I probably agree, unless, maybe, the typo is in the original. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2016

Hail King Yeshua (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hail King Yeshua: It would really, really help a lot if you did as the template you added indicated, and clearly and unambiguously indicated exactly what it is you want to see added or changed. So far as I can tell, you seem to be indicating that you want a section named "Messianic Christianity" to the article. If that is true, then it would help a great deal if you were to indicate where you want that section placed, what material you think should be included in that section, and what sources if any exist for any material you might wish to specifically add to the article. John Carter (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect thesis in second paragraph first sentence

This sentence : "Salvation in Messianic Judaism is achieved through acceptance of Jesus as one's savior,[8][13][14][15][16][17] and Jewish laws or customs which are followed do not contribute to salvation "

Is wrong! it should be "Covenant Membership in Messianic Judaism is achieved through acceptance of Jesus as one's King and Messiah, and Jewish laws or customs which are followed contribute to covenant membership in that they guide us to the Messiah And through leholam (to the renewed earth)." Ganellis (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

This is very Misleading

You must recognize a Christian is a Christian theologically, as a Jew is of Judaism theologically, there is to much confusion as Christians ARE NOT JEWs nor are Jews Christians. It is an Oximoron to claim a trinitarian is a Jew, nor a Believer in ONE SINGLE God as a Christian. 06:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Samuel Taylor (talk)

Please read the Scriptures Genesis Psalm 2,8,110 Isaiah 9 you clearly do not understand stand I pray that G-d's Spirit moves upon you like the Spirit did upon the waters in Genesis 1:2 Ganellis (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Messianic Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402130246/http://www.rmmen.org/jt/godhead-01.pdf to http://www.rmmen.org/jt/godhead-01.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.freewebs.com/messianic_judaism/torahmessianicjudaism.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ourrabbis.org/main/content/view/19/33/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://beit-tefillah.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=40
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723215712/http://www.christianindex.org/1657.article to http://www.christianindex.org/1657.article
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.chabad.org/article.asp?AID=160992

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

categorization and listing as "new religious movement"

@Avraham: See my question (and the answer) at Talk:New religious movement. Seems that the term is deliberately broad and vague, really having nothing to do with being "new", for the sake of disparaging certain subjects as "fringe" with a politically-correct gloss. From the lead-in sentence, "A new religious movement (NRM) is a religious community or spiritual group of modern origins, which has a peripheral place within its society's dominant religious culture", there's nothing to distinguish this categorization from category:Subcultures of religious movements. Indeed, the sentiment of the reply is backed up in the second paragraph of the article, "Many scholars studying the sociology of religion prefer to use the term "New Religious Movement" as a neutral alternative to the word cult, which is often considered derogatory." I'll grant that the modern expression of MJ is a subculture, even syncretic, but it is not a cult (as the fundamental tenets basically align closely with established religions, i.e. not heretical, seen as another sect of the same religion by a large number of leaders of other sects), and as it is not new (messianism within Judaism historically goes back to at least the founding of Christianity, obviously), I see no support for listing or labeling MJ in this fashion. Using a positive view of NRM definition, this label adds nothing that "subculture of religious movement" does not already. Using a negative view (i.e. "NRM == cult"), it's just as pejorative. It's just another attempt to delegitimize MJ in the eyes of Wikipedia readers. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that MJ is not a cult. It's placement in the category is, as you say, based on its modern syncretic expression. I think it may be properly classified as a sect of Christianity and this is the category that encompasses subgroups of Christianity. While your concern is reasonable, if you look at the Category:Christian new religious movements, you see entries such as the Witnesses and the Mormons, neither of which would be classified as a cult. So I think that the category is not inherently derogatory, nor is putting this article in that group meant that way, of course. I'd appreciate others weighing in on this. If the category is inherently derogatory, perhaps it needs to be revised or deleted. -- Avi (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Avraham: The next step seems to start an RFC. Before I publicize it, I'd appreciate your review, as I've never initiated one before. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks reasonable, understanding that not everyone may agree with John Carter. Once it starts, I suggest you drop notices on the appropriate wikiprojects (WP:RELIGION, WP:X, WP:JEW, etc.) so we can get a broad response. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I note that the MJs are included as a separate entity in at least one of the encyclopedic reference sources about NRMs, Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi's The illustrated encyclopedia of active new religions, sects, and cults, which, admittedly, given its age, doesn't use the term NRM but just the older "new religions." However, I think that source is probably sufficient enough to justify the use of the category. I also find the objections to the use of the category to be perhaps based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and perhaps in conflict with WP:CENSOR. We tend to say what the best independent sources say, and use the terms they use, and, so far as I can determine, that source, and probably others, is sufficient for inclusion of the category and description. John Carter (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Defining Terminology - 'Messianic Judaism' and 'Messianic' in mainstream(non-Judiased Christian) Judaism and Israeli Press

As an encyclopedic article it might be worth a paragraph mentioning the difference between the use of similar terminology in both Judaized Christian messianic movements and messianic aspirational language used by normative(aka not believers in any messianic or divine understanding of Jesus/Yeshuh) orthodox Jews as well as in everyday language of the Israeli press often in reference to the right wing or utopian plans. Even a sentence in the intro mentioning that to be an actively Orthodox Jew one must be messianic by the orthodox Jewish definition, as seen in Rambam's universally accepted 13 principles of Jewish faith #12 translates to "I believe with complete faith in the coming of the Messiah and even though he may delay, nevertheless I anticipate every day that he will come."http://themitzvahproject.org/the-thirteen-principles-of-faith would add useful information to the article outside of the singular focus on Judaised Christian movements.שלמה 109.67.24.171 (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The hatnote at the top of the article takes care of that. -- Avi (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Messianic Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120605041626/http://www.iamcs.org/WhatWeBelieve.php to http://www.iamcs.org/WhatWeBelieve.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120803045939/http://www.wordofmessiah.org/9/post/2011/10/how-can-a-man-become-god.html to http://www.wordofmessiah.org/9/post/2011/10/how-can-a-man-become-god.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091208105352/http://www.levhashem.org/doctrine.html to http://www.levhashem.org/doctrine.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130730145513/http://beitsimcha.org/s_bel.asp to http://beitsimcha.org/s_bel.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110211234122/http://wordofmessiah.org/oscartfiles/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=93 to http://wordofmessiah.org/oscartfiles/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=93
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080409090510/http://www.graftedin.com/statementFaith.html to http://www.graftedin.com/statementFaith.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928060523/http://www.umjc.net/umjc/dmdocuments/onelaw_movements_abridged.pdf to http://www.umjc.net/umjc/dmdocuments/onelaw_movements_abridged.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722181903/http://www.nabion.org/html/supersessionism.html to http://www.nabion.org/html/supersessionism.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://biblicalholidays.com/Excerpts/holiday_chart.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120722193833/http://www.ctomc.ca/sof.html to http://www.ctomc.ca/sof.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100117193511/http://www.allthelyrics.com/song/1054235/ to http://www.allthelyrics.com/song/1054235/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070212032237/http://www.messiahtruth.com/response.html to http://www.messiahtruth.com/response.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727155433/http://ourrabbis.org/main/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=4&Itemid=26 to http://ourrabbis.org/main/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=4&Itemid=26
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080117214825/http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=21820&sec=59&con=35 to http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=21820&sec=59&con=35
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110104747/http://www.mohr.de/en/nc/theology/series/detail/buch/the-image-of-the-judaeo-christians-in-ancient-jewish-and-christian-literature.html to http://www.mohr.de/en/nc/theology/series/detail/buch/the-image-of-the-judaeo-christians-in-ancient-jewish-and-christian-literature.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151217052926/http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20130926/NEWS02/309250071/Birmingham-police-employee-s-religious-discrimination-case-settled to http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20130926/NEWS02/309250071/Birmingham-police-employee-s-religious-discrimination-case-settled
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061013052609/http://www.godonthe.net/messianicjews/general/faq.html to http://www.godonthe.net/messianicjews/general/faq.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724115111/http://www.umjc.net/home-mainmenu-1/faqs-mainmenu-58/14-umjc-faq/19-what-are-the-standards-of-the-umjc to http://www.umjc.net/home-mainmenu-1/faqs-mainmenu-58/14-umjc-faq/19-what-are-the-standards-of-the-umjc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120527180214/http://www.jta.org/news/article/2007/11/15/104639/evangelicalpartI to http://jta.org/news/article/2007/11/15/104639/evangelicalpartI
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101001231935/http://www.mcu.edu/papers/mess_jud.htm to http://www.mcu.edu/papers/mess_jud.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.chabad.org/article.asp?AID=160992

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Messianic Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929001717/http://www.jerusalemcouncil.org/midrash/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=61 to http://www.jerusalemcouncil.org/midrash/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=61
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160212060335/http://lambmessianicmusic.com/lamb_03_history_mn.html to http://www.lambmessianicmusic.com/lamb_03_history_mn.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150507083411/http://tedpearce.com/bio to http://www.tedpearce.com/bio
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060719205927/http://www.bnaibrith.ca/publications/audit1998/audit1998-07.html to http://www.bnaibrith.ca/publications/audit1998/audit1998-07.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929001717/http://www.jerusalemcouncil.org/midrash/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=61 to http://www.jerusalemcouncil.org/midrash/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=61

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Messianic Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151127195443/http://www.graftedin.com/essential-statement-of-faith/ to http://www.graftedin.com/essential-statement-of-faith/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208870469395&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130208031950/http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1339 to http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1339
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150810231657/http://brithadasha.org/index.php/about-us/mission-and-beliefs to http://brithadasha.org/index.php/about-us/mission-and-beliefs
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161220131151/http://www.uscj.org/JewishLivingandLearning/SocialAction/SocialJustice/CurrentIssues/ReligiousIssues/JewishValues/MessianicJewsAreNotJews.aspx to http://www.uscj.org/JewishLivingandLearning/SocialAction/SocialJustice/CurrentIssues/ReligiousIssues/JewishValues/MessianicJewsAreNotJews.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130208031950/http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1339 to http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1339
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130208031950/http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1339 to http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1339

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Messianic Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120509230949/http://www.chosenpeople.com/main/about-us/international-ministries to http://www.chosenpeople.com/main/about-us/international-ministries
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://baruchhashemsynagogue.org/%2C%E2%80%9CThe
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ag.org/pentecostal-evangel/Conversations2005/4779_Gannon.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170316204610/http://mjbi.org/mjbi_welcomes_new_vp/ to http://mjbi.org/mjbi_welcomes_new_vp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

More of an essay than an article in an encyclopedia - presumably because it was written by an inexperienced editor who is a connected contributor

1. Essays have conclusions. Encyclopedias generally do not and we don't. 2. It's self-reflective, eg "Even though, for the sake of brevity" etc. The material is in the set of edits here written by a connected contributorwhere he makes it clear, User:Drlonwiksell. Doug Weller talk 14:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting assumption, but not founded in facts. A number of editors, including Administrators, worked on this page, with significant difference of opinion regarding the veracity of the movement and its origins. Some saw (see) it as a sham religion while others have deep faith within it. What you see is the compromise that both sides could live with - there were edit wars over individual words within sentences, to capture the spirit and the breadth of the varying opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03:18, 12 May 2018‎ (talk • contribs) 03:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Who are you? Your IP address has only this edit. You're talking about WP:NPOV, I'm talking about style, although I guess the conclusion might fall under NPOV. Anyway, the issue is moot and the template removed. Doug Weller talk 08:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The Tanakh and the Old Testament are the same content.

Messianic Jews mostly refer to "The Tanakh" and do not call the exact same books "The Old Testament". They use the Hebrew name and most of the time use the Hebrew Tanakh ordering of the "Old Testament Books". See "The Complete Jewish Bible"(a Messianic Hebrew Holy Bible) for an example.

https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Complete_Jewish_Bible_OE.html?id=ijc8GQAACAAJ&redir_esc=y&hl=en

The information is therefore immensely repetitive and bad grammar. It does not reflect the fact the overall textual content is practically identical(with only book order differences). I think it should just therefore say something like "The Tanakh and the New Testament" and have a subnote placed next to Tanakh saying "The Tanakh Books are usually structured in Messianic Bibles in the original Jewish order and not in the Old Testament Christian ordering" instead of stupidly basically immediately repeating itself. Colliric (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Colliric (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Messianic Jewish theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604125636/http://www.umjc.net/faith-and-values/statement-of-faith to http://www.umjc.net/faith-and-values/statement-of-faith
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929001717/http://www.jerusalemcouncil.org/midrash/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=61 to http://www.jerusalemcouncil.org/midrash/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=61

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Noted. -- Avi (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Messianic Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170317054919/http://www.cby.org/contact.html to http://www.cby.org/contact.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060804051049/http://umjc.net/ to http://www.umjc.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Noted. -- Avi (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)