Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

RfC on categorization

Should Messianic Judaism be referred to as Christian religious movement, or simply as a religious movement without further categorization or specification?

Messianic Judaism is a movement whose members self-identify as Jews and maintain many traditional Jewish rituals and practices, but who accept Jesus Christ as a savior in the same manner as Christians. Most (if not all) reliable sources from a Jewish perspective consider the movement to be Christian (and its adherents apostate), many Christian sources consider them Christian as well (and the movement, historically, has strong ties with evangelical Christianity), but (as noted) group adherents identify as Jewish, and some (assumedly non-partisan) sources leave the matter of whether this is a Christian or Jewish group as an open, unanswered question.

Please note: this dispute is over whether Messianic Judaism can be called 'Christian' as a matter of factual categorization. Obviously the article will need to present the argument that they are Christian (with proper attribution), since that is well-sourced; there is no disagreement on that point.

Dispute issues:

  • Is it wp:synthesis for editors to categorize MJ as Christian based on the well-accepted definition of Christianity: acceptance of Christ as savior? This argument has been offered, and is logically sound given certain (disputed) presumptions, but has not to date been attributed to a source.
  • Should the self-identification of adherents of MJ be seen as primary sources and excluded on that basis? Likewise, should sources calling MJ Christian be treated as neutral secondary sources or primary sources arguing from a mainstream Jewish perspective?
    • The primary/secondary distinction is particularly difficult to apply in this case since most authors on this subject have an evident interest in Judaism and few if any of the sources come from peer-reviewd scholarly source. The references section mainly consists of news press items, statements from rabbis, MJ publications, political statements, and Christian or Jewish serials. The few clearly academic publications seem to focus more on the dispute between Jews and Messianic Judaism than on the categorical issue - e.g. Dana Kaplan's Cambridge University Press book which is only used to note that mainstream Jews find Christianity antithetical to their beliefs and thus reject MJ out of hand.

--Ludwigs2 20:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC Comment: I would favor, myself Category:New religious movements, which I believe it also qualifies as. It could also be categorized in Category:Jewish Christianity, which is I think a more clearly meaningful categorization. John Carter (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Clarification: based on Johns previous comment, I should probably note that we are not talking about Wikipedia categories, but rather the assertion in the article that the group is Christian. I'm not sure whether MJ fully qualifies for a New Age cat, but it might... --Ludwigs2 20:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
New religious movement is not necessarily New Age - in fact, the latter is a subcategory of the former. I would have to verify in the various sources that it is counted as an NRM, but all that term really means is that it is a movement which has started in the past 200 years or so. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
you're right, I misread what you wrote. my bad. I think you can go ahead and add that cat without any objections - it seems apropos. --Ludwigs2 20:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Omit "Christian" qualifier - There is tremendous disagreement over whether MJ is Christian, Jewish, or neither. This article needs to address that dispute, and present all sides in a neutral way. But there is no need to repeatedly assert that it is a "Christian religion". That serves no purpose, and simply pushes a POV. It is sufficient to say that
  • The MJ believe that JC is the Messiah
  • Virtually all Jewish people believe that MJ is a form of Christianity, and not Judaism
  • MJ adherents self-identify as Jews, not Christians.
The above points can be made in the text, and so there is no need to repeatedly emphasize "Christian religion". Readers can draw their own conclusions. --Noleander (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Lisa's most recent edit to the article noted that (at least one) MJ leader says that "Messianic" is Hebrew for "Christian". However, I don't see any evidence that that is supported by reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
If there is a debate in the sources, describe that debate in the article. But if the sources are divided, do not take one side or the other- just call them a religious movement. I'll make an edit accordingly. BE——Critical__Talk 21:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Reliable secondary sources are not "divided" on this topic. On the contrary, they are unanimous. If they aren't please find a reliable secondary source that says Messianism is not Christian. Also, please don't make edits to cited material if you haven't read the sources backing them up, and please don't make edits that misrepresent what the sources say, as you just did. Jayjg (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
You were always free to revert if you thought the suggestion was bad. And the mistake was not mine, it was this RfC section which mis-stated the issue "and some (assumedly non-partisan) sources leave the matter of whether this is a Christian or Jewish group as an open, unanswered question." So it was a logical edit to take out the assertion. Try to AGF. BE——Critical__Talk 23:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Many secondary sources make no judgment on the matter; that's quite a different thing from "leaving the matter... as an open, unanswered question". The fact that the RFC framer misled you with his spin is no justification for making edits without checking what the sources say themselves. One of the reliable secondary sources states "The term Messianic Judaism was adopted in the United States in the early 1970s by those converts to evangelical Christianity who advocated a more assertive attitude on the part of converts towards their Jewish roots and heritage." Jayjg (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Well you're contradicting this section of the RfC. Maybe the summary of the issue should be changed, editors have a right to accurate information from which to formulate comments. BE——Critical__Talk 23:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) jayjg says that because he is of the (unusual) opinion that no Messianic Jewish sources are reliable - he seems to think primary sources from the sect are invalid for discussing the nature of the faith. I've objected to this numerous times, and pointed out that mainstream Jewish sources are also primary sources, but he seems resistant to that point. hence the RfC. There are also - as I said - secondary sources that leave the categorization as an open question. some of those are cited above: would you like diffs? --Ludwigs2 00:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I say this because I am of the quite common opinion that none of the Messianic sources are secondary. As I've explained before, they're all primary sources. And I haven't been "resistant" to the point that mainstream Jewish sources are often also "primary", particularly when describing their own specific sect. And finally, you have brought no secondary sources that give their own opinions on whether or not Messianism is Christian. That's three false statements on your part in one short paragraph; in the future, please strive for better accuracy. Jayjg (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Um... yes, diffs if you think that would help. It looks like I'm going to have to hang around her a while to get the measure of this dispute. On the face of it I can't imagine calling them Christian without qualification if they do not consider themselves christian (that is as we were speaking about below they adhere to the common assumption that one can't be both). BE——Critical__Talk 00:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Sources for MJ not Christian - I just did a quick google, and found "Encyclopedia of the Jewish diaspora: origins, experiences, and culture, Volume 1" which calls MJ "Judeo-Christian" (p 146-148) not "Christian". And Pluralism Comes of Age: American Religious Culture in the Twentieth Century p 63 says "most Christians … placed MJ outside the Christian orbit" which means many Christians consider MJ to not be Christianity. There are a lot more sources that echo those notions. --Noleander (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    • "Judeo-Christian" indicates nothing more than what everybody already knows about Messianism; it is Christian theology mixed with some Jewish practices, per this article's lead. As for placing Messianism "outside the Christian orbit", one of the three main authorities on the topic, Harris-Shapiro, says "And 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) 02:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, this "but (as noted) group adherents identify as Jewish" contradicts "Though the terminology can be confusing, Messianic Jews are in fact Christians. Their adoption of some Jewish customs and symbols are cultural — not religious" from the lead if we say that it's mutually exclusive to be Christian and Jewish. I'm not sure if this is the right question, but can you tell me who objects to calling them Christian? BE——Critical__Talk 00:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Learning curve... It seems that the objection is:

1. MJs say they are Jewish, and apparently that means not christian, thus the dispute 2. Secondary sources say they are Christian

Thus, if you are going to go strictly with the reliable sources, you have to characterize them as Christian.

The problem is, that this is an article about belief, not objectivity. Therefore, what the subject actually is is whatever the belief is. We have a conflict of policy here, because it is obvious that the subject of the article is the belief but the reliable sources conflict with the belief on this issue. So which sources are reliable for the belief... those which WP says are reliable or those which obviously are reliable... in this case primary sources? If we go with Wikipedia policy do we have to go against common sense? We could always describe the two perspectives and leave it to the reader to decide. BE——Critical__Talk 01:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Ok, sources, copy-and-pasted from above. the first two were originally added as proof that MJ is a Christian group, but as you can see neither supports that position; the latter came from a quick google-scholar search:
  • [1] a webpage by Jews for Jesus which actually tends to support the idea that these people view themselves as Jews, despite the fact that they believe in Christ. Read the section titled "difficult to define"
  • [2] Another Messianic Jewish page that says explicitly "The term "Christian" must be used with sensitivity to what the people involved in a specific conversation understand that term to mean, and tries very hard to balance Christian and Jewish elements to retain their Jewish heritage. This would seem to preclude blanket statements that they are Christians.
  • the book "Messianic Judaism" by Dan Cohn-Sherbock (Continuun:London, 2000) [3] says (at the beginning of Part III on the authenticity of MJ) "Messianic Jews insist that [...] they remain true to the [Jewish] tradition. [...] are adamant that they are fulfilled Jews. The Jewish community, however, has united against the Messianic movement, regarding it as deceptive, disloyal, and dangerous". This shows both that Messianic Jews view themselves as Jewish and that there is an unresolved dispute in the real world about the status of messianic Judaism.
  • "Messianic Judaism: A Rabbi's Journey", by Carol Harris-Shapiro (Beacon Press: Boston, 1999) [4], says (page 27) "The younger contingent of the Hebrew Christian Alliance sought a name that would reflect their desire to be identified more strongly as Jews. [...] The organization would now be called the Messianic Jewish Alliance..." In other words, they are rejecting a purely Christian description of their faith.
  • "Passing over Easter" (Lantham: Altamira press, 1998) [5] Shoshana Ferrer argues that Jews have a particularly difficult time accepting Messianic Judaism precisely because MJ tries to bridge the boundaries between Christianity and Judaism, and thus represent a distinct threat to Jewish identity. That implies that the Jewish rejection of MJ is reactive, not objective, and thus a distinct POV.
  • [6] This is an associate professor of history who says: "When I began research on the new Messianic Jewish congregational movement over four years ago, I soon learned that both Christians and Jews were experiencing a great deal of frustration. For mainline [Jewish] denominations; the Messianics’ claim to be “Jewish” believers of Jesus was regarded as deceitful. [...] To my surprise, even most evangelicals opposed the Messianic Jews, accusing them [...] of going back under the Law. A well-known Hebrew Christian whom I interviewed, a leader in missionary outreach to the Jewish community, shook his head and quietly explained: To these “Messianic Jews” Jewishness means Judaism . . . a rabbinic Judaism of the Ashkenazic flavor. More evidence in conflict over identification.
The point of these is to show both that there is disagreement in sources over the classification of the faith, and that the classification of MJ as Christian is primarily the perspective of mainstream Jews and not an unbiased, scholarly viewpoint. --Ludwigs2 01:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
P.s. - I agree with you entirely that the best approach would be to describe the two positions and leave it up to the reader; that's why I've been arguing so adamantly against referring to the as a Christian movement, since that strikes me as trying to decide the issue here, in wikipedia. It doesn't make much sense to say "They are a Christian religious movement (though they don't think that they are)"; it's much better to say "They are a religious movement that cast themselves as Jewish but are considered Christian by other sources". --Ludwigs2 01:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, the professor also says "However, Messianic Jews and other Christians (evangelicals among them) are not so sure. Even Billy Graham has come out against evangelistic enterprises aimed solely at Jews. These people believe that the confrontation tactic only increases the historic antipathy felt between Christians and Jews -- antipathy that has expanded into crusades and pogroms. The effectiveness of the message of Christ is thus lost.

Currently, I find many Messianic Jews dissociating themselves from the label “Jews for Jesus,” explaining that the organization is “just a small group of 100 or so Hebrew Christians in a west coast missionary enterprise that is very vocal and widely publicized.” For the messianic congregation that is seriously attempting to foster a first century, Jewish-Christian worship experience, repeatedly defending Rosen’s actions exacts too high a price for them to pay."

"The only thing I knew is that if we were going to be Jewish, we had to be honest about it. . . Jewishness was something that was more than laying teffilin, more than just singing Jewish songs. It was thinking Jewish, it was smelling Jewish, it was taking Judaism and putting it out to the ends of your fingertips -- so that everything that you come in contact with would have a Jewish touch to it."

So it seems like they want to be Christian and Jewish both. From what I gather, most accurately they are a mix of Jewish and Christian culture. That's all I can really say: they seem to be, and want to be, a mix of both. Tell me then, would they object to being called Christian? The sources above don't indicate that as far as I can see. Maybe I'm not reading them closely enough. I don't see an objection to the christian label really. BE——Critical__Talk 02:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. My objection to calling them Christian is a Wikipedia objection, not a real-world objection: I don't think wikipedia should be making definitive statements about things that are ambiguous in the real world. If I could convince myself that 'Christian' were a neutral term in this context (meaning that it was never used in a captious way in the real world discussions), then I'd probably have no objection to using it. But my sense from the sources presented is that most people in the real-world debate do use 'Christian' as a quarrelsome term - The Jewish sources, in particular, use 'Christian' to ostracize and exclude the group (your basic "they're not real Jews" thing). since it's a fault-finding term in the real-world debate (rather than a simple descriptive term) it seems inappropriate to use it as descriptive on the article (which would imply that wikipedia itself agrees with mainstream Jews that the adherents of MJ have no right to call themselves Jews). do you see what I mean? --Ludwigs2 05:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you mean. I'm not sure whether you're right or not, but my sense is that it could be written in such a way that it's not an issue. I also feel as if that theme is hit very hard in the lead, as if someone had that POV to push. For example "Though the terminology can be confusing, Messianic Jews are in fact Christians. Their adoption of some Jewish customs and symbols are cultural — not religious." I don't really think that is necessary in the lead. Further, it is overall making an argument "Some Messianics are ethnically Jewish, and argue that Messianic Judaism is a sect of Judaism." So, they think that they are Jewish, but they really aren't according to our reliable source. That doesn't sound NPOV to me. We might work on an NPOV version here. BE——Critical__Talk 05:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
"Jews" and "Judaism" are separate topics. "Messianic" and "Messianic Judaism" are separate topics. It appears that some editors are tendentiously conflating one or more metaphysical abstractions with related, but even more abstract and amorphous concepts. WP:ASF says "Values or opinions must not be written as if they were in Wikipedia's voice. Factually attribute the opinion in the text to a person, organization, group of persons, or percentage of persons, and state as fact that they have this opinion, citing a reliable source." There is NO WAY that Wikipedia can say that the published opinions of groups of people in Messianic Judaism are unreliable or that the opinions of rival groups of Jewish sectarians are more reliable.
There are reliable published secondary sources which say that the members of Messianic Judaism have not converted to Christianity. See Pauline Kollontai, Between Judaism and Christianity: The Case of Messianic Jews, Journal of Religion and Society, Volume 8 (2006) ISSN: 1522-5658, para 10-11 [7] Pauline Kollontai's biographical info is available here [8] Jayjg is (constantly) misquoting Wikipedia policy on the use of primary sources. WP:PSTS permits the use of primary sources so long as editors don't have to interpret them. Lisa says MESSIANIC MINISTRY TO ISRAEL is a reliable source on Messianic Judaism, but the page she linked to [9] does not mention the term "Messianic Judaism". The site is not operated by individuals who claim to be Jews, e.g. [10]
The various branches of contemporary "Judaism" are deeply divided over the central normative and deviant tenets of faith and practice. So, there is no such thing as a universally recognized Jewish community or an agreed upon definition of the terms "Jew", "Jew-ish", or "Jewish People". For example:
  • Chaim Weizmann explained to the UNSCOP Commission that 'when one asks "Who is a Jew?" lengthy explanations are always necessary, and these are always suspect.' See Walter Laqueur, A history of Zionism, 3rd Edition, Tauris, 2003, ISBN 1860649327, page 579 [11]
  • Moshe Shertok told the UNSCOP Commission that the Jewish Agency did not consider Christians to be Jews. Shertok said He need not be an active, pious Jew. He is still considered a Jew. But if he converts to another religion he can no longer be considered a Jew. See Akiva Orr, The unJewish state: the politics of Jewish identity in Israel, Ithaca Press, 1983, ISBN 0903729857, Page 89
  • When asked by a member of the UNSCOP Commission whether Jews who had converted to Christianity would still be regarded as Jews, the Chief Rabbi of Palestine replied that even a Jew who had abandoned Judaism for another faith would continue to be a Jew, although not ‘a good Jew’." See Thomas D. Musgrave, Self-determination and national minorities, Oxford University Press, 2000, ISBN 0198298986, page 163 [12]
  • Israel's High Court of Justice has ruled that there is no Israeli nationality apart from the “Jewish people”. On the other hand, the United States government has said that it does not regard the “Jewish people” concept (of Israeli nationality) as a concept of international law. See Volume 8 of the State Department's "Digest of International Law", Marjorie Whiteman editor, 1967, page 35. For the purposes of the US Census, an individual's report regarding their own race and religion is acceptable, e.g. [13]
  • In some Jewish communities a person's religious beliefs and practice are irrelevant factors in determining if that person is a "Jew". The admissions criteria for the Jewish Free School (JFS), in north-west London, was considered unlawful because it prioritized applications from children with Jewish mothers, regardless of the religious beliefs of the children. [14]
  • The law of mamzerut only applied to Jews, but they did not practice Judaism. Individuals stigmatized as matrilineal mamzers could not participate as members of the Temple congregation in the "Judaism" of late antiquity (or in the future cultus according to some eschatological views). See for example, Meir Bar-Ilan, The attitude toward mamzerim in Jewish society in late antiquity, Jewish History Volume 14, Number 2, 125-170, DOI: 10.1023/A:1007149919480
  • Benjamin Disraeli was a practicing Episcopalian. Both Disraeli and his associates claimed that he was a Jew. Moreover, he felt that Arab Christians and Muslims of Palestine were members of the same race. Disraeli wrote that 'the Arabs are only Jews on horseback'. He considered Judaism, Christianity, and Islam "Arabian religions". See Bernard Lewis, Islam in history: ideas, people, and events in the Middle East, 2nd Edition, Open Court Publishing, 2001, ISBN 0812695186, [15]
  • Many sects believe that "Gentiles" can undergo a metaphysical process of conversion and become "Jews" (or "Jew-ish"). harlan (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank, harlan, for (as usual) an irrelevant set of primary sources. Your own opinion, based on your interpretations of various typically irrelevant materials, is not of any use here. Please stick to what reliable secondary sources explicitly state about Messianism. Jayjg (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes There are sufficient secondary sources brought indicating that the accepted scholarly and mainstream understanding of MJ (outside of MJ members themselves) is that it is a Christian religion. -- Avi (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • No Editors here are not observing basic NPOV policy. They are trying to assert opinions and value judgments as facts and control the use of the terms Judaism, Christian, and Jew. The subject of this article is a POV. It is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term. Unlike dictionaries, a single encyclopedia article covers a topic, not a term. See Articles whose subject is a POV and Related articles There is no agreed upon central authority that makes determinations on Christian or Jewish orthodoxy and theology. Question-begging "comparisions" to "Judaism" which claim that "Jewish theology" rejects these ideas or concepts are tautologically flawed. harlan (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is Messianic Judaism a Christian group

  • Messianic Judaism is a small group which claims to be a Jewish denomination. There are no Jewish groups which accept this self-definition.
  • There are no primary or secondary sources which show that Messianics deny being a Christian group.
  • Although Messianics use the word "Messianic" rather than "Christian", they also use the word "Yeshua" instead of Jesus" without this being understood to mean that they do not worship Jesus. They do according to everyone including themselves, but use a Hebrew term for it rather than a Greek one.
  • On the Messianic Ministry to Israel website, the use of "Messianic" in Messianic Judaism is stated to be a Hebrew equivalent of the English word "Christian", and not a word simply meaning "having to do with the messiah", as it is sometimes used in other contexts.
  • Members of Messianic Judaism do, in some cases, identify as Jews as well as Christians, but everyone agrees that they are Christians, and no one but themselves agrees that their group is a Jewish one, even if some members are Jewish.

There is a perception of bias on both sides of this dispute. Ludwig2 has expressed the view that Jewish editors are trying to label Messianic Judaism as a Christian group for Jewish motives. Other editors, given Ludwig's dismissive comment that there is no significant difference between Judaism and Christianity anyway, have concluded that Ludwig2 is unwilling to consider that Messianic Jewish editors have used this article as a publicity tool that they can point to.

The two sides have batted this topic back and forth in an unending exchange. Both sides have expressed the opinion that the other side simply isn't listening. That seems like the point at which an RfC is appropriate. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There are a few points of serious contention here. First, I am one of the individuals who found the independent documentation that MJs are Christians. That source, however, Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions, lists bodies only once per group. Therefore, it cannot be used to assert that the MJ movement is not also Jewish. On this basis, I would have to say that the phrasing of the title of this RfC section is somewhat misleading and thus regretable. It is not about whether the MJs are in some way Christian, but rather whether it can also be said that they are Jewish. Also, on page 605 of Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions, there is the statement that the Union of Two House Messianic Congregations "argues that non-Jewish followers of Yeshua are returning Ephraim who have been restored to the commonwealth of Israel through their covenant with Israel's Messiah," which I think might be considered sufficient to say that at least one MJ group asserts Jewishness. It would help to know what "returning Ephraim" means, though.
I also would very much like to know who specifically within the three extant Jewish movements made the statements that MJs are not Jewish, and what their claims to authority for speaking for those groups are. To date, I have not seen such information, and it is I believe of critical importance to know whether these statements are from bodies in an official position to make those sorts of definitive statements. The position of the Israeli government is basically irrelevant, as it is only one country which has made such a statement, and there are several other groups, such as Scientology, which are not recognized as "religions" in multiple countries for whatever reason, but which still are called religions here in wikipedia.
I also wish to point out that, unless those groups also are regarded as being able to speak authoritatively for all other Jewish movements which are not currently active or have not yet spoken on the issue, then there may well be an unfortunate WP:SYNTH problem in saying that those movements would agree with the three extant groups, and some form of qualification might be in order.
There is no question that the MJs themselves see themselves as Jews, as per Voices of Messianic Judaism, ed. by Dan Cohn-Sherbok. On page vii, of that book, Benny Rubin, a MJ, says that at a speech to MJs in 2000 "He [Cohn-Sherbok, below] even predicted that we [Messianic Jews] would be considered an accepted part of the Jewish people in this [the 21st] century - reminding us that every branch of Judaism was at first rejected by the 'establishment.'" On page x of that work, Cohn-Sherbok states, "Adherents of this new movement insist that they are not Christians," which by extension would indicate that they favor the "Jewish" end of the Jewish-Christian syncretitism which some allege. On page xi, he says about Messianic Jews, "[T]hey believe it is not possible to be 'saved' through religious observance. Yet, while the law does not provide salvation, it is not dead. The moral precepts of the Ten Commandments, for example, are part of the New Covenant. The festivals are for all time." Equally important, I think, is the statement by Cohn-Sherbok quoted above which states that the rejection of MJs by Judaism is inconsistenct with the acceptance of other groups as "Jewish".
On the basis of all of the above, I would have to say, myself, that there is no clear reason based on well-sourced information for this article to say that the MJs are not Jewish. However, I would have no objections to having the lead say that the MJs are not regarded as Jewish by the three groups which have indicated that is their opinion, provided it is shown that the sources which make those allegations are in a position to make such statements authoritatively. John Carter (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
RfC presentations should be unbiased. I think the version I offered above is much better in that regard - does anyone mind if I delete this polemical RfC?--Ludwigs2 20:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree that this RfC is biased. However, I also think that, however biased, this RfC is asking for a bit more response than the one above. I think the best way to phrase an RfC on this topic might be to ask (1) whether the MJs are Jewish, (2) whether they are Christian, the two designations not being mutually exclusive, and, (3) how to phrase any specific claims that the MJs are or are not one or the other. Clearly, statements from independent reliable sources are sufficient for classification, but, if there are no really independent RS's on the subject, then it would make sense to mention self-published sources. Considering the ties of Israel to mainstream Judaism, I would not myself count the government of Israel as "independent", and, certainly, any statement from the three Jewish movements themselves are clearly self-published statments. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem with that is you're not going to find an independent, unbiased source who is willing to tell Messianic Jews that they are/aren't Jews. An unbiased source with some small measure of common sense is inevitably going to shrug its shoulders and say that any religious group has the right to determine for itself what kind of religion it is. Mainstream Jews are well within their rights to say that Messianic Jews are not Jews, but they don't actually get to say that Messianic Jews are Christians (any more than one could say that Jews are proto-Christians, or that Buddhists are revisionist Hindus). The only people who care whether MJ is Christian, Jewish, or something else are people with a vested interest in Christianity, Judaism, and MJ, so we're stuck with the polemic.
that being said, though, we ought to do something to merge these two RfC's to keep things from being confusing. --Ludwigs2 20:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed that a lot of independent sources will not say the MJs are not Jewish. However, that is a bit different than saying that none have said it is Jewish and our saying that the MJs are not Jewish. There are some authoritative sources, like the Catholic Pope, who is not unbiased but whose official statements are accepted as having authority within his church. I wouldn't necessarily rule out such statements which carry official weight if they were presented and demonstrably relevant. John Carter (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I read this RfC, but could not quite grasp what the question was. I responded to the RfC above, perhaps my response there will be helpful here? If the two RfCs are intended to be address similar issues, perhaps the RfCs could be consolidated? -- signed "a confused editor" --Noleander (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
    • yeah - workin' on that. I would go ahead and just do it myself, but I suspect I'd get my head bitten off, so I'm waiting for some input from Lisa before I do. --Ludwigs2 21:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking the following quote as true: "It is not about whether the MJs are in some way Christian, but rather whether it can also be said that they are Jewish. " If this is the question, then my answer would be no, WP cannot take a stand on whether they are Jewish, but if everyone agrees they are Christian it can report that. We can also report that they say they are Jewish, but cannot say that they are not Jewish based on the statements of others. To do so would be to take a stand on religious matters. We may also be able to report that some say they are not Jewish. We cannot however say they are or are not Jewish, no matter what anyone says, unless someone has a scientific definition of what "Jewish" is or unless everyone agrees. So I disagree with John Carter that we could find any sources sufficient to state this if there is disagreement. Thus:

  1. We can assert that they are Christian
  2. We cannot say they are Jewish
  3. We cannot say they are not Jewish
  4. We can describe the debates. BE——Critical__Talk 21:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
err... don't 1 and 3 contradict each other? I mean, most people will take the assertion they are Christian as a statement they are not Jewish... --Ludwigs2 22:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Only if you disagree with them and say that one cannot be both christian and jewish. I thought that was an issue of contention, but while one is non-controversial, 3 is controversial. If that's the way people will take it, then that's a matter for us to explain. BE——Critical__Talk 23:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
well, I suppose you could look it at that way. however, I think it would be easier and better just to call them a religious group and then explain (with proper attribution) that some people think they are Christian and some don't. that way we don't start off by giving the misleading impression that everyone thinks they are Christian and find ourselves have to backpedal later. --Ludwigs2 00:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear... they consider themselves both? BE——Critical__Talk 00:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) As I understand it (which may be imperfectly) It's not so much that they think of themselves as both as that they see the distinction between the two faiths as inconsequential: why can't one be a Jew who accepts Jesus as the messiah? This is not an uncommon kind of religious dispute (note that Muslims believe as a matter of doctrine that Islam incorporates and supersedes Christianity, which would probably be disconcerting to most Christians). but I'll re-post the material I posted earlier in the above section. --Ludwigs2 01:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) To both RfCs, Hebrew Christianity (more proper than "Hebrew-Christian movement") doesn't even have an article. Perhaps if that existed and were done properly then there would be less debate here. While the article indicates that Messianic Judaism came from Hebrew Christianity, I think it misses the degree to which Messianic Judaism was a backlash to evangelical Hebrew Christianity groups such as Jews for Jesus, which (IMHO) is a large part of what fuels Messianic Jewish denial that they are Christian and affirmation (instead) that they have returned to their Judaic roots and are therefore Jewish. Messianic Judaism can't deny its own origin. Well, no, one can always disown one's family. Too many years spent commuting in New York reading Jews for Jesus ad placards in the subway and listening to their proselytizing. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. To the recent edit and delete, HC is an evangelical movement, MJ is not. (I also see in discussions elsewhere a confusion that Jews for Jesus are MJ, no they are HC.) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

@John Carter, "returning Ephraim" is part and parcel of Two House Theology. It is not the same topic as Messianic Judaism. "Returning Ephraim" represents the members of the lost tribes. They are considered members of the House of Joseph, not the House of Judah. Adherents don't necessarily consider themselves to be Jews or Jewish.
@Lisa, you are making some overly-broad generalizations.
  • Prof Pauline Kollontai, reports on groups of adherents to Messianic Judaism who have not converted to Christianity. See Between Judaism and Christianity: The Case of Messianic Jews, Journal of Religion and Society, Volume 8 (2006) ISSN: 1522-5658 [16]
  • A member of the UNSCOP Commission asked the Chief Rabbi of Palestine if Jews who had converted to Christianity would still be regarded as Jews? The Chief Rabbi replied that even a Jew who had abandoned Judaism for another faith would continue to be a Jew, although not ‘a good Jew’." See Thomas D. Musgrave, Self-determination and national minorities, Oxford University Press, 2000, ISBN 0198298986, page 163 [17].
  • Benjamin Disraeli was a practicing Episcopalian, but nonetheless still considered himself to be a Jew. Moreover, Disraeli wrote that 'the Arabs are only Jews on horseback' and considered Judaism, Christianity, and Islam to be "Arabian religions". See Bernard Lewis, Islam in history: ideas, people, and events in the Middle East, 2nd Edition, Open Court Publishing, 2001, ISBN 0812695186, [18]
  • You claim that MESSIANIC MINISTRY TO ISRAEL is a reliable source on Messianic Judaism, but the page does not mention the term "Messianic Judaism" [19] and the MMI Board of Directors and "pastors" do not claim to be Jews. [20] This appears to be an claim based upon your own synthesis
  • WP:PSTS allows editors to use material about Messianic Judaism from primary sources. Per WP:ASF, the values or opinions of rival Jewish and Christian sectarians must not be written as if they were in Wikipedia's voice. Factually attribute the opinion in the text to a person, organization, group of persons, or percentage of persons, and state as fact that they have this opinion, citing a reliable source. harlan (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Ludwig2 is being disingenuous. Saying that individuals are Jewish does not mean that a group they belong to is Jewish. There are many Jews who belong to the Democratic Party. That doesn't make the Democratic Party a Jewish group. No one is disputing the fact that many MJs are Jews. Can we simple drop this subject, because there is no debate about it on either side? The question isn't about Messianic Jews. It's about the movement called Messianic Judaism. Is it a Jewish group? It can hardly be called that when every Jewish group in the world rejects it as one. Is it a Christian group? Yes, according to everyone, including MJs themselves. The article should reflect this fact. MJ is a Christian religious movement. An evangelical one, as well. It is not a Jewish group according to anyone but themselves, and there is evidence to show that they say this polemically and not factually. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
What I responded to Ludwig2 is equally valid for Harlan wilkerson. This isn't a question about whether individuals who happen to belong to MJ are Jews or Christians. It's whether the group is a Christian group, a Jewish group, or both. All evidence shows that MJ is a Christian group. Membership by Jews does not change this. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Lisa, you're being disingenuous. Messianic Judaism is primarily composed of cultural and ethnic Jews. The real problem we have here is the ambiguity between Jewishness (as a cultural, ethnic category) and and Jewishness (as a religious practice). It's not easy to separate the two senses of the terms (Jews themselves waffle on the issue all the time). Again, you're back to the "yes, they are Jews, but they are not real Jews" problem, which is just a manifestation of prejudice. --Ludwigs2 17:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
No. We aren't talking about Jewishness as a cultural ethic category and Jewishness as a religious practice. We're talking about people being Jews and a group being a Jewish group. Even if every single one of them is actually Jewish, the group is still a Christian group comprised of Jews. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
That is original research on your part, and a point adherents of MJ might disagree with. Until there is sufficient consensus here that it is an appropriate label, I would ask you to quit pushing the point. --Ludwigs2 18:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
"Messianic Judaism is primarily composed of cultural and ethnic Jews"? That may have been true in the 1960s and 1970s, but I don't think it is any more. Messianism seems nowadays to attract more Christians looking for a more "authentic" or "original" form of Christianity, the kind (they believe) was practised by Jesus and his original followers. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
If that's true, a source demonstrating it would be useful. --Ludwigs2 21:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes There are sufficient secondary sources brought indicating that the accepted scholarly and mainstream understanding of MJ (outside of MJ members themselves) is that it is a Christian religion. -- Avi (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, we have an unusual problem here: Lisa acknowledges "It is not a Jewish group according to anyone but themselves," thus we have consensus that they call themselves Jewish, at least part of the time, not Christian. We have consensus that sources outside the group agree that they are Christian. So here's an analogy: Say that a group claims that all cats are blue. What does the article on that group say? It says the group claims all cats are blue, but it's the consensus among cat experts that this is not so. In the same way, this article says there is a consensus MJ is a Christian group, based on objective criteria of belief. But there's a difference with this article: there's something objective about cats and whether MJs are Christian based on objective critieria- scientific data on cats, belief in Jesus as God etc. But there's nothing objective about whether one is "Christian" or "Jewish" or both. One is, in this non-objective sense, whatever one says one is. Thus, their claim to be Jewish and Christian is valid, even if only found in primary sources. For NPOV, we may need to avoid the issue, just as we avoid the issue of labeling Al-Queda terrorists. "Terrorist" is a subjective idea about them based on objective evidence. But Wikipedia doesn't assert it. Rather we say "It is considered a terrorist organization." It's good to draw examples from other articles which have been so thoroughly worked out. BE——Critical__Talk 17:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Be Critical, you're making a mistake in logic. You wrote "thus we have consensus that they call themselves Jewish, at least part of the time, not Christian". The last two words of that do not follow. They explicitly call themselves both Jewish and Christian. That's what the name "Messianic Judaism" means to them. They're using "Messianic" not to indicate that they have something to do with a messiah, which is the case for Orthodox Judaism as well, but as a synonym for Christian. A synonym that they use in order to fly under the radar and not scare potential Jewish converts off before they get to them. They say this themselves. So yes, we have consensus that they call their movement a form of Judaism. Something that no one else in the world agrees with. We also have consensus that they call themselves Christian, something that everyone else in the world agrees with.
Since the rest of your paragraph followed from that flawed premise, I'll leave it. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, I struck out "not Christian" and modified the rest. The argument itself seems fine to me. The argument works for the fact that the article asserts a point about their being christian, when they would at least modify that assertion themselves. I don't know why this is necessary when we don't even make assertions such as "al queda is a terrorist organization (which thinks it's a blah blah blah but it's not)." Why would we make the assertion "MJ is a Christian organization (which thinks it is both Jewish and Christian but it's not)" BE——Critical__Talk 21:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The difference is that Al Qaeda doesn't consider itself a terrorist organization. They don't say, "We're freedom fighters, and we use that term because "terrorist" would turn people off." If they did, that would be a legitimate analogy. Here, we're talking about the fact that they call themselves Messianic, and that in their context (as evidenced by MJ sources, even if common sense weren't enough), that means Christian.
Another issue is that they use term switching as a tool in order to pursue an agenda. In Wikipedia terms, that's like gaming the system. Look. There was a debate a long while ago about the very title of this article. Calling it Messianic Judaism gives the impression that Wikipedia is endorsing the idea that the group is a form of Judaism. In the end, the fact that it's what they call themselves won out, despite the fact that it's misleading to the reader. But given that context, it is important to note from the start that they are a Christian group. It isn't bias; it's an attempt to prevent a false impression that might be gotten from a title which is misleading, but can't be changed for technical reasons.
There are no MJ sources that say they aren't Christian. Look up Christian in the dictionary, and you'll find that it means someone who worships Jesus. Is there any doubt that they do so? Do they deny doing so? That's what the word means according to everyone on the planet.
There's been an attempt here by Ludwig2 to cast this discussion in such a way that individual MJs being Jewish means that the group isn't a Christian group. He even suckered you for a while. But it simply isn't the case. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Lisa: this phrase - "They're using "Messianic" not to indicate that they have something to do with a messiah, which is the case for Orthodox Judaism as well, but as a synonym for Christian. A synonym that they use in order to fly under the radar and not scare potential Jewish converts off before they get to them. They say this themselves." - would seem to require sourcing both to show that they actually say this and to show that it is prevalent belief across MJ, not a statement from one possibly misguided segment.
And since you feel the need to get personal here, I also will point you that your efforts to paint the entirety of MJ as manipulative liars (again, without sourcing it), does not speak well of your neutrality on the issue. we do not write articles about religious groups from the perspective of religious groups that hate them; that would be absurd. If you cannot separate your personal feelings from your role as an encyclopedia editor then you probably shouldn't be editing this article.
Don't accuse me of trying to sucker people when all I am doing is trying to preserve a measure of neutrality against a set of hard-core POV-warriors. I don't want to make a judgement on this issue one way or another. Whatever judgements are being made here are all locked up inside your head, where somehow you have come to believe that if we don't adamantly declare that MJ are Christians then... what, the end of the known universe will arrive? Readers are smart enough to figure out for themselves what Messianic Judaism is about, and they are smart enough to see through your POV-pushing as well, but when readers have to filter out editorial opinion in order to get at the descriptive facts of the matter it reflects badly on the encyclopedia. It's a pity you don't get that, and it's a pity you won't ever get it (because you are completely blind to common sense on this issue) but the fact remains that you are doing a disservice to the project and to the topic. --Ludwigs2 21:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I get that they are Christian, as well as Jewish. And I wasn't under the impression that Ludwigs contested that. Let me be more specific. When it says "Though the terminology can be confusing, Messianic Jews are in fact Christians. Their adoption of some Jewish customs and symbols are cultural — not religious." It is making up a distinction between culture and religion which is, as far as I know, original research. I would say instead "Though the terminology can be confusing, Messianic Jews are in fact Christian by definition, but also incorporate many Jewish customs and symbols." If I recall right, the article recently said that they were not Jewish. BE——Critical__Talk 21:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, the article lead at least is really messed up: "Some Messianics are ethnically Jewish, and argue that Messianic Judaism is a sect of Judaism.[6] However, all Jewish religious movements[7] and mainstream Christian groups[8] consider the movement to be Christian, due to its belief in the centrality of Jesus as Messiah, savior, and God." So, basically that incorporates the idea "If Christian not Jewish." So then asserting that they are Christian becomes asserting they are not Jewish from that point on. BE——Critical__Talk 21:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.207.157.70, 13 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Dear Editors, please make the following change to show the citation to support the point that the Torah, the Five Books of Moses, has a law that explicitly states "Do not add to nor subtract from the Torah."

See Deuteronomy Chapter 4 Verse 2. This can be looked up here: http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9968 or here: http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/4-2.htm

Heading: Overview of Issues.... .....Messianics sometimes challenge Christians by arguing that if they believe Jesus is the Messiah, then according to the Torah itself Jesus could not have changed the Torah.[citation needed]

In other words, had Jesus changed the Torah, either by adding things or by removing things, he would have violated a precept found in the Torah.

The citation is thus: Deuteronomy 4-2.

Thank you for your help.

98.207.157.70 (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Citation added. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 Not doneRemoved, technically a primary source and anyway, there is no indication in the pasuk that Messianics abide by it. A quote from the Gemara or Shulchan Aruch would be good for Jews, but Messianics do not follow either one (as both are clear that believing in Jesus is idolatry/apostateness). -- Avi (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Section removals

There are some sections that have been completely unsourced for near two years now. They read like someones personal opinion of Messianic theology and practice, and not encyclopedic renderings of reliable sources. I will try and remove the ones with no sourcing, and call for sourcing for the ones which are partly sourced, but work needs to be done. -- Avi (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Two RfCs

There are currently two RfCs here. The one I created and the one Ludwig2 created. I'd like to point out that the timestamps show Ludwig2's RfC to have been created almost a full hour after mine, and was deliberately placed above mine in order to give the impression that it was there first. I consider this dishonest in the extreme, and assumptions of good faith fall down in the face of such blatant dishonesty. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

sorry, I started writing it before you did, but I spent a lot of time trying to make it neutral and comprehensive. however, the issue might be moot, given BC's new lead suggestion below. --Ludwigs2 23:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources for MJ identification as Christians

"What's Behind the Chopped Liver Swan? OR, Lifestyles of the Messianic", by Mitch Glazer. It's on the J4J website, and J4J is only a subset of MJ, but they sent out surveys to MJs in general, and the results shows that most of them identify as something with the word Christian in it. Be it Christian, Hebrew Christian, or Jewish Christian. Note particularly this quote:

The switch in terms between Hebrew Christian and Messianic Jew is simply that... a switch in terminology.

That's the kind of honesty that's missing from some of the MJs who post here. So is this:

Will there be unity among Messianic Jews, Jewish believers, Hebrew Christians or whatever we might choose to call ourselves?

"Dictionary of messianic terminology and definitions: A study in contextualization", based on Return of the Remnant: The Rebirth of Messianic Judaism, by Michael Schiffman.

Since Christian was (1) never directly used of Jewish believers in scripture, and (2) carries a negative historical reminder of anti-Semitism, the term Messianic is used instead. This word identifies Jewish believers as followers of the Messiah without the negative overtones which "Christian" has accumulated.

"P'nei Adonai: Resources for Walking in the Presence of God"

The term "Christian" must be used with sensitivity to what the people involved in a specific conversation understand that term to mean. If someone who understands the word "Christian" to mean "anyone who accepts Yeshua" asks us if we are Christian then we might say "yes" and explain more. If someone who understands the word "Christian" to mean "someone culturally Christian, not culturally Jewish" asks us if we are Christian then we would say "no" and explain more.

Bottom line. MJs use a semantic technique called "term switching". Term switching is a useful method of avoiding recognition. For example, when the US government banned marijuana, those pushing for the ban called it by the Mexican slang term "marijuana", rather than the common term (at the time): hemp. They did so because they knew there was no chance of getting hemp banned, since it was such a useful crop, despite the fact that it could also be used as a drug. Similarly, MJs avoid the word "Christian", because they know it will interfere in their efforts to proselytize to Jews. Their own sources admit to this form of deception.

Now I understand that a number of non-MJ editors have, in good faith, tried to take out parts of this article that identify MJs as Christians. These editors are victims of a deceitful practice. I hope that having shown that MJ sources explain the non-use of "Christian" as an identifier as pragmatic, rather than definitional, these editors will stop what they've been doing. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, and given the vast majority of MJs think they are Jews, those sources, even if reliable (and mainstream Christians, Jews, and MJs do not use the term Old and New Covenant), do not support the statement adequately for an unadorned statement in the lede. I can't remove it from the article, as I've reverted Lisa's repeated (previously unsupported) additions too many times, and I can't claim it's a BLP violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if they also think they're Jews. They do think they're Christians. And the movement is a Christian one. Their own sources say so. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
That's your selected sources, even if reliable. We also have sources that they do not consider themselves Christian, and that (some of) their leaders don't consider the movement Christian, even if it was founded by Christians. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
They do consider themselves Christian. They choose, for pragmatic (and deceitful, in my opinion) reasons, not to use the term when it will lesson the effectiveness of their rhetoric. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Speak for yourself and MJs that you know; we have a source that they do not consider themselves Christian, so we cannot state that they are Christian as an unadorned statement.
I'm going off-Wiki for most of the day, but I would appreciate it if you did not remove the {{content}} tag without either restoring the tags I added, or resolving the issue to the satisfaction of at least one other editor who previous opposed the statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not "speaking" for anyone. I'm using MJ source material. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I took the time to read through the three links given for calling Messianic Jews Christians, and not one of them passes verification. the first one [21] is a webpage having to do with how Christian Missionaries should talk with Jews, based in Southern Nazarene University - a private Christian (evangelical) university based in Oklahoma. I see no reason to believe that is a reliable source for this topic. the second [22] is webpage by Jews for Jesus which actually tends to support the idea that these people view themselves as Jews, despite the fact that they believe in Christ (which would suggest that calling them Christians is factually wrong). the third [23] says explicitly "The term "Christian" must be used with sensitivity to what the people involved in a specific conversation understand that term to mean, which would seem to preclude blanket statements that they are Christians. I'll give you a day or so to rehabilitate these sources or present new ones which pass muster, but if you can't, then I'll remove the comment as an improperly sourced addition. --Ludwigs2 03:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
No, Ludwigs, you won't. Or rather, if you do, I'll simply replace them. You aren't the final word on the reliability of sources. Those sources make it abundantly clear that they identify as Christians, but that they choose to say otherwise to people when doing so suits their purposes. If you want to have an RfC on those sources, I'll be happy to participate, but you do not determine whether they "pass verification". - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Ludwigs's analysis certainly seems accurate. I'll retag, now, to give you a chance to find appropriate citations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Lisa - I'm not trying to be the final word here. I'm simply pointing out that Wikipedia needs to ensure two eminently sensible things with respect to sources:
  • Source needs to say - explicitly - the things that we assert they say
  • There needs to be some reason to believe that a source can give a credible, objective opinion about the subject
Neither of the latter two sources say that Messianic Jews are Christians (please point out any passage where they do say that if you disagree), and the first source is obviously not objective and not entirely credible (it's a guide to missionaries pursuing Christians objectives from a decidedly Christian perspective, and does not attempt a broader analysis of the issues involved). Now, either you show me where these sources say what you are suggesting they say or else the sources are entirely worthless for the point being made. Just because a source happens to use the words 'Christian' and 'Messianic Jew' in the same paragraph does not mean that the source is equating the terms. --Ludwigs2 11:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Most Messianic Jews consider themselves to be both Christians and Jews, and don't consider there to be an inconsistency between the two. Many other Jewish groups disagree, and don't see the Messianists as Jews at all. But under WP:NPOV, we cannot take the side of these Jewish groups and say that Messianic Jews are just "a Christian religious movement" (and, implicitly, not Jewish). We can call them a "Jewish/Christian religious movement" or something similar; this matches their self-identification and is supported by reliable sources. Or we can leave off both terms entirely, and merely describe what they believe and do. What we cannot do, within the boundaries of Wikipedia policy, is take one side of the debate in the lead and leave the other out. Ludwig's version is fine; Lisa's is completely unacceptable. *** Crotalus *** 15:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
There are no Jewish movements that see Messianics as a Jewish movement. Just as you object to wording that implies Messianism is Christian, so to you can't insert wording (e.g. "other Jewish groups") that implies they are Jewish. Please stick to neutral wording, if that is indeed your goal. Jayjg (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I changed the wording to more closely reflect what the reliable source in question says (including some direct quotes) and removed some footnotes that constituted original research via synthesis.. *** Crotalus *** 18:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you removed valid references and then weasel worded the lede, which was inappropriate. There is no synthesis; they are all clear in defining Messianism as Christianity. I will assume good faith that you did not intend to deliberately mislead people by removing clear facts but were confused somehow by the sources. I would suggest you read those sources you deleted, or at least the quotes that were brought, and please do not remove valid and properly sourced information. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Accusations of weasel wording are inappropriate. I simply quoted from the source that discussed the issue; if that's the terms they use, it is the terms we should use. And footnote #3 (as of this revision) clearly is WP:SYNTH; since when do Aish HaTorah, United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, Hebrew Union College, and Aleph.org comprise "all Jewish religious movements"? That is like saying that the NAACP represents all African-Americans, or that La Raza represents all Hispanics. If you want to say that "all Jewish religious movements" reject Messianic Judaism, you need a reliable source that says that; you can't get there by patching together quotes from individual Jewish organizations that reject Messianism. If WP:SYNTH means anything, it means this. *** Crotalus *** 15:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of making a literary circular argument, if MJs are Jewish, then you cannot say "no Jewish movements" see MJs as Jewish. I know what you mean. It illustrates the heartbreak of those who grow up Jewish and come to accept Yeshua as Messiah, and are subsequently excommunicated from their families. (BTW: Thank you Ludwigs2 for your careful moderation of the topic.) (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC).

Abitrary break 1

MyJewishLearning.com has an article called "Messianic Judaism: A Sect of Christianity with Some Jewish Practices", by Tamar Fox.

Aside from the title itself, this quote is pertinent:

Because of Messianic Judaism's identification with Jesus, all of the major denominations of Judaism (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist) have rejected Messianic Judaism as a form of Judaism.

Are we done here? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this site, and it doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article. Who publishes this site? What makes it a reliable source? I was hoping for something like a book by a mainstream publisher. *** Crotalus *** 17:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's their "about us" page. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
According to John Carter, above, "J. Gordon Melton, in The Encyclopedia of American Religions, includes Messianic Jewish organizations in Section 12, the Independent Fundamentalist Family, within the larger "Christian" grouping, on page 601 and thereabouts, of the Seventh edition, copyright 2003, ISBN 0-7876-6384-0." Jayjg (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can see, every primary source on this issue (every source written from the perspective of Messianic Jews), either identifies them as Jews, or blurs the distinctions between Judaism and Christianity so that neither term really applies. In this particular case - a question about the direct identity of a group - a preponderance of primary sources from the group trumps just about everything. who better to determine the identity of a group than the group itself? --Ludwigs2 01:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, first of all, primary sources are not allowed to be used on Wikipedia as reliable sources. And quite frankly, you're assuming that this isn't a group which was fraudulent from the get-go. Intentionally fraudulent and deceptive. Since this group came into existence for the express purpose of drawing Jews into Christian worship, taking their statements about their identity as some sort of encyclopedic fact would be absurd.
I just started a group called Muslims Against Muhammed. We adhere to the same rules as Orthodox Judaism, but we're Muslims. How many members do we have to have before you're willing to list us as a Muslim group on Wikipedia? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Ludwigs2, as explained above, while the claims primary sources make about their religion do need to be reproduced in the article, members of religions often believe all sorts of things about themselves or their faith, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia accepts these statements as accurate or factual. Wikipedia relies on the views of reliable secondary sources; primary sources, far from "trumping everything", are actually viewed with great skepticism, and may be used only with significant caution. WP:PRIMARY, which is policy, explicitly states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
unfortunately, you both misunderstand primary sources (which are indeed perfectly acceptable sources, when used in context). No one is trying to make a claim about 'truth' or 'facticity' here: we are trying to describe what Messianic Judaism believes, and for statements describing a belief system, there is no source better than a primary source. The problem here is that Wikipedia editors are trying to insist that MJ is a strictly christian (or strictly jewish) belief in contradiction to the actual beliefs of the faith. saying that the belief is 'fraudulent' is silly. it's a small but notable sect; it might be a cult, it might be a lot of bad things, but it is not fraudulent. what members of a faith 'believe' about their faith is (literally and explicitly) what the faith is.
So let's get it straight: I have no problem with you introducing sources that try to place MJ in one category or another - that's appropriate. I do have a problem with you trying to use those sources to place MJ in a particular category, when that placement is disputed in the literature - that's synthesis. see the difference? --Ludwigs2 14:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I haven't at all misunderstood primary sources, which should be used with considerable caution, especially regarding any controversial claims. And we have to go with what the reliable, secondary sources say, not Messianism's self-description. Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
That would be true if I were, for example, to say that as an Orthodox Jew, I view the Reform Movement as fraudulent. That would be just a religious dispute, and my view wouldn't be any more legitimate -- on Wikipedia -- than anyone else's view. But MJ was started not because there were Jews who one day said, "Hey, maybe JC was really what he said he was!" It was started by Christians as a missionary tactic. As a means of tricking Jews, primarily Jews with poor Jewish educations, into thinking that they could believe in JC and still be Jewish. Most MJs who are actually Jewish are victims of trickery and deceit.
So I'll ask you again. How many members do I need to have my Muslims Against Muhammed group listed on the Islam page as an actual form of Islam? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
do you have a secondary source which explains that MJ was started as a Christian Missionary tactic, or is that merely your opinion? Because I don't see that in (say) the history section of this article. In fact, the phrase 'tricking jews' does not seem to be anywhere in the article. in other words, by what authority are you declaring that MJ is just a 'missionary trick'
with respect to your other point, you would need to have an established and notable organization that holds the belief that Islam can exist without Muhammed. When your organization reaches a degree of prominence such that wikipedia recognizes it as notable, then you can/should edit it into the Islam page. Your group will (obviously) receive a tremendous amount of opposition from mainstream Muslims, and that opposition will have to be noted in the article as well, but I don't think you'd want your group's status as a faith dictated by people who oppose you.
I understand that there is a real-world conflict over the status of Messianic Judaism. I might even be inclined to agree with your logic (if I were sufficiently Christian or sufficiently Jewish to think any of this mattered). But we do not import real-world conflicts into wikipedia and fight them out as editors - we merely report them as neutrally as we can. You personally are trying to dictate the answer to a question that's still being asked in the real world. stop it. --Ludwigs2 16:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
You're ignoring reality. In the first place, most Jewish sources won't refer to "Messianic Judaism" for the simple reason that we don't recognize the existence of such a thing. It may be called that here on Wikipedia, which I think is pushing an undue position more than is appropriate anyway, but we certainly aren't going to call it that in anything we right. So expecting any Jewish sources to say, "Messianic Judaism is a form of Christianity" would be ridiculous. Not to mention the fact that it would be like finding a Jewish source that says "The sky is up." Who would waste their time in the real world on such a thing?
Any source which uses that name is almost by definition going to be biased towards the MJ position, because the name itself is a position. Most sources refer to MJs as Christian missionaries, plain and simple. Or as Jews for Jesus or J4J or Jews for Yoshke. And you're hardly going to find a source that says, "Christian missionaries are actually Christian missionaries."
You're being unreasonable in the level of proof you're demanding. MJ is a WP:FRINGE:fringe group, and requiring the same sort of evidence for their invalidity as you do for their validity is giving undue weight to them. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
First, there is no such thing as a 'Fringe Group'. Fringe is a category used on wikipedia to signify ideas that are widely unaccepted but still advanced; it does not apply to ideas or groups as they exist offsite. If you want to say that MJ is a fringe idea, ok, but don't project wikipedia concepts onto the real world.
Second, you're neglecting that this is an article about Messianic Judaism. An idea cannot be fringe with respect to itself - what would that even mean? Obviously we are not going to include MJ on articles about mainstream Judaism or Christianity (that would constitute undue weight), but our task on this article is to describe what MJ is, and the best source for describing what MJ is is the adherents of MJ. You simply cannot neglect what they say (or do not say) about themselves because you happen to think they are fringe nutjobs. Whatever you think about MJ, they do not identify themselves as Christians, and so we cannot identify them as Christians on our own. This is clearcut sourcing policy, so I'm having a hard time seeing what you don't get here. We have sources where MJ adherents say they are Jews; we have other sources that identify MJ as Christian; ergo, there is a disagreement in the literature, ergo we do not take sides in their disagreement. right? --Ludwigs2 23:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
You are, unfortunately, completely incorrect. The best sources for describing Messianism are not adherents, but rather, reliable secondary sources. That is, in fact, "clearcut sourcing policy", so I am having an even harder time seeing what you don't get here. This is basic, basic stuff. What Messianists say about themselves is fine for the section on their beliefs, but the article itself must reflect what reliable secondary sources say about Messianism. Period. Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
So, is this true of all faiths, or just for MJ? For instance, should we write the article on Islam using reliable English-language sources (a large majority of which currently have a distinct anti-Islamic stance)?
regardless, you are missing the main point: there is a disagreement in the literature about the status of MJ, and wikipedia does not take sides in such disagreements. do you disagree with either phrase in that statement? --Ludwigs2 01:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. The only notable view is that they are Christians. We even have sources from them saying that they are Christians, but that they choose not to use that word when dealing with Jews, because it'll spook us. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Ludwigs, of course it's true for all faiths; the best sources for articles on every faith are reliable secondary sources. Again, this is basic, basic policy, and no topic gets a special dispensation to ignore the content rules. As for the "main point", it is actually you who keep missing it; the only "literature" we care about is reliable secondary sources. Do reliable secondary sources have a disagreement about status of Messianism? If so, which ones, and what do they disagree? Jayjg (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Which reliable secondary sources are you referring to? The 'MyJewishLearning.com' site says that all major sects see them as Christian (though that site seems to be a Jewish religious site, so I'm not certain it qualifies unbiased or independent, and it is probably a primary source rather than a secondary source). the 'jewsforjesus.org' site (which was originally introduced as a reliable source supporting your claim) actually identifies MJ adherents as primarily Jews - is that site suddenly unreliable? do you have any scholarly sources that discuss this issue, or are you relying exclusively on partisan websites? you list your sources here, and let's go over them with a fine-toothed comb, shall we? --Ludwigs2 03:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
MyJewishLearning.com is a secondary source, of course, but not a particularly strong one. jewsforjesus is a primary source (see above). You've already seen the source I've mentioned, J. Gordon Melton, The Encyclopedia of American Religions, a respected, printed, non-partisan reference work, so I have no idea what you mean when you suggest I am "relying exclusively on partisan websites". Perhaps you should read all the comments here more carefully. Jayjg (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Just for a start, the book "Messianic Judaism" by Dan Cohn-Sherbock (Continuun:London, 2000) [24] says (at the beginning of Part III on the authenticity of MJ) "Messianic Jews insist that [...] they remain true to the [Jewish] tradition. [...] are adamant that they are fulfilled Jews.The Jewish community, however, has united against the Messianic movement, regarding it as deceptive, disloyal, and dangerous". There's a properly scholarly secondary source which states that there is an unresolved dispute in the real world about the status of messianic Judaism. do you disagree? --Ludwigs2 03:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Messianic Jews insist that. How is that relevant to whether or not the religion is a form of Christianity? Remember, there is only an "unresolved dispute" on the matter if reliable secondary sources disagree on this specific question. Jayjg (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
another source: "Messianic Judaism: A Rabbi's Journey", by Carol Harris-Shapiro (Beacon Press: Boston, 1999) [25], says (page 27) "The younger contingent of the Hebrew Christian Alliance sought a name that would reflect their desire to be identified more strongly as Jews. [...] The organization would now be called the Messianic Jewish Alliance..." i.e., they are rejecting a purely Christian description of their faith.
Yes, they wish to be seen as Jewish. That has always been clear. But how is that relevant? Please provide reliable secondary sources that explicitly state whether or not the movement is Christian. Jayjg (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
another source. in "Passing over Easter" (Lantham: Altamira press, 1998) [26] Shoshana Ferrer argues that Jews have a particularly difficult time accepting Messianic Judaism precisely because MJ tries to bridge the boundaries between Christianity and Judaism, and thus represent a distinct threat to Jewish identity. That implies that the Jewish rejection of MJ is reactive, not objective, and thus a distinct POV. --Ludwigs2 03:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it's not actually discussing the question of whether or not Messianism is Christian, is it? Please focus on the issue at hand. Jayjg (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
another source. [27] This is an associate professor of history who says: "When I began research on the new Messianic Jewish congregational movement over four years ago, I soon learned that both Christians and Jews were experiencing a great deal of frustration. For mainline [Jewish] denominations; the Messianics’ claim to be “Jewish” believers of Jesus was regarded as deceitful. [...] To my surprise, even most evangelicals opposed the Messianic Jews, accusing them [...] of going back under the Law. A well-known Hebrew Christian whom I interviewed, a leader in missionary outreach to the Jewish community, shook his head and quietly explained: To these “Messianic Jews” Jewishness means Judaism . . . a rabbinic Judaism of the Ashkenazic flavor. So, MJ is accused by Jews o being Christian and accused by Christians of being Jewish. --Ludwigs2 04:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes. And? What is the opinion of reliable secondary sources on the matter? Which of them opine on whether or not Messianism is a form of Christianity? Jayjg (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Ludwigs2 — you say, "So, MJ is accused by Jews o being Christian and accused by Christians of being Jewish."
I am not aware that Messianic Judaism is "accused by Christians of being Jewish." What I am aware of is that some Christians wish to distance themselves from Messianic Judaism for other reasons:
"Some liberal churches, uneasy with the evangelical slant of Messianic Judaism and supporting their Jewish dialogue partners, reject the religion as a deceptive hybrid (Kravitz 1996, 10). And, 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 (Beiser 1995, 27; Quebedeaux 1978, 161-162)." [28] Bus stop (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
BS: I'm not personally saying or implying anything. I'm simply doing my best to understand what the sources I gave are saying. We have one question here: do sources specifically identify MJ as a Christian (or as a Jewish) group? Some sources identify it one way, some sources identify it the other, some point out that this is a contested issue. Most Jews reject it as Judaism (though by one of the above sources most Jews resent MJ adherents as apostates, so that is not a non-prejudicial belief). Some evangelical/Christian groups say that MJ has become too Judaic. Messianic Jews are of Jewish decent, and identify as such; most Messianic Jews follow Judaic religious practices with the addition of Christian elements; many Messianic Jews see no necessary contradiction between being Christian and being Jewish. have I misstated any of this?
There is clearly conflict in the real world about the proper classification of Messianic Judaism. The conflict is in the real world; we can not determine a resolution to that conflict on wikipedia without clear indication that a resolution has been reached in the real world. so, do you have any reliable sources which show that this conflict has been resolved one way or another in the real world? --Ludwigs2 12:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Ludwigs2 — you say, "There is clearly conflict in the real world about the proper classification of Messianic Judaism. The conflict is in the real world; we can not determine a resolution to that conflict on wikipedia without clear indication that a resolution has been reached in the real world. so, do you have any reliable sources which show that this conflict has been resolved one way or another in the real world?"
Basically, only Wikipedia is trying to classify Messianic Judaism as being "Jewish" or "Christian." The sources are few and far between that address such a question. There is little discussion on whether Messianic Judaism belongs to "Christianity" or "Judaism." It is widely known that Judaism has nothing to do with Jesus. I think that is the reason that reliable sources do not generally address a question as to whether or not a contradiction concerning Judaism and the acceptance of Jesus is resolved in the entity known as Messianic Judaism. I think reliable sources start with the assumption that there can not be Jewish acceptance of Jesus. Instead other perspectives are taken by sources in elucidating the understandably interesting phenomenon of a movement such as Messianic Judaism. Christianity, as a large world unto itself, is examined by reliable sources for its feelings on the practice of proselytizing to Jews by the means of the introduction of certain symbols that have resonance within Judaism. Some Christians, unsurprisingly, are accepting of the novel approach. After all, Christianity considers a Jewish convert to its religion the most important of endorsements. Conversely Christianity is crestfallen that Jews by and large do not accept Jesus. Jews have traditionally been considered the most valuable targets for conversion to Christianity. Judaism doesn't try to convert Christians to Judaism. Therefore this is a Christian issue. Messianic Judaism is not the brainchild of Judaism. Messianic Judaism is created by Christians. I think that almost all sources are mindful of the Christian nature of Messianic Judaism. Most sources seem to be concerned with how Christianity regards a relatively new approach to proselytizing to Jews. Bus stop (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Ludwig, you say "Some sources identify it one way, some sources identify it the other, some point out that this is a contested issue." Which ones? So far you haven't brought any reliable secondary sources that opine on the matter. Jayjg (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(OUTDENT) Personally, I tend to see the Melton source I referred to above as a secondary source. Melton is described elsewhere, so far as I remember, one of the people who created the way of categorizing the various "Christian" religious groups into the classes that are used in that volume, so the use of that classification system in that book by him may well qualify as "secondary". I think, anyway. John Carter (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

You are confusing Jews and Judaism. There are many Jews in the Democratic Party. That doesn't make the Democratic Party a Jewish movement or a form of Judaism. Yes, there are Jews among MJs. No one denies this. It's a tragedy, but it is what it is. But these are not Jews who are practicing any form of Judaism whatsoever. They are Jews who are practicing Christianity. Words mean what they mean, Ludwig. Worshipping JC is Christian and not Jewish. This means that MJ is a Christian religious group which is based on Christian theology and certain bits and pieces of Jewish ritual and terminology, usually warped. And which has Jewish adherents as well as non-Jewish ones.

Go ahead and quote Sherbock. There's some woman as well. And their views could be included in the body of the article if you like, but they are absolutely the only two such views coming from any Jewish clergy. They are idiosyncratic, and they are often cited in debates such as this one, because they are all there is. No one else accepts their views. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC) July 2010 (UTC)

More important, the quotations Ludwigs has brought from them aren't relevant to the question of whether or not Messianism is Christian, so there would be no point in quoting them on this topic. Please focus solely on what reliable secondary sources say on that matter alone, rather than one's own views on the topic. Jayjg (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Lisa - I'm still waiting for you to provide scholarly secondary sources which state that Messianic Judaism is Christian. while I am personally interested in your opinion, your opinion has no weight whatsoever on wikipedia. The fact that you think it's "a tragedy" that some jews are involved with MJ tells me that you are not approaching this from an unbiased, neutral viewpoint. That's ok (you're entitled to have your opinion on the matter) but you have to recognize that you need to keep your personal biases separate from your editing. So, please restrict yourself to presenting what sources say on the issue.
P.s. I'm just getting started with sourcing on google scholar. I'll need to go to the library to get down to real scholarly discourse on the matter, but this is good for a start. --Ludwigs2 03:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
You're still waiting for a source besides The Encyclopedia of American Religions? Jayjg (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
an encyclopedia is a tertiary source, which is not as reliable as a secondary source (it still has its place, of course, but you can't really use tertiary sources to resolve content disputes). I've given three or four scholarly secondary sources above which show that the question of whether MJ is Jewish or Christian is still highly contested. do you disagree with those sources? on what grounds? --Ludwigs2 04:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Err, where is it written that you can't use "you can't really use tertiary sources to resolve content disputes"? As for the sources you've brought, I've already explained quite clearly above the problems with each one. The main issue is that none of them actually state whether or not Messianism is Christian; rather they just explain that Messianists insist they're Jews, the Jewish community is united against them, etc. These points are already covered in the article, but here we're asking a very different question: what is the view of reliable secondary sources on the question: Is Messianism Christian? Not the views of the Messianists, or Judaism, but the views of reliable secondary sources. Jayjg (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
P.s. please don't chop up my posts - that's rude. can you refactor your individual comments that you interspersed above into one cohesive paragraph below, please? that would make things easier. --Ludwigs2 04:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not rude, since you make your points one at a time, each its own thought, and sign each one. If I broke up unsigned paragraphs comprising one thought it would be a different thing. It's actually easier to read the responses that way. Jayjg (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
It would still be helpful if you refactored them down here. I'll do it myself if you won't/can't; it makes it really difficult to respond when the current point in the discussion is scattered all over the page. --Ludwigs2 11:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't be helpful, it would be the opposite, since my responses are to specific points, and don't necessarily reproduce all the context. Wikipedia discussions are supposed to develop into their own streams this way. You created individual comments, at different times, and I responded to them individually. Please don't move my comments around. If you "refactor them down here", I'll undo it, so please don't bother. If you make individual, lengthy comments I won't break them up. Jayjg (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
understood: you're going to play the hard-ass. personally, I'd suggest you adopt a more cooperative, collegial attitude. I've been dealing with a lot of hard-asses lately, I'm bad tempered about it, and I will fight you bitterly every inch of the way (just out of pure spite) if you get persnickety on me. On the other hand, I would really like to have a calm, civilized, relaxed conversation about the issues, without a lot of fuss and bother and with a certain amount of mutual respect, if that's at all possible. That would make me happy, and we'd get through this much more quickly if we do. can we do that, or are we going to go the hard road? --Ludwigs2 03:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I am astonished at your response here. I'm all for cooperative conversation and working together; I have no idea why you state I'm "going to play hard-ass", and am very concerned that you would state you would "fight you bitterly every inch of the way (just out of pure spite)" for any reason at all. Please, re-think your approach here. Let's work together, ok? Jayjg (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Eh, pardon my bad mood (as I said, I've been dealing with some serious trolls lately, so I tend to come out swinging). however, you might want to take a somewhat more congenial approach when someone requests a structural change to the text for readability purposes. I understand what you mean about responding to specific points; I disagree that it's the correct approach in this case, and I always prefer it when people address my arguments as a whole. point-by-point refutations have their place in the world, but as a general rule they lower the intellectual level of discussions by obscuring the bigger picture behind a mass of details.
so, the bigger picture: We have a number of secondary sources that approach the issue of the categorization of MJ as an undecided question; we have a number of partisan primary sources (Cristian sources, Jewish Sources, MJ sources) that say different things about the categorization of MJ - Jewish sources place it as Christian; Christian sources are mixed; Mj sources tend to cast themselves as Jewish and/or blur the distinction between the faiths. Given this obvious disagreement in the literature, by what grounds do you claim to be able to say that MJ is Christian? (and please note, we cannot use the definition of christianity ourselves to make that assessment, though we can cite sources that do so). --Ludwigs2 15:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the conciliatory note. Regarding the substantive issue, so far I've only seen one source in this section (admittedly a tertiary one) opine on the issue as all. The other sources you've brought haven't given their own opinions on the matter. That's the point I've been trying to get across for several days now. Another source that has been brought in a section below is religioustolerance.org, which says Messianists "Follow an Evangelical Christian theology" and "If one defines a religion according to the deity that they worship, then Messianic Jews are actually Christians because they recognize the existence of the Christian Trinity and the divinity of Yeshua. However, if one goes by how the membership define their own religion, then Messianic Jews are a part of Judaism."[29] As I recall, views on whether or not this site is reliable were mixed at WP:RS/N - the conclusion was sort of "use with caution, and not for WP:BLP issues". In any event, they basically say what we already know; the theology is Christian, but the members believe themselves/claim to be Jewish. Jayjg (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I think this is where the confusion-between-editors comes in. To my mind, if sources aren't venturing opinions on the matter, then Wikipedia ought not to venture an opinion either. Ergo we should not identify them as Christian or Jewish until sources start weighing in on it. The other side (of course) holds that the practices/beliefs of the group are Christian practices/beliefs more than they are Jewish practices/beliefs, and therefore MJ should be identified as a Christian movement. I can understand that perspective, but there's an element of synthesis in it I don't like. There is no clear and distinct agreement that MJ is either faith, so why should we go out of our way to identify them as Christian? --Ludwigs2 20:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I think we have areas where we can agree. Sources consistently indicate Messianism's theology is Christian, but some of its practices are Jewish. They also note that Messianics describe themselves as Jewish, but Jewish denominations reject that identification. In addition, we have at least one tertiary (or, according to John Carter above, secondary) source that defines the movement as Christian. Why don't we just find what other secondary sources directly state regarding the matter? Jayjg (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
If we can find sources that make it definitive, then that would be best. however, it seems obvious that the dispute here is between the way Messianic Jews identify themselves (as Jews) and the way that other Jewish sects identify them (as Christians). If wikipedia is going to explicitly contradict the very people who adhere to the belief, we'd best have an awfully good reason for doing so. --Ludwigs2 23:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
That "other Jewish sects" wording is problematic. If you're going to edit this article in a neutral way, you'll have to abandon any biases. Jayjg (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
and if I actually edited that into the article, you'd be correct to revise it. but this is the talk page, Jay - don't quibble over every little thing or we'll be here until Cthulhu wakes and renders the argument meaningless. --Ludwigs2 06:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Jayjg (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Dan Cohn-Sherbok

This was my e-mail to him:

Subject: question
Sent: 3 Aug 2010 4:50 PM

Dear Sir,

You are quoted widely as being one of two Jewish scholars who maintain that Messianic Judaism is to be considered a form of Judaism. All such citations are fairly old, however, and I was wondering if you still hold this position.

Thank you,
Lisa Liel

This was his response:

Subject: Re: question
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 16:21:21 +0000

Not quite correct. In Messianic Judaism I outline various views of Messianic Judaism and try to show that from a non-orthodox point of view it would be illogical to rule out Messianic Judaism as a form of Judaism if one accepts Reconstuctionist Judaism, Humanistic Judaism, Jubus etc as legitimate forms of Judaism. Sorry I won't have time to engage in a discussion of this vexed issue.
Dan

Given this, I don't think there's any justification for using Cohn-Sherbok as a Jewish source claiming that MJ is a form of Judaism. To do so when even he won't say so explicitly is the very definition of original research. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused: who wants to use this book as a justification for claiming that MJ is a form of Judaism? My point all along has been that the nature of MJ is contested in the literature, which is borne out by Cohn-Sherbok's email (he says that MJ cannot currently be ruled out as a form of Judaism). no one wants wikipedia to explicitly say they are a Jewish sect, we simply want wikipedia to avoid explicitly claiming they are a Christian sect.
The fact that the majority of Jews says that MJ is not Jewish does not mean that it is Christian; It doesn't even mean that it's not Jewish. It just means that there's a conflict overt the issue, and we need to describe the conflict without taking sides in it. --Ludwigs2 03:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
He says nothing of the sort. You're reading into it, and you can't do that here. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
In any case, no one says they aren't a Christian group. There are MJ sources which say they don't like using that term, but that's a different thing entirely. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
and I quote what you quoted: "from a non-orthodox point of view it would be illogical to rule out Messianic Judaism as a form of Judaism if one accepts Reconstuctionist Judaism, Humanistic Judaism, Jubus etc as legitimate forms of Judaism.". in other words, only orthodox Jews can say that Messianic Judaism is illegitimate without violating the basic tenets of logic (assumedly because the same reasoning that would make MJ illegitimate would also make Reformed Judaism, Humanistic Judaism, and Jubus illegitimate). that's what he says, so don't tell me he says nothing of the sort
And again, you're missing the point. this is not about what various groups say about MJ (all notable viewpoints should be included appropriately); this is an observation of the fact that there is a disagreement in the real-world discourse, and wikipedia does not take sides in real-world disagreements. I get that you are personally offended by the concept of Messianic Judaism (and I assume that is because you are Jewish, though I may be wrong). However, wikipedia is not the place to create a definition for the sect. If you personally want to assert the fact that MJ is a Christian sect, then I suggest you go write a book on the subject, convince the scholarly world you are correct, and at that point we will gladly edit your opinion into wikipedia. please don't skip the intermediary steps and try to edit your opinion in now. --Ludwigs2 14:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Ludwigs2 — you say, "I get that you are personally offended by the concept of Messianic Judaism (and I assume that is because you are Jewish, though I may be wrong)."
Why wouldn't a person object to the application of the name of their religion to another religion holding beliefs at variance with their religion? Bus stop (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure they would; why wouldn't they? heck, I wouldn't like someone misrepresenting my religion (if I could figure out what my religion was), but that fact that such misrepresentations might offend me is not grounds for editing a wikipedia article to assert my beliefs. I have no problem with saying "Mainstream Jews say MJ is a Christian sect", which seems to be factually true. I do have a problem with saying baldly "MJ is a Christian sect", where we drop that whole 'mainstream Jews say...' bit. dropping proper attribution in order to make an ontological claim is a wikipedia nono, and it shouldn't be done (no matter how strong feelings run on the issue). --Ludwigs2 17:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
But no one is saying feelings are strong on an issue. The objection is to the misnaming of something, as I understand this issue. If two different things are given the same name — that presents the opportunity for confusion, and with no counterbalancing potential benefit. There is all downside, and no upside, as I see it, to the applying of the same name to something that is different in a significant way. Bus stop (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
If there are no strong feelings here, then why are people insisting on calling MJs Christian, when that is not generally the way that MJs refer to themselves? Again, to clarify: Messianic Jews apparently think of themselves as Jews, and are (in fact) cultural/racal Jews. Most mainstream Jews see them as apostate. However (for perspective) most Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims (i.e.., the majority of the world's population) don't know about the distinction and wouldn't have an opinion on the matter if they did. Is wikipedia supposed to inform all the Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims of the world that the Jews are correct in calling MJs Christians? is Wikipedia supposed to inform all the Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims of the world that the MJs are correct in calling themselves Jews? Making either claim as an asserted fact would be a violation of NPOV, since, in fact, opinions differ on this matter.
See, the problem is precisely where you say: "The objection is to the misnaming of something[...]. If two different things are given the same name [...]" You (you as an editor) are asserting that we are dealing with 'two different things' and misnaming one of them, when in fact many MJ adherents would deny that there are two different things. I can understand how that perspective might be offensive to Jews, but it is not a 'tiny minority' viewpoint, or a viewpoint designed explicitly to be offensive to jews (compare it, for instance, with Holocaust Denialism, which is both). So on what grounds do you want to exclude that opinion and adopt the mainstream Jewish perspective as the correct perspective? --Ludwigs2 19:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Ludwigs2, you asked If there are no strong feelings here, then why are people insisting on calling MJs Christian, when that is not generally the way that MJs refer to themselves? Well, for one thing, because that's what the word means. Christian means worshipping JC. I've already posted sources where MJs themselves say that they choose, for PR reasons not to use the term Christian, but that doesn't mean anything to Wikipedia. If someone is in favor of having a king running the country, that person is a monarchist. If they say, "I want a king, but hey, I'm no monarchist", it's definitely worth noting that they don't like using the word, but it doesn't constitute a debate over whether they're a monarchist or not. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
again, you are making this assessment. as far as I can see (as someone who has no particular axe to grind on the issue) sources do not have a uniform perspective on whether MJs are Christian, or Jew, or both, or neither. do you disagree with that statement? I mean seriously, do you disagree that some sources say one thing and some sources say another? because if you're saying that all sources say that MJs are Christian, that's one thing, but if in fact there is a disagreement in sources then wikipedia cannot choose one side over the other.
I don't really want to hear you make arguments like the one you made above - that is wp:synthesis. If someone says "I am X" then we report that they said "I am X" and we do not go on to say that they are Y because we think they 'fit' better in category Y. If outside sources do that, we can use those, but only with proper attribution. --Ludwigs2 20:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's clear that Cohn-Sherbok doesn't himself declare Messianism to be a form of Judaism. In addition, a source has been introduced to the article that explicitly identifies the movement as evangelical Christian. Jayjg (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Nor does he declare that it is not a form of Judaism. I'm getting a little tired of repeating myself, here - are you guys simply going to refuse to address the evident fact that there is a dispute in the literature here? I mean, it's one thing if you want to demonstrate that my assessment is incorrect (that would be fine), but I'm not going to sit here endlessly listening to you argue a point that's not even in contention.
Again, for clarity: I'm not arguing that we should refer to MJ as a jewish sect. I am arguing that we should not refer to it as a Christian sect (or as a Jewish sect, for that matter), because the matter is still in dispute in the real world. You have two options here: convince me that there is no dispute in the real world, or give up trying to assert that MJ is Christian. Otherwise you're just POV-pushing, and there's no sense in that. --Ludwigs2 00:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Ludwigs2, you keep asserting there is a "dispute in the literature", but you have provided no evidence for it. True, Cohn-Sherbok doesn't declare Messianism to be a form of Christianity, though he does state in his book that, despite having a desire to differentiate itself from Hebrew Christianity, the movement has "nevertheless borrowed a number of important features from both fundamentalist Christianity and the Hebrew Christian movement". However, we now have two reliable sources classifying Messianism as a Christian movement. Where are the reliable secondary sources that dispute this classification? Again, to repeat what I've said many times in earlier comments, it's obvious that the members themselves assert it is Jewish. But where are the reliable secondary sources that assert it is Jewish? So far we have none, though I've asked several times for them, while we do have two reliable secondary sources assert that the movement is Christian. Without such sources, we simply do not have a "dispute in the literature" over what they are. Secondary sources must dispute this. I repeat again, secondary sources. Not members. Secondary sources. Jayjg (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
And I'm telling you that the assertion by the members themselves (supported by secondary sources like Cohn-Sherbok, who indicate that their claims are not impossible) is sufficient to show there is a conflict in the real world. I understand what you're trying to do here - you want to drop all of Messianic Judaism into the wikipedia Fringe category, so that none of adherents of the faith can be considered reliable sources and you can dismiss all of their claims about their own faith out of hand. But that is tantamount to saying that you are going to write this article from a mainstream Jewish perspective. That is a violation of NPOV. When authors like Cohn-Sherbok do not consider the claims of Messianic Judaism to be fringe, by what right do you make that claim? --Ludwigs2 01:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not doing that at all; I haven't mention WP:FRINGE, or argued on that basis. Please read what I'm actually and have been consistently writing. Yes, there is a dispute in the real world between members of the movement classify themselves, and how Jewish movements classify them, and that is captured in the article itself. However, this dispute, while of note, is irrelevant for the purposes of how Wikipedia classifies the group. That's because Wikipedia must rely on reliable secondary sources for these things, not primary sources, exactly as I explained in previous sections. Whether it's a huge 1,400 year-old religion like Islam (to use your previous example), or small 40 year-old movement like Messianism, we must classify them the way reliable secondary sources classify them, not the way movement members think of themselves. Primary sources are of limited and very restricted value here, since we don't write articles based on the way primary sources view themselves (or other primary sources view them), but based on what reliable secondary sources say about the topic. That is why, if you wish to claim a "dispute in the literature", you must find literature that is relevant for Wikipedia's purposes; that is to say, reliable secondary sources that give their own opinions on the topic. Jayjg (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

@Ludwigs2: I'm saying that there is no conflict. You have yet to prove that they don't consider themselves Christians. Only that they choose not to use that term to describe their Christianity. And Cohn-Sherbok does not explicitly say that they are a branch of Judaism. Nor even that they may be a branch of Judaism. Only that there is an illogic to accepting something like Reconstructionism as a branch of Judaism and then excluding MJ. But I suspect that if you were to ask him, he'd tell you that there are a lot of illogical things in Judaism. He did not draw the conclusion that you are attributing to him. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
"..Only that they choose not to use that term [Christian] to describe their Christianity""'... I'm sorry I hadn't realized it was traditional in the Jewish face to wander around repeating "I'm a Jew! I'm a Jew!" in all possible circumstances. Had I known that, I might have converted to the faith; sounds like fun.
I think it's a safe bet that someone who does not use a particular term to describe their faith probably does not think of their faith in those terms. for instance, I notice that Jews very rarely use the term Christian to describe their faith, nor do Hindus, nor Buddhists, nor Zoroastrians nor Sikhs nor even Wiccans, and you have no inclination to call any of those groups Christian. in fact the vast majority of Christians probably don't use the word 'Christian' as self-reflective commentary frequently in their daily lives. Further, I have previously given at least three sources which show Messianic Jews referring to themselves as Jews. It seems odd to me that you would suggest that people who choose to use the word 'Jew' and do not choose to use the word Christian should in fact be referred to by the term they choose not to use instead of the term they choose to use.
I think this is part of the problem. you have it stuck in your head that all MJ adherents are (as a fact) Christian liars trying to trick Jews, and you refuse to consider the possibility that there might be people who seriously want to blend Christian and Jewish faiths into a cohesive whole under the auspices of judaism. I have no such preconception, and you have no reliable sources that determine your preconception as the truth. or am I misunderstanding you? --Ludwigs2 21:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
@ jayjg: You say 'no' an awful lot: soon I'm going to start using reverse psychology to get you to gainsay yourself. In other words, don't say 'no' right before you agree with me. If you agree, as you said above, that there is a dispute in the real world, then Wikipedia is prohibited from taking sides in that dispute, unless (per wp:Fringe and wp:undue) one side in the dispute is such a small, insignificant minority that it cannot be included in the discussion in an unbiased, neutral manner. Are you suggesting to me that the opinions of people who are adherents of MJ constitute a tiny minority opinion in the discussion of the very definition of MJ? how would that be possible? --Ludwigs2 21:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, if someone were to make an WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE argument, they would make it based on the fact that there are only 100,000 or so adherents of Messianism, and that the religion itself is only 40 years old. More to the point, though, you've misread what Wikipedia considers to be a "dispute". Wikipedia only considers disputes between reliable secondary sources to be relevant; those are the kinds of disputes that Wikipedia doesn't take sides in. There are also "disputes in the real world" about, for example, whether the sun or earth is the center of the solar system, among other things; Wikipedia nevertheless writes its articles from the point of view of heliocentrism, because no reliable secondary sources dispute that view. Similarly, many millions of people believe that the Holocaust is a hoax; nevertheless, Wikipedia writes its articles from the point of view that the Holocaust happened, because no reliable secondary sources dispute that the Holocaust occurred. You keep dancing around that requirement to find reliable secondary sources that dispute that Messianism is Christian. Until you find any, all this discussion really means nothing. Wikipedia reproduces the views of reliable secondary sources. That's what's required here. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
and that would be a textbook example of wp:wikilawyering. first, I do not believe you will find 100,000 serious supporters of geocentrism or holocaust denialism (the first because it's a clearly superseded scientific theory, and the second because holocaust denialism is revisionist history, which currently lacks historical verification). second, wikipedia does not write articles from a heliocentric perspective (since heliocentrism is as outmoded as geocentrism). wikipedia also does not write articles from a Newtonian or relativistic perspective; it simply writes articles which give Newtonian and relativistic physics their proper place with respect to the scientific discussions at hand (which is usually, but not always, as the dominant perspective). Third, a small number of adherents is certainly good grounds (under undue) to keep messianic judaism from being discussed much (if at all) on articles about mainstream judaism, but this is an article about messianic judaism. Are you seriously trying to use policy to make sure that MJ is defined in a way that excludes the way MJ defines itself?
wp:NPOV says (and I quote) that articles should be written "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." It does not suggest that articles should be written from the 'correct' perspective (be that the perspective of Newtonian physics or the perspective of mainstream Judaism), nor does it suggest that we should exclusively use the terminology of a group that is clearly and self-admittedly biased against the topic. You are trying to give preference to a particular view with a particular bias over all other views (with their own biases), and that is not the way NPOV works. --Ludwigs2 22:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The claim of "wikilawyering" is both untrue and a violation of WP:CIVIL; if you wish to engage meaningfully here, and continue this discussion, please remove it. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
It was neither uncivil nor unjustified: If it's wrong, explain why, and I will happily retract. Look, Jay - I know I don't have a bias here (I could really give a flying fig one way or the other about the issue); I'm just incredibly stubborn about neutrality. The fact that I believe you are speaking from bias means either (a) I am missing some very important clue in this discussion, or (b) you actually are speaking from bias. Very little you've said so far leads me to think point 'a' is true. --Ludwigs2 07:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
As I said, it was untrue and a violation of WP:CIVIL; this is not a matter for debate, since the only possible polite rejoinder is "I believe you, and apologize". Any other response means "you are lying". Also, discussions about whether or not I have "bias" here are also not appropriate here: Comment on content, not on the contributor. If you wish to continue this discussion, please retract these statements. Alternatively, if you continue to assert that I am lying, then we have no common basis for engaging on this topic. Jayjg (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, there's nothing I can do to stop you from taking offense to an otherwise neutral comment, so c'est la vie. --Ludwigs2 20:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
For what little it may be worth, the Vaishnavas object to the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, like the Hare Krishna movement, calling themselves by the name they use ("Vaishnava", in this case) as well, pretty much for the same reasons. Unfortunately, the Gaudiya Vaishnavas do claim to be "vaishnava"s, even if the others do not, and I think based on previous discussion that, however doctrinally different they are, they have as much "right" to use the term as anyone else. I guess part of the question is who gets to define what does and does not qualify as being "legitimate" in these matters. Personally, I don't know whether the quotation from Lisa above is considered acceptable for altering the article, but I myself wouldn't mind seeing it mentioned in the article, maybe something to the effect that MJ is not considered to be a legitimate variation on Judaism by other Jewish groups, although the reasoning behind that rejection is less than clear. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, I'm glad that no one is making the "fringe" argument, but even if they were, I would have to say that I think this might not be an appropriate place to use it. It is apparently "not" that much of a "fringe" belief that MJs see thmselves as Jewish, so WP:FRINGE doesn't apply on that basis. And, in general, I'm not sure that applying it here wouldn't be, in effect, an attempt to impose doctrine on the project here. There are a significant number of fundamentalist Christians, for example, who say that members of the Catholic church are not Christians. If Catholicism weren't roughly half of all self-described Christians alive today, we would very possibly be having that argument here regularly as well. Luckily, we have not. And, of course, there are the Southern Baptists who have I think stated officially that Mormonism is not a form of Christianity. In that case, I would think that outsiders were saying that their definition of "Christianity" is the only one that counts, a rather POV assertion, and that they were claiming, in effect, "divine" knowledge of the subject. In all such cases, I personally think that the self-identification of the members of the group is what should take priority. The members of the group are, in a sense, the real expert opinions on the matter of their own beliefs. All outsiders could be seen as excluding them based on either a lack of familiarity or as attempting to impose their POV on the subject. This could be particularly important when there is a question regarding the neutral objectivity of the outsiders, like, maybe, in the case at least a few Jews freaking out over other alleged "Jews" accepting Jesus as a prophet.
I have a feeling that this "are they or aren't they" argument is something which might be more often dealt with by members of other faiths than Jews, those others having faced the discussion longer. In those cases, I think wikipedia has chosen not to take any sides on the issue, and present the data available as neutrally and non-judgementally as possible. This has, admittedly, tended to allow the assertion of the minority group to stand, although acknowledging that everyone else disagrees with them. John Carter (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
That is pretty much what I've been trying to say all along here, so pardon me if I bop you with a heart-felt "Well Put!" --Ludwigs2 20:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
John, on Wikipedia it doesn't matter what primary sources believe about themselves, it only matters what reliable secondary sources say. For example, there are hundreds of millions of people who believe that the Universe is 10,000 years old or less. Nevertheless, Wikipedia's Universe article states that the Universe is 11-20 billion years old (with the best estimate at 13.73 billion years). Just because there is a "real world dispute" between those who believe the universe is under 10 thousand years old, and those who believe it is over 10 billion years old, that doesn't mean our Wikipedia articles state "the Universe is 13.73 billion years old according to scientists, and 6,000 years old according to young earth creationists". Why not? Because Wikipedia only cares about the opinions of reliable secondary sources, and all reliable secondary sources agree that the earth is 13.73 billion years old (or thereabouts). Jayjg (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
That is simply an incorrect reading of policy, and a misstatement of the facts. To the point, we have an entire article on Young Earth creationism which does a reasonably good job of neutrally explaining exactly what it is these people believe. of course the young-earthers don't appear on the universe article, any more than messianic judaism should appear on the Judaism article, but by the same token we don't try to try to squelch the young-earthers' beliefs on the YEC article and we shouldn't try to squelch what Messianic Jews believe on the MJ article (and trust me - astrophysicists have a much stronger grounds for criticizing YEC than Jews have for criticizing MJ). --Ludwigs2 22:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I tend to have to agree with Ludwigs here. WP:NPOV is an even more central wikipedia policy than WP:FRINGE. We are expected to be neutral in all content. Neutrality, in this sense, includes not ruling out something as factual which is asserted by a one group simply because some other groups disagree with them. Jayjg refers to points of science in support of the FRINGE point, but there is a serious question whether matters of religious belief, which pretty much by definition falls outside the scientific field, really qualify as such. I hope it is understood that I am not saying that the article should in any way assert that MJs are Jews, because that would be as much an NPOV violation as the alternative. Also, unfortunately, there is a serious question whether the sources which say the MJs are not Jewish, the other Jewish groups, are themselves necessarily nonbiased and/or indicative of the opinions of other "Jews" who have existed historically, such as the dubiously monotheistic/possibly polytheistic Jews described in Raphael Patai's The Hebrew Goddess, which I have seen in journals described as being now a "mainstream" theory. Yes, the three other Jewish groups have expressed an opinion/POV about the subject, and that should be respected. The MJs have expressed a different opinion. Neither can be said to be inherently right, or inherently objective. In cases like this, I think we have to follow NPOV more than other policies and guidelines. However, given the available sourcing, that would demand no more than a statement that some MJs consider themselves to be Jewish, and that the three extant mainstream Jewish organizations disagree. Also, I think it would be reasonable to add a statement about Cohn-Sherbok's comments quoted at the beginning of this thread, if possible, considering that it is the statement of a qualified expert who has questions about the conclusions of the three extant groups, possibly over the objectivity/neutrality of Jewish groups who might resist being considered related to other groups they feel, perhaps emotionally, distant from?
And I want to make it clear that I was not and am not in any way "dissing" Jews for rejecting MJs as Jewish because some Jews really don't like belief in Jesus being associated in any way with Judaism. Admittedly, the MJs are, if Jews, syncretistic Jews, and how to classify syncretistic groups is a serious question for all religions. The classification of MJs as Christians by Melton is clearly the statement of a reliable source, but it is only one reliable source. I don't know how others have opined on the matter, if they have. But, in the interests of NPOV, I really do think that in this instance, like the other questionable religious classifications I mentioned above, we should error, if at all, on the side of inclusiveness. John Carter (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Ludwigs2 — why would "astrophysicists have a much stronger grounds for criticizing YEC than Jews have for criticizing MJ"? Bus stop (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Ludwigs2 — I don't think we try to "squelch what Messianic Jews believe." I think we try to put into context what some of the Messianic Jews say. (I believe some say that they are Christians.) Context should be mindful of the dictionary definition of "Christian," which is "of or relating to Christ." [30] Messianic "Jews" say they are "Jews" — yet they fit the dictionary definition of "Christian" to a T. I believe that this article should endeavor to use what reliable sources say in order to place into context a characterization of Messianic Jews that is ultimately accurate. The article at present is stating that Messianic Jews state that they are Jews. That is an accurate portrayal of their identity within a wider context involving other sources. The dictionary definition of Christian might be one of those sources. Bus stop (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
@ Bus Stop: except that labeling them as Christian implicitly says they are not-Jews, which contradicts their own self identification. That means that you are privileging one viewpoint (that they are Christians) over other notable viewpoints (that they are Jews, or some hybrid faith) and that is not consistent with NPOV. I mean seriously: this is like insisting that gay guys should be called women because they don't act like men. is that the kind of logic you want to use? --Ludwigs2 03:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Ludwigs2 — sources say that Messianic Jews are Christians. You say, "labeling them as Christian implicitly says they are not-Jews." Whether implicitly or explicitly I think that the assertions we place in articles should conform to that which is supported by sources. You say that doing so, "contradicts their own self identification." The article states (or it should state) that some Messianic Jews claim that they are Jews. You reference the important Wikipedia concept of Neutral Point of View. That ideal state (of neutral point of view) is achieved by giving voice to all reasonably substantial "points of view," which this article is doing in giving voice to the claim on the part of Messianic Jews that they are Jews. Contradiction is acceptable as long as it is sourced. And as long as undue weight is not given. You refer to a "hybrid faith." What hybrid faith are you referring to — one which asserts Jesus exists (as Savior) and denies Jesus exists (in that capacity)? Jews unanimously reject everything the Messiahship of Jesus stands for, yet some Messianic Jews claim that in them an abode is found for these two mutually exclusive notions. The Messianic Jews that make these assertions are given a voice in the article, in accordance with WP:NPOV, and a conformance to views that sources confirm. Indeed sources do confirm that some Messianic Jews claim that they are Jews. (Other Messianic Jews claim that they are Christian.) But we need not emphasize their claims. The claims of those Messianic Jews who assert that they are Jews, are broadly at odds with the notions of Judaism found in virtually all other sources. Bus stop (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
NPOV does not "giv[e] voice to all reasonably substantial points of view", NPOV "represent[s] fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views." As I have said four or five times already, I am not trying to tell you to identify MJs as Jews. I am simply trying to prevent others from identifying them solely as Christians, because that is the view of JEWS on the matter, and violates NPOV. there are three options here:
  • We say "MJ is a Jewish group": ✗ - this contradicts what some Jewish (and other) sources claim, and violates NPOV.
  • We say "MJ is a Christian group": ✗ - this contradicts what some MJ (and other) sources claim, and violates NPOV.
  • We say "MJ is a religious group": ✓ - this does not contradict what any source says, and keeps a nice unassuming balance. the article can then go on to discuss the various claims on the matter.
I do understand that from the traditional Jewish perspective there is no middle ground here. I also understand that this is a parochial, dogmatic, reactive claim; the kind of belief that would - and frequently is - offered by any number of religions in defense of their spiritual 'turf'. It is not wikipedia's purpose to support (or oppose, or validate, or dismiss) parochial dogma for any side of any dispute, so let's not do that.
There are a variety of diverging/competing opinions about the nature of MJ present in sources. They should all be presented in proper balance. However, we cannot begin by asserting that one of the opinions is true (because that's the one that Jews believe), and still maintain NPOV. it's bizarre that you would even suggest that.
I disagree with your analysis.
  • We say "MJ is a Jewish group": ✗ - this contradicts what some Jewish (and other) sources claim, and violates NPOV. It also contradicts MJ sources which note that (a) many of their adherents are not Jewish and that (b) some of them consider belief in Jesus as "making them Jewish", which is so WP:FRINGE that it should not be taken seriously other than to note their position in the article. It is an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence.
  • We say "MJ is a Christian group": ✓ - There are a number of MJ sources which say that they prefer to use a different term other than Christian in order not to scare away Jews they might potentially convert. I've brought some of those sources already. This does not constitute MJs claiming they aren't Christian. It only constitutes them choosing not to use that term for practical purposes. Any definition of "Christian" in any dictionary, anywhere, or any encyclopedia article, will cite worship of Jesus as the sine qua non of the term. Since there is no MJ source which denies that they worship Jesus (or will you claim that there is, because they choose to use the name Yeshua instead of Jesus?), they are Christian. Yes, some of their members are also Jewish, but that doesn't make the group a Jewish one.
  • We say "MJ is a religious group": ✗ - This leaves out pertinent encyclopedic information.
You insist on claiming that they deny being a Christian group, and you have yet to establish that. You have found sources which claim that they are a Jewish group, but you yourself pointed out that we can't say they are one based on those sources. But you're choosing to interpret their claims of being a Jewish group as a denial that they are a Christian group. That's your own personal opinion. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Your second point amounts to mind-reading (unless you have some non-psychic way of knowing what MJ adherents think about what they say). It also constitutes wp:synthesis, since it is you yourself as an editor trying to apply your own definition of Christianity to the group (sources are not in uniform agreement on this point). your third point is a straw man argument - no information is being excluded, since we can easily talk about what what Jews think about MJ later in the body and develop the whole Christian theme there. You are simply pushing to have MJs labeled as Christians, for reasons that I cannot fathom, and you keep ignoring the sourcing which shies away from calling the Christians or makes a point of calling them Jews. Either find a reason for sidestepping Neutral Point of View that flies on Wikipedia (there are a few, yes), or give it up as a lost cause. NPOV states (bolding added for emphasis): "When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions." NPOV also states: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view." You really ought to take the time to read this policy and understand it, because what you are currently arguing is (as Arthur suggests below) absurd with respect to policy. --Ludwigs2 20:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Christians also consider Messianics as Christians, which was in the citations you removed, in violation of WP:NPOV, I might add, also, blatantly disregarding the "inuse" tag and nearly ruining hours of my work, which is just plain old rude. Please do not remove citations that you do not like. If you have issues, use the talk page. Removing cited sources without valid reasoning (wiki violations of WP:V or consensus, which you certainly do not have) is a form of disruptive editing. -- Avi (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Ludwig, from the edit conflict, it seemed that much more was removed. -- Avi (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
no problem and sorry for the confusion. it's just that particular narrow point I'm disputing. I'll look over your changes more carefully later, but I don't see anything objectionable at first glance. --Ludwigs2 17:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
This is still absurd, on Lisa's and Bus stop's part. I quite agree that MJs are a Christian group by any proposed objective criteria, but they say they aren't Christian, but are Jewish. All the sources that have been provided which say the MJs say or believe that MJs are Christians are even more fringe than these people. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Their personal claim to be Jewish is well represented in the article. So what's the issue? Jayjg (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Sources have been provided that they say they are Jewish. I don't recall seeing a credible source which reported that they say or deny that they are Christian. The sources previously in the article that they say they are Christian are from (yet another) fringe (self-proclaimed) Christian group. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Which reliable secondary sources say they are Jewish? Jayjg (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not that MJs don't share many of the same beliefs (but not all) as most Christians, but rather that it's not an either/or definition that denies their Jewishness. Our services aren't "Christian with some Jewish practices" but rather Jewish with some Christian interpretations. We fast on Yom Kippur and use an abbreviated Siddur. (We also party at Purim, something few Christians do.) It is a matter of the interpretations we make in our sermons and evangelism (to the 80% of the Jews who are not active in any mainstream religious practice).DeknMike [[User talk:DeknMike}(talk)]] —Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Messianic_Judaism/Archive_17&oldid=1064236046"