Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

"Messianic Jew"?

If most Christians and Jews do not accept followers of Messianic Judaism as Jews, I suggest that the term "Messianic Jew" used in some articles is misleading, and should be replaced by something like "follower of Messianic Judaism". I think the first term is likely to mislead readers of a general encyclopaedia; the replacement seems both accurate and non-contentious (there is no reason for people of either opinion to object). Pol098 (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds great. Go ahead and update the article. Zad68 (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"Messianic Jew" isn't used much in this article, and it's not misleading as the article discusses the concept in detail, but I have made the above replacement in a couple of other articles where people are described as Messianic Jews without comment. No reaction after a few hours. Pol098 (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Super, thanks. Zad68 (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I've linked edit summaries to this section. I quote from the article (for people who follow these links; see article for references): "Some members of the movement are ethnically[refs] Jewish, and some of them argue that Messianic Judaism is a sect of Judaism.[refs] Jewish organizations and religious movements reject this, stating that Messianic Judaism is a Christian sect.[refs] The Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that the Law of Return should treat Jews who convert to Messianic Judaism the same way it treats Jews who convert to Christianity.[refs] Mainstream Christian groups generally accept Messianic Judaism as a form of Christianity.[refs]" Pol098 (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Micah Sachs, writing in the San Diego Jewish Journal remarked that "Jews for Jesus is not a synonym for Messianic Jews. Messianic Judaism is a religion whose adherents believe Jesus is the messiah and son of God but still perform many traditional Jewish rituals, from keeping a Sabbath on Friday nights to celebrating Passover seders. They call their houses of worships synagogues and their leaders rabbis. Some come from Jewish backgrounds, others from Christian backgrounds.' He says that 'the reason for Jewish anger towards Messianic Jews has more to do with sociology than theology...Most of us were raised by parents who knew far less than they’d like to about Judaism. The easiest shortcut to explaining Judaism to a child is explaining what it is not – it is not Christianity. As a child I knew my family didn’t worship Jesus, although I wasn’t quite sure if we worshipped God. Eventually, that kind of socialization of negative attitudes toward Christianity becomes visceral disgust. It becomes unrooted from its intellectual basis and becomes an emotion that colors and blinds our opinions." [1] Sachs says the movement has value: "Ask yourself who is a more valuable member of our community: the man who goes to synagogue every Friday night, keeps kosher and worships Jesus, or the Jew who’s unaffiliated and could care less about his people, culture or religion?" (Note that Micah Sachs is a journalist who previously served as founding editor of the San Diego Jewish Journal and managing editor of InterfaithFamily.com. His writing has appeared in The Boston Globe, The Jewish Week, the MetroWest Daily News and other publications. [2]) My question to the group, then, is how do we integrate this non-partisan opinion into the main article? --DeknMike (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Why and where would this opinion be relevant? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Messianics as both Christian and Jew, and neither

I'm finding literature that suggests the reason for the lack of Messianic scholarship is that Christians view Messianics as Jewish and Jews view Messianics as Christian, but in reality they stand as a middle way.

Wolfhart Pannenberg also takes up the “excluded middle” status of Messianic Jews in thesis six of Dabru Emet, “The ‘messianic Jews’ intend to remain Jews while professing Jesus to be the Messiah. Sooner or later Christian-Jewish dialogue will have to take notice of this fact…The communities of ‘messianic Jews’ in their own way give testimony to the next thesis that the new ‘relationship between Jews and Christians will not weaken Jewish practice’” (Wolfhart Pannenberg, “A Symposium on Dabru Emet,” Pro Ecclesia 9:1, Winter 2002, p. 9), in David J Rudolph 'Messianic Jews and Christian Theology, p 13) [3]

Page 14 of Rudolph's essay includes a quote from Ellen T. Charry (from “Response to Carl Kinbar,” The Princeton Theological Review 8:2&3 (April 2001), pp. 38-39.) "Our very presence declares that this forbidden dialogue is not dead and will not die. Our very presence challenges both Jew and Christian to take another look at their presuppositions." She explains "Messianic Jews are open to the charge of being a “duplicitous tertium quid that has neither Jewish nor Christian theological integrity no matter how sincere its adherents may be."

Scot McKnight notes that "many Jews do not give up, or refuse to give up, their fundamental identity as a part of Judaism. They remain observant. Those Jewish converts who retain their Jewishness are usually called "Messianic Jews" and are a part of what is called "Messianic Judaism." The present study is concerned with the latter "sort" of Jewish conversion to the Christian faith." [4] ( McNight & Johnson 'From Tel Aviv to Nazareth: Why Jews become Messianic Jews' Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society p773. Note that the ETS is "a professional, academic society of Biblical scholars, teachers, pastors, students, and others involved in evangelical scholarship.")

The footnote 3 also says "There is a tricky and (not for me to solve) problem among Jews who believe in Jesus, and that has to do with what to call themselves. Among the names, we note: Hebrew Christians, Messianists, Messianic Jews, and Jewish Christians."

Page 774 begins with the statement "Messianic Jews have been criticized from two sides: non-Messianic Jews think of them as apostates and as no longer genuinely part of Judaism while (Gentile) Christians tend to be both enamored with them and, at the same time, quite skeptical of their desire to retain their Jewish identity." --DeknMike (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC) --DeknMike (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You say you found quotes that suggest a "reason for the lack of Messianic scholarship" but the quotes you provided do not at all address the subject of scholarship. I'm not sure what you mean to get at here, and what changes you expect to see in the article as a result. Trying to draw the conclusion you are drawing from the quotes you provided is pure WP:OR. Please also review WP:NOT#FORUM. Zad68 (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Which is it? Do the quotes from the scholarly journals and PhD dissertations belong on the main article page or the discussion page? You seem to have made up your mind about the topic and don't want to be bothered with scholarly research, and continue to deprecate me for bringing forth other views on the matter, but I will continue to seek authoritative research into the movement (and not, as one author called them, novels with an angenda). My point for this section was to counter the assertion that MJ is 'deceptive Chritian proselitizing' but rather a legitimate third option that encompases both Judaism and Christianity (their words, not mine). --DeknMike (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVILITY. You disparage an "agenda," but then you bring quotes from: Pennenberg, who is a professional Christian apologist and theologian for the evangelical Christian church, via Rudolph, an active evangelical MJ proselytizer; and McKnight, who writes articles for Christianity Today (tag line: "A magazine of evangelical conviction"). So, to be polite, you are giving off a 'mixed message.' You complain about MJ being characterized as 'deceptive Christian proselytizing' but the article itself doesn't say it is. (A few references do, but the article itself does not.) Regarding changes to the article: as the article does not currently exhibit the things you appear concerned about, I'm not sure what response you are looking for. Zad68 (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Three of the four references to the final sentence of the lede ("Mainstream Christian groups generally accept Messianic Judaism as a form of Christianity") actually ontradict that sentence. Harries notes "have congregations independent of other churches" but not that churches consider MJ as Christian. Kessler notes "mainstream Christian perspective Messianic Judaisms can also provoke hostility for misrepresenting Christianity." Stetzer notes "The messianic congregation (is)... in this case indigenous to Jewish culture." The fourth source (Harris-Shapiro) quotes Kravits calling it a 'deceptive hybrid"; she explains the quote used in this article in the next paragraph with "As a result, Messianic Jews are looked upon with suspicion by liberal Chrisian churches, accepted only partially by some evangelical organizations and are considered pariahs by the American Jewish community. On page 7 Harris-Shapiro calls MJ 'the oxymoric identity of being Jewish and Cristian at the same time." and points to a source that referenced Gager, John G., "Jews, Christians and the Dangerous Ones in Between" (in Shlomo Biderman and Ben-Ami Scharfstein eds. Interpretation in Religion, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992). --DeknMike (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's a more full quote from Harries (found in the citation): "They often have congregations independent of other churches and specifically target Jews for conversion to their form of Christianity." Harris-Shapiro explicitly states (in the citation) "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". Stetzer states "Missional churches are indigenous. Churches that are indigenous have taken root in the soil and reflect, to some degree, the culture of their community... The messianic congregation (is)... in this case indigenous to Jewish culture" - just another example of an ethnic Missional church. You are again misrepresenting sources and contradicting them via WP:NOR. User:Noleander was recently topic-banned by the Arbcom for misrepresenting sources. Please stop wasting our time here; if you're not prepared to respect the other editors here enough to make comments that are truthful, then there's no point in responding. Comment again, if you like, but make sure your comment is completely relevant and truthful, or it will be ignored. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Structure, duplication reduced, but still some

The article to the general reader was mistructured with subsections which should have been sections, vice-versa, and repeated series of paragraphs on the same (or clearly related) subjects. I've tried to reorder by moving into the following major sections:

1 History
2 Theology and core doctrines

   * 2.1 God, and Jesus
         o 2.1.1 The Trinity ----- BROKE THIS OUT INTO A SEPARATE SUBSECTION
         o 2.1.2 Jesus ---- MOVED UP, DUPLICATION LEFT INTACT
   * 2.2 The Bible ---- NEEDS COMMENT ON APOCRYPHA, MISHNAH?
   * 2.3 Evangelism and attitudes to Jews and Israel
         o 2.3.1 One Law theology ---- NEEDS NAMES/SOURCES?
         o 2.3.2 Two House theology ---- NEEDS NAMES/SOURCES?
         o 2.3.3 Supersessionism ---- NEEDS NAMES/SOURCES?
   * 2.4 Eschatology ---- JOINED TWO SECTIONS, BUT DUPLICATION LEFT INTACT
   * 2.5 Torah observance -------THIS STILL OVERLAPS WITH SECTION 5.

3 Religious texts

   * 3.1 Scriptural commentary
   * 3.2 Jewish Paul ---------------THIS STILL LOOKS OUT OF PLACE

4 Messianic organizations

   * 4.1 Affiliated organizations --- THE LAST 2 OR 3 LOOK NON-WP:NOTABLE

5 Religious practices

   * 5.1 Holiday observances --- CHRISTMAS?
   * 5.2 Dietary laws
   * 5.3 Conversion to Messianic Judaism ----- WHY NO MENTION OF BAPTISM?
   * 5.4 Circumcision ---- BROKE OUT INTO SEPARATE SECTION

5.6 STILL NEEDED : SOME EXPLANATION + SOURCE/REF ABOUT WHY THE PREFERENCE FOR HEBREW RATHER THAN ENGLISH FOR SOME TERMS.

6 Culture

   * 6.1 Music

7 Reception of the Messianic Judaism movement

   * 7.1 Reception among Jews
         o 7.1.1 Specific response to "Messianic Judaism"
         o 7.1.2 Generic response of Judaism to Christianity
   * 7.2 Response of Israeli government
   * 7.3 Response of US government
   * 7.4 Response of other Christians ------- I ADDED THIS SECTION OF 4 SENTENCES + REFS. SURPRISED IT WASN'T THERE ALREADY.

I hope this restructure meets with a measure of general approval. If in doubt compare before... In ictu oculi (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The edits generally seem fine to me. I think you added too much theological detail to the lede, which was also not found in the cited sources, so I shortened it. Remember, the lede is supposed to be an overview, not a complex discussion of the finer points of Christian theology. Also, please source the material you added to the History section. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, good, thanks for that. Fully agree with those comments and improvements.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually seems what was removed from lede wasn't mine :). But will ref up the prelude to History where I stuck some placeholding material in to correct the appearance that proselytizing to Jews came out of zero in 1890s.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

nascent vs modern Messianic Judaism

The sources clearly say there were small (and sometimes fleeting) congregations and organizations of Jewish Christians in the 19th and early/mid 20th century, using a variety of names, including Hebrew Christian, Jewish Christian and Messianic. Other sources note a change in character and growth in size with the influx of large numbers of converts in the late 60s and early 70s. Is it a stretch to make the distinction at the start of the 4th para in the History section to add the word "modern" at the beginning to show that paragraph is talking about the Modern Messianic movement?--DeknMike (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the history para needs 2 subheadings? As far as I can tell, from a superficial look at sources, the main distinguishing features of the 1970s movement are those that caused a reaction from traditional more culturally assimilated organisations? It'd be interesting to know [i.e. see a sourced/refed line in article] what % of Jewish-descent Christians in Israel are counted as/count themselves as "Messianic"?In ictu oculi (talk) 06:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears that most who converted in the late 1800s wanted nothing to do with synagogue life, and although they had become christian though targeted outreach to the Jews, Ariel says they simply joined churches. The few that argued for retaining Jewish forms and ritual were outvoted in organizational meetings. Finally, during the late 60s and early 70s, as Jewish nationalism merged with tactics from targeted missions organizations like Jews for Jesus, new converts sought to retain Jewish forms in their worship. And the HCA, which had opposed the term Messianic in the early 1900s, formally changed their name to embrace the shift in practice. (But until I can find a logitudinal study that confirms this, it's only speculation!)--DeknMike (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi DeknMike, If you can get a source it sounds worth including In ictu oculi (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This is just one more attempt to insert the revisionist history that there was a "older" Messianic Judaism movement that predated the "modern" one of the 1960s onwards. No, the sources are quite clear that while various groups of Jews converted to Christianity before the advent of Messianic Judaism, Messianic Judaism itself arose in the 1960s. We will not be stating or implying anything else in this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you've made up your mind and no amount of data, research or validation will change it?--DeknMike (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the exact opposite; my views follow exactly what the reliable sources explicitly say. It is you, in fact, who have "made up your mind and no amount of data, research or validation will change it". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the sections that had nothing to do with Messianic Judaism, although I left a "see also" to Hbrew Christians, and left the initial sentence about converted Jews trying to convert other Jews to Christianity going back in antiquity. -- Avi (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

DeknMike, Jayjg Zad68, good edits.

Avraham, your deletion of historical context reverted: "I've removed the sections that had nothing to do with Messianic Judaism" please explain. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Avraham has a valid point; we can't just choose whatever parts of history we think are relevant to the topic, and then insert them as "background"; instead, we have to rely on what reliable sources consider to be the relevant historical background. That said, Avi's removal did remove some material that was actually included by sources as background on the MJ movement. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, you clearly know more about this subject than I do, but speaking as a general reader it isn't immediately obvious why/how some of these MJ movements are critically different from 1890s and 1930s congregations. Can you help point out in the article the specific ref "No, the sources are quite clear that while various groups of Jews converted to Christianity before the advent of Messianic Judaism, Messianic Judaism itself arose in the 1960s. " I would suspect you're right. But what are the distinguishing/salient features of the MJ movement(s) which distinguish it (them?) from earlier Jewish-Christian congregations? Separatism? Use of Hebrew vocabulary? Ritual? Gentile wannabees? ... if a salient difference exists (and I suspect you are right that it does) then it ought to be sourceable. Likewise if DeknMike can provide a source (and I can't find one/see one, but that doesn't mean there isn't one) that would... well.... we'll see. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The most salient points are references 1,2,3, and 4. Please review the associated quotations, all of which explicitly state that MJ arose in the 1960s and 70s. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, Thanks, I'll review. Thanks also for moving my dislocated comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, Thanks there's certain enough clear consistent points in 1,2,3 - it would be interesting to see them boiled down to something in the middle of the history paragraph to explain how/why MJ is different from the activities of say Joseph Frey; * attitude to cultural integration, * existence of Israel post 1948, * Church/Paul prohibitions/cautions/ambiguity on Gentiles adopting Mosaic/Noahic law/ritual, ........and it might be the case (Avraham) that the pre-MJ history section should be shortened (moved to 19thC Hebrew Christian Movement) once these explanations for the differences are in the article, by someone more familiar, but not involved. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

re: "Gentile conversions" section

The first sentence attempts to say all in Messianic Judaism are "Messianic Jews". It's true the focus is on jewish people and practices, but there are also a number of gentiles in MJ congregations (Michael Brown quote). Most mainline MJ organizations (IJMC, MJAA, AMC, etc) recognize the blending of jew and gentile in the movement and do not require conversion to Judaism. A few organizations, however, teach (falsely, in my opinion) that conversion into a MJ congregation makes a person Jewish, but many do not. As the MIA notes, congregations tend to be "a place where both Jew and non-Jew could worship the God of Israel as equal brothers in Messiah."[5] As written, the line is a misrepresntation based on misunderstanding by prooftexting from a favorite source--DeknMike (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: need to confirm the accuracy of the claim that Pat Boone was/is Messianic, more than an unreferenced rabbi's remark about an unspecified "widely read movie magazine" in 1978. According to a 9-page article by Christianity Today in 1999,[6] he'd been a member of Church on the Way for 29 years (at that time) and an elder for 20 of them. --DeknMike (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed the Boone reference, simplified the gentile conversions content, and moved it to a more appropriate spot. Zad68 (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, Boone was a big supporter of MJ, and he did state that he had become a Messianic Jew. The Eichhorn source should be reliable enough, I would think. I can provide a page number, if that's the issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, it's not even that, the original mention of Boone was: "Large numbers of "Messianic Jews" are not of Jewish descent. This includes famous individuals such as Pat Boone." The mention of Boone was really irrelevant. Whether or not there was a rock-solid reference for Boone as MJ, it makes sense to remove the name-drop anyway. Beyond that, I read the Boone article, and it does not mention his adherence to or support of MJ anywhere. Due to both the lack of relevance to the point of the article paragraph, and what appears to be a lack of documentation for this biographical claim made about a living person, the Boone reference should stay removed. Zad68 (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Link to Christianity in Israel page?

"The Messianic Israel Alliance, an organization of over 130 Messianic congregations and ministries, was formed in 1999.[41]" cf. subentry under Religion_in_Israel#Christianity ......There strikes me as something ambiguous in the paragraph. Are all Hebrew-speaking Israeli Christians counted as "Messianic Jews", since the Hebrew NT of Franz Delitzsch (1813–1890) and presumably also that of Isaac Salkinsohn (c. 1820-1883) has "Messianic" for "Christian" in 1Peter4:16 etc? Even if they mix with Palestinian Christians like Oswald Rufeisen did? Or simply those Russian Jews who avoid the Orthodox Church in Israel in favour of MJ congregations, per Kornblatt, Judith Deutsch Doubly chosen: Jewish identity, the Soviet intelligentsia, and the Russian Orthodox Church. 2004.? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems the difference is in how they practice their faith. If the congregation retains the forms of Judaism then it would be properly called Messianic, but if not, they would just be Jewish/Israeli Christians.--DeknMike (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Messianic synagogue.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Messianic synagogue.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Handled. The external website took it from EnWiki w/o attribution per dates. -- Avi (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Knanaya

I just came across this group in connection with anon IP edits to Notzrim (where Toledoth Yeshu is being used as a source to rewrite the article). This church, as with Indian Nasrani, claims ethnic continuity with Jews, and therefore some parallel with Messianic Judaism. Are Knanaya and Nasrani worth a see also footlink? My gut feeling is that it's not, but worth asking. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Might be worthy of a link on the Jewish Christians page, but since the article says they have forgotten most of their Jewish history and practice in a Christian fashion, it is enough different to not be part of this article.--DeknMike (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Response of other Christians

The 'Response of other Christians' section is so wrong and misues the sources so badly, I'm surprised Jayjg hasn't already complained. For example, the American Board of Missions to the Jews - now known as Chosen People Ministries - was indeed the largest messianic organization in the United States when they parted ways with Moishe Rosen when his evangelistic methods became too aggressive; he then began the Christian mission that came to be known as Jews for Jesus. And the Fellowship of Christian Testimonies to the Jews (FCTJ) did condemn several aspects of the Messianic Jewish movement, but their complaint was that Messianic Judaism as a "fourth branch of Judaism, and as distinct from mainline Christianity." Dr Winer of the MJAA noted "Even the existence of a fellowship among Jewish believers in Jesus provoked some opposition from Evangelicals, many of whom saw in any attempts to preserve distinctively Jewish characteristics “Judaizing” tendencies opposed to the liberty of the Gospel. He noted that even in 1917, the terminology of “Messianic Judaism” and “Messianic Jews” were both used, but “Messianic Judaism” that was explicitly disowned by Hebrew Christians. [Robert I Winder. 'The Calling: the History of the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America 1915 – 1980' (Wynnewood, PA: MJAA, 1990), 9-16 and 52-53; copied on http://baruchhashemsynagogue.org/?p=286] --DeknMike (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall ever reading that section, but I don't see how it "misuses the sources so badly". It's an accurate (if brief) summary of the sources, as far as I can tell, and you haven't stated what is inaccurate about it. Rather than trying to invent issues, or again trying to insert revisionist/invented history into the history section, why don't you work on, for example, the Mishna and Talmud section, which has has had 6 "unreliable source" tags in it since November 2010? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me separate the arguments for you: 1) ABMJ did not "expel J4J", but rather Mr Rosen left on his own in 1973 to form Hineni Ministries; and hte detractors began calling it Jews for Jesus and the name stuck. 2) The Fellowship of Christian Testimonies to the Jews did in fact condemned several aspects of the Messianic Jewish movement, but for being 'too Jewish' and not acting enough like Christians; the article suggests the actions of an obscure missions society represents universal condemnation on mainstream MJ. 3) Although my degree is from a Christian university, it is in History, not Bible. I don't really feel qualified yet to tackle Mishna or Talmud; I'll put my research skills and unbiased writing to work on it.--DeknMike (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"I'll put my research skills and unbiased writing to work"... If that was a little self-deprecating humor, thanks for the smile, however I'm sure we'd all really like to see such skill demonstrated here. Zad68 (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Messianic Definition

In her 2008 PhD dissertation (Hebrew University), Dr Keri Zelson Warshahsky defined a Messianic Jew as "a Jewish person who believes in Yeshua as Messiah and affirms the significance of and seeks to maintain a Jewish identity and lifestyle. (Non-Jews that fit this description are referred to as “Messianic Gentiles.”)" (p48) She also noted that "most of the interviewees claim that they do not see themselves as Christians and refer to themselves as such as a last resort or not at all." (Her work was based on 60 in-depth interviews of a 'carefully balanced sampling.' [7] --DeknMike (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. A quick browse reveals that it's true that ha-goyim ha-meshiykiyyim הגויים המשיחיים would seem to exist on Israeli Messianic websites, but nevertheless the adjective meshiykiyyi is still the standard BFBS Hebrew NT translation for 3x Christianos in NT as opposed to 1x Nazoraios (Acts 24:5) and so the use of meshiykiyyi predates any "Messianic" movement by at least 200 years, probably 400. ~~Does she define what "Jewish identity and lifestyle" mean to Gentiles who "seek to maintain" it?~~ In ictu oculi (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Scrub that, I've just seen you attached the pdf.

DeknMike, you are misrepresenting the source. The definition you quote is not a definition developed by Warshawsky. Rather, the definition is provided in the context of a section introduced with:

There are many connotations to the words Christian, Jew and Messianic Jew. Is “Messianic” simply a culturally-sensitive or politically-correct way to say “Christian” to a Jewish audience, or does it suggest a fundamental paradigm shift in the self-identification of Jewish Believers in Yeshua? Moreover, who is a “Jew” anyway?

Every interviewee is aware of the multifaceted connotations of these terms, yet each Messianic Jew has his own personal working dictionary of Messianic Jewish terminology. With all of the linguistic options laid out before them, each interviewee personally compiles and justifies her individual terminological preferences in differing ways, for differing reasons. For example, one interviewee may use the term “Messianic” to mean one who believes in Yeshua as the Messiah, while another might claim that “Messianic” refers to a specific worldview which affirms the maintenance of Jewish identity for Jewish people who believe in Yeshua. What is certain is that the debate within the Israeli Messianic Jewish vernacular touches upon deep identity issues among Messianic Jews.

This section provides a comprehensive summary of the most basic terms circulating in Israeli Messianic Jewish circles, and their various connotations as mentioned by the interviewees, followed by quotes to give the reader a sense of the highly developed Messianic Jewish discourse of terminology.

So the 'definition' you quoted is actually the self-definition provided by the MJs interviewed, and needs to be carefully and clearly labeled as such. It is not necessarily the definition used by non-MJs or academics. Zad68 (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

True it is not the definition antimissionary groups would use, but it was the definition used in a dissertation at Hebrew University and is consistent with most Messianic Judaism groups I have seen. It seems to be an aggregated middle ground definition that describes the venn intersect of beliefs. Given the level of misinformation on the web, shouldn't Wikipedia use the most accurate definition used within the movement and by academics?--DeknMike (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Although not particularly focussed on this topic, as a passer by I would share the view of Zad68 that a secular/3rd party definition rather than interview data should be the starting point of any encyclopedia content, however purely from the point of ethnological data the pdf contained various fascinating insights. If Deknmike were to enter the most relevant points (particularly those Russian demographics) into a section on MJ in Israel it would be interesting - though the pdf did demonstrate that there wasn't a clear dividing line between Messianic Jews and simply Hebrew-speaking Christians of the sort that existed in small numbers in Palestine then Israel since the 1900s.In ictu oculi (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a definition given by one non-notable and non-expert follower of Messianism in one interview, done by another follower of Messianism for her PhD dissertation . Please stop misrepresenting sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

In what way are we misrepresenting sources? It was a direct quote from a researched investigation holding to valid sample sizes according to standards by a recognized university. Certainly at least as valid as many of the other sources used in this article.--DeknMike (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The idiosyncratic definition, for example, also included Chabad and Breslov Hasidic Jews, which you failed to mention, and it said nothing about a "valid sample sizes" - rather it used “maximum variation sampling”, which is quite different. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

We also need to note that the paper referenced only interviewed Israeli MJs, which are a small minority relative to the US population of MJs, as MJism is largely a modern American phenomenon. Zad68 (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

What is your source for the assertion that MJism is an American expression? I agree the US MJ community probably has a larger proportion of Jews who faithfully attend weekly services than other countries, but your assertions that MJ is strictly American is not accurate. How do we explain its presence in other countries (Russia, UK, New Zealand, Argentia, etc.)?--DeknMike (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Messianism is American in the same way that the Mormonism is American. Both movements started in the U.S., and have by far their largest membership in the U.S. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

DeknMike, Jayjg is evidently correct about the quality of the PhD source, particularly if the author is herself MJ (is that declared in the PhD?) it might be worth mentioning only as supported by better sources. The observation by Zad68 that MJism is "largely" a modern American phenomenon does seem supported by An Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America p213 ed. Eugene V. Gallagher, W. Michael Ashcraft - 2006 and other English language sources. But then maybe the use of English language sources is a circular argument. ....as a general observation, what I would like to see in this article, mainly because I'm mildly puzzled and bemused about the whole MJ thing, is some clarity on how exactly this differs from the more integrated less separatist Hebrew Christian Movement of the 19thC - which as far as I can tell seems to continue parallel in Israel. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This is what bothers me. Sources that are clearly anti-MJ but without references are judged acceptable but solidly sourced references from individuals who happen to be MJ are suspect? Are you saying MJs are ignorant, incapable of rational thought?--DeknMike (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, the author declares herself to be a Messianist, though the language of the paper makes it obvious even without that declaration. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, yes. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, many of the sources on this page are by Americans who seem to have done little research outside the national borders, verifying an assumption that MJ is a purely American phenomenon. (Gallagher & Ashcraft called it 'new' in 2006 without mention of international components.) As you note, both Messianic Judaism and Hebrew Christian associations continue to run parallel in Israel (and other parts of the world), but in the US, Hebrew Christians have apparently either joined MJ congregations or mainstream Christian movements. Of all the sources offered, Warshahsky is the first to try to unravel the various definitions and add clarity with a minimum of preconceptions. And Jayjg, this paper shows Israeli citizens who are clearly self-identifying Jews who follow Yeshua as Messiah. Wendy onpage 47 makes this point clearly - not Christian, a Jewess, a "Jewish Believer in Messiah", though she use the term Christian when around Gentiles. Tamar echoes the thought, saying that "when you say Christian, you're thinking of a Gentile believer." Page 51 sums up the interviews with "Most interviewees agree the term "Messianic Jew" describes them better than "Hebrew Christian" or "Christian Jew" in a Jewish context.--DeknMike (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for the multitude of claims you are making now? I merely snort with amusement at your claim that a fervent Messianist like Warshahsky has "a minimum of preconceptions" regarding her faith. I note that in that thesis paper half the respondents are North Americans who have moved to Israel - Warshahsky, the author, moved there when she was 22. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm only quoting the source. Note I didn't say she had no preconceptions about her faith, but only that she was one of the few sources that used accepted research methodology. Certainly more rigor that visiting a single congregation and writing a sponsored novel about what they thought they heard. --DeknMike (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the personal attack in your previous comment. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Since when did you restrict your comments to content? ("snort with amusement", etc.)--DeknMike (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Snorting with amusement is not comment about another editor, but about my own reaction. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Messianic Christianity

I while ago I tried to start a new page on "Messianic Christianity" but that was deleted. Messianic Christianity was instead redirected to Messianic Judaism. Messianic Christianity is not the same as Messianic Judaism. But might be correct to be mentioned there. As a start at least.

Messianic Christians are Christians out of the nations. Not jewish by birth. Who believes that Jesus from Nasareth was and is the Judaic Messiah and also is the Christ. The Judaic Messiah because Rome was the first christened state. The jews thought that the Messiah was to become a political leader that would free them from the roman empire that way. He did free them, but religously. As he will free the whole world as Christ.

Kindest regards /Tove http://www.messianic-christianity.org/ --Skraddarbacken (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell then what the difference is between a follower of "Messianic Christianity" vs. "Christianity." Can you please explain how "Messianic Christianity" differs from "Christianity"? What questions would I ask someone to determine that they were a "Messianic Christian" but not a (non-Messianic) Christian? And, as this article is about the religious movement called "Messianic Judaism", why should the topic of "Messianic Christianity" be in the article "Messianic Judaism"? Thanks... Zad68 (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

On the face of it "Messianic Christianity" would be a bit of an oxymoron, since Messiah/Christ are the same word in Hebrew/Greek but interestingly I do see that the term has about 300 refs on Google Books of which about half seem notable, mainly to do with Africa. Presumably it's because messianic = looking for the return of a Messiah (?) which Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christianity traditionally doesn't teach AFAIK. The sources don't point this subject in the direction of Messianic Judaism however. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

We are not all Trinitarians. Why are these sources allowed to speak for all Messianic Jews?

"Messianic Judaism states that Jesus is not merely a man, but the Jewish Messiah and "God the Son" (one person of the Trinity),[9][10][11][12] and that salvation is only achieved through acceptance of Jesus as one's savior" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.18.177 (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There is very little genuine, reliable secondary source scholarship by bona-fide scholars on the subject of this article. And, as we can see from the patchwork of primary sources brought to the article, there seems to be little agreement within the adherents of Messianic Judaism themselves on even fundamental topics like acceptance of the Trinity. Can you bring an authoritative, reliable secondary source about the beliefs of Messianic Judaism regarding the Trinity? That would be very helpful.... thanks. Zad68 (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Check this group out, they claim to be non-Trinitarian, they are hardly the only ones. http://www.brithadasha.org/brit/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58&Itemid=72 It is important to note that the "Jews for Jesus" types have a clear vested interested in trying to claim the word "Messianic Judaism", most Messianic Jews who put an emphasis on the "Jew" part consider these groups blatantly deceptive using false advertising for sound Theological reasons, they are little more than Evangelicals in Sheep's clothing, true "Messianic Jews" who stick to Torah commonly reject both the Trinity and Antinomian theologies. Jews for Jesus doesn't even obey Sabbath, but groups like them are trying to claim the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.18.177 (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi editor at IP 75.83.18.177. First, if you read the link you provided, it actually says the exact opposite of what you claim. You describe the group as "non-Trinitarian" but they clearly state that they are: "While a small number of Messianic Jews do not believe that God is triune, most (including B'rit Hadasha) do." So this source does not support what you are saying. Also, this is a primary source and is of limited value as a reference for an encyclopedia article. Do you have a reliable secondary source that supports what you are saying? Zad68 (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Editor at IP 75.83.18.177, for the purposes of this board, the Messianic concept of a 'tri-unity' of God is essentially the same as the Christian trinitarian view. For mainstream congregations, this is not hidden. As for being deceptive, that is an Anti-Missionary argument that has little validity in practice. Congregations tend to be led by men and women born Jewish, and their children. Gentile believers who have adopted a Messianic style also participate; some may call themseles 'spiritually Jewish' but this is generally disputed [8]. And those who support Jews for Jesus don't always follow Messianic leadership; please don't confuse them as speaking for the movement. Dr Fruchtenbaum is widely respected, as are Dr Sam Nadler, Dr Glazer and Joel Chenoff; other leaders are still emerging.--DeknMike (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, that was retarded of me, I didn't even read I just saw the quick Google reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.18.177 (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Opening Lines

The First few lines seem to indicate all Messianic Jews are Trinitarian and really don't believe the Law is much of a big deal, who added this, and what strength does the source have as a bearing for all Messianc Jewish representation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.18.177 (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

References are given for those statements, please refer to the references by clicking on the reference numbers. Zad68 (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

So if a reference said that all Messianic Jews believe you can eat ham, you'd post that too? This really looks bad, this was obviously written by a Jew for Jesus type who locked the article to make sure no one could say anything? If all Messianic Jews are Trinitarian, then all Wikipedians are liberal atheists. I have references! Why is this reference allowed to speak for the Messianic Judaism movement as a whole? I will try to find some links but even further down the article it specifically mentions that there are detractors. This article negates itself and shows proof of Trinitarian tactics of trying to broad-sweep a whole movement as if they claim it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.18.177 (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello editor at IP address 75.83.18.177, welcome to Wikipedia. The article is open for editing by all registered Wikipedia users, including (potentially) you. This article is not "locked" by "Jews for Jesus" types. It is 'semi-protected' which means that you have to be logged in to edit it. If you would create a Wikipedia login you could edit this article too. As I mentioned before, there is very little scholarly writing about Messianic Judaism. So, a lot of the references here are primary sources, which is less than ideal, because what can happen, and what has happened, is that individual editors who have found primary sources that they like have included them in this article. If you have reliable secondary sources that say things other than what this article currently says regarding the Trinity or other topics, please bring those references. Zad68 (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello editor at IP address 75.83.18.177. You wrote "I will try to find some links but even further down the article it specifically mentions that there are detractors. This article negates itself and shows proof of Trinitarian tactics of trying to broad-sweep a whole movement as if they claim it." The references we do have about "Messianic Judaism" show that adherents of this religious group largely hold theological views identical to Protestant Christianity, including belief in the Trinity. The fact that a relatively small percentage of those who state they adhere to "Messianic Judaism" are not Trinitarians is noted in the article. The article is not 'negating itself' but reflecting the reality that most people who self-identify as followers of "Messianic Judaism" are indeed Trinitarian, and a small number are not. PLEASE NOTE a Wikipedia article does not try to create a definition for something, but rather it tries to reflect the reality of how things are, just like a meteorologist tries to accurately present the weather as it actually is, and doesn't try to 'redefine' it by saying something other than reality. Wikipedia editors are not trying to "control the definition" of Messianic Judaism, but reflect the meaning of how the term is actually used. Zad68 (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Please also note that Jews for Jesus is not a Messianic organization, but a Christian missionary group with goals similar to many Jewish Believers in Yeshua (JBiY) who attend Messianic congregations and synagogues. As for whether J4J types control this article, I don't know anyone who qualifies; I'm probably closest, since I know people who used to work for that organization before joining mainstream Messianic organizations, and I attend a Messianic congregation. I have found that most congregations within the Messianic Judaism movement do hold to trinitarian views, although there is no central doctrinal board within the movement accepted by all congregations. Others on this site take an opposite view. But as Zad68 says, the goal is accuracy, even though we don't always agree on the validity of sources presented.--DeknMike (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

75.83.18.177, welcome to Wikipedia, you may find it beneficial to register.

The article clearly shows 7 to 9 WP:RS sources that the major denominations of Messianic Judaism in America and Israel are Trinitarian, believers in what they term the Holy Trinity (ha-shilush ha-kodesh השילוש הקדוש), there is no source in the article for any WP:notable Messianic church which is Arian, or Unitarian. In an article not strong on sources it's one of the few facts that is solidly sourced. However if you can provide WP:sourced evidence (not someone's blog for example) of a physical congregation of Arian or Unitarian MJs please do so. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Reception among Christians section added

Reception among Christians

In America the emergence of the Messianic Jewish movement created some stresses with previous Jewish-Christian and proselytzing organization.[citation needed] The use of Hebrew vocabulary, and often dietary practices and festivals, can meet with a mixed reception among other Christians in America.[citation needed]

In Israel, where all Hebrew-speaking Christians use Hebrew vocabulary the distinctions between "Messianic Jews" and generic Christians is less clear, and the name "Messianic" (Meshiyhiy משיחי) is commonly used by churches anyway, in preference of the secular government administrative term for Christian, "Nazarene" (Notsri נוצרי). The Israel Trust of the Anglican Church (ITAC) based at Christ Church, Jerusalem, although ecumenical, and running an inter-faith school in Jerusalem gives some social support to Messianic Jews in Israel.[115]01:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)In ictu oculi (talk)

Seemed odd not to have this, so I added it - however I resisted the temptation to add easy sources for the 2 cns, since I'm not sure how representative they would have been. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Historical revisionism again

Despite being warned about falsifying what citations say, DeknMike again changed the words "Messianic Judaism itself arose in the 1960s and 70s" to "The modern Messianic Judaism movement arose to public attention",[9] despite the fact that sources themselves explicitly state it arose in the 1960s, and despite the fact that he has been repeatedly warned not to falsify what sources state: see

Mike, you've been warned before that if you falsify sources in this way again you'd be taken for administrative action. Despite this, you have done it again. Is your need to proselytize your foundational myths so great that you simply do not care about administrative consequences? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If you would bother to read the wealth of sources that deny your claim, you could stop obsessing over me. I know you've said it over and over; I bring more and more documentation and you continue to ignore anything that counters your preconceived notions that come from an off-hand comment at the end of a memoir. Again I cite Rabbi/Professor Cohn-Sherbok's 2000 history, which explicitly states a thesis on page 1 that Messianic Jews emerged from their Hebrew Christian beginnings after the Six Day War, and then shows how they adopted the practices of 19th Century reformers and hundred-year-old Jewish organizations to become the largest of the various Messianic organizations. It is however disingenuous to suggest that because one organization out of a dozen happened to revisit a decades-old decision and change their name back was itself the defining origin of the movement.--DeknMike (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

We have four reliable sources that explicitly state Messianism arose in the 1960s and 70s. Please quote a reliable source that explicitly states something else. Wikipedia is not interested in your WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Just "similar"?

DeknMike has changed

Messianics believe Jesus' first role as Messiah was first to rescue the world from from spiritual bondage, and that he will return again to rescue the world from physical oppression and establish his unending Kingdom – again, a belief that is identical to the normative Christian view of the Messiah.

to

Messianics believe Jesus' first role as Messiah was first to rescue the world from from spiritual bondage, and that he will return again to rescue the world from physical oppression and establish his unending Kingdom, a belief similar to the normative Christian view of the Messiah.

Note the change of the word "identical" to "similar". Mike, can you explain the reasoning behind this non-factual change? If the MJ view of this is only "similar" to the rest of Christianity's, then how exactly does it differ? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither of these are good edits "again, a belief that is identical" is aggressively pointy, a belief similar is not true unless sourced. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If Mike thinks they're just "similar", but not "identical", then how are they different? He needs to justify his changing the original text this way, using a reliable secondary source. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place for theological debate, but the normative Messianic view is that Yeshua came first to restore the notion that man could have a personal relationship with God in the manner of Enoch, Abraham, Moses, David and Job, without needing priestly intervention; this is why he taught us to pray 'abba Father' (daddy). The second task was to remove the intrusive rabbinical additions to God's laws. The third, which is similar to the first, was to pay the spiritual penalty for sin and rescue the world from spiritual bondage. The return is seen as still to come, and will include a Millenial kingdom before the final judgement. --DeknMike (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

What is your source for your claim that Messianism's views on this subject are only "similar" to normative Christian thought? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Source falsification (2)

DeknMike has changed

a belief which is considered idolatrous according to Judaism

to

This belief is not accepted by mainstream Judaism.

However, the sources explicitly state "In Jewish law, worship of a three-part god is considered idolatry" and "For a Jew, however, any form of shituf is tantamount to idolatry in the fullest sense of the word." Moreover, they say nothing about "mainstream" Judaism. Can Mike explain why he misrepresented the sources in this way? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Both

This however is a misrepresentation. "Idolatry" probably isn't the way a reform rabbi in the UK would describe his Anglican neighbours, but in the context of Messianic Judaism to say "This belief is not accepted by mainstream Judaism" is clearly beyond the fringe. It should be "This belief is not accepted by Judaism" period. MikenDek, despite what I've just said to Jayjg to take it down several notches, if you make edits like this then you are two-thirds of the problem here. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding how a Reform rabbi in the UK would describe his Anglican neighbors (versus a Messianic Jew), here is a relevant Reform responsum:

We should be much stricter in our relationship with "Messianic Jews" than with other Christians with whom we continually attempt to establish good interfaith relations. The normative Christian churches are known for their beliefs and practices and are easily distinguishable by our people. Although they may continue to seek some converts from Judaism, most Churches have not pursued active missionary activities in modern times. Directly the opposite is true of "Messianic Jews." They have established a vigorous missionary presence and often seek to confuse Jews about the nature of their religion. They have frequently presented themselves as Jews rather than Christians through misleading pamphlets, advertisements, and religious services."Marriage with a "Messianic Jew", American Reform Responsa (Vol. XCI, 1981, pp. 67-69).

Judaism also states that what may be idolatry for a Jew may not be idolatry for a non-Jew. In any event, the sources specifically use the word "idolatry". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. The line as it stands is a little aggressive. I'm not defending this of MikenDek's edits, just saying that the line as it stands isn't what a UK reform rabbi would say of his Anglican neighbours. It didn't need refutation. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Conversos

Your source is biased. How do mainstream historians identify these people? What evidence do we have regarding how, specifically, these people identified themselves: "Paul Nunez Coronel, Alfonzo de Zamora, Alfonzo de Alcala, Dominco Irosolimitano and Giovanni Baptista Jon?" I know how messianic Jews today wish to identify them, but how were they identified back them? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Converso is the standard term for Jewish converts to Christianity in medieval Spain. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Historical revisionism/source misrepresentation

DeknMike has now inserted the following into the article:

Men such as Rabinowitz paved the way for the rebirth of Messianic Judaism among the Jewish people. <ref>{{cite book | first = Dan | last = Cohn-Sherbok | authorlink = Dan Cohn-Sherbok| year = 2000 | title = Messianic Judaism | publisher = Continuum | page = 1 }}</ref>

This is, of course, more of the same revisionist history, again proselytizing the foundational myth that Messianic Judaism was founded in the 1st century by the followers of Jesus, rather than it being a movement that according to all reliable sources, arose in the 1960s and 1970s. Even worse, the source says nothing about "paved the way" or "rebirth of Messianic Judaism". In fact, it doesn't even mention Rabinowitz until page 18, and there and in subsequent pages it merely discusses his activities and beliefs. What the source does do on page 1 is note that "in the view of Messianic Jews" the first Messianic congregation was founded in the 1st century. Not that this actually happened, but simply that this is a Messianic belief. Stating a religious belief in Wikipedia's voice as fact, when even the source does not do so, is a pretty serious misrepresentation of the source, and a violation of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and WP:V policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia asks that the information be verifiable. Those were direct quotes in a widely quoted source written by a Reform Rabbi. You can continue to stomp your foot and claim only your sources are 'reliable' but isn't that the very definition of POV? Rabinowitz isn't mentioned until page 18 because the book starts at the beginning and works forward historically. Rabinowitz is important in part because he constructed an order of Sabbath worship that blended Jewish and Christian elements, 100 years before you claim the movement began.--DeknMike (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"Those were direct quotes"? No they weren't. That was the point. The source said nothing like that. If it did, quote it doing so. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It is in fact a direct quote, except the source says 'In Europe figures such as Joseph Rabinowitz' instead of 'men such as Rabinowtz'. [10] --DeknMike (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It goes on to note the conflicts between Hebrew Christians that wanted Jewish people to act Christian and those in the 19th Century (like Rabinowitz) that sought to blend Jewish forms into their worship. I would infer that the two trends continued on parallel paths until a majority in the larger of the two (the Hebrew Christians) recognized the need for a cler break from Christian forms and names. --DeknMike (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Your inferences and analysis are all very interesting original research, but this is not a direct quote. Jonathunder (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you like my second paragraph. However, the topic of this section is the clear, word for word direct quote from Cohn-Sherbok, page 1, in context. --DeknMike (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, you are correct about it mentioning Rabinowitz, but you leave out the point that Cohn-Sherbok is presenting Messianic beliefs, not historical fact. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this whole article about Messianic beliefs? The point was that there was a Jewish man who became a Christian in the late 18th century but continued to worship using Jewish forms, and influenced others in the religion to do the same.--DeknMike (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No, this whole article is not "about Messianic beliefs". What it is (or should be) about is what reliable secondary sources have to say about Messianic Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Off Topic anti-Messianic advertising

This article continues to contain non-encyclopedic advertising as to why some Jewish groups believe Messianic Judaism should not exist. Specifically, the section labled "Generic response of Judaism to Christianity" contains a 4-point rebuttal by an Anti-Missionary source as to why Jesus is not the messiah. However, these points are not listed in the linked article "Judaism's view of Jesus". The point of an encyclopedia is not to persuade the reader to join the organization or to parrot minor quotes from a limited collection of novels, but to state the centrist view of a variety of sources and leave the judgement of the validity of the claims to the reader. Therefore, these 4 points should be summarized in a 5-word sentence and let the linked article state the objections. --DeknMike (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the use of your word "advertising" in this context. What commercial product is being "advertised"? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Advertising is not just for commercial products, but also could also be for support of a group or organiztion, or public information.--DeknMike (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe what is being advertised is ~~redneck~~ intolerance ~~and bigotry~~? I think we all can understand the animosity of any religion to (a) those from another religion who preach to them, (b) even worse, their own apostates. This kind of ~~redneck~~ reaction is evident in Christian (and subvarieties), Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist you name it religions. However does Wikipedia really need to be a place where this sort of ~~inflamatory blog nonsense~~ occupies article main text space?

Text is fair enough Canadian B'nai Brith considers messianic activities as antisemitic incidents: grandstanding with this is not:

"One of the more alarming trends in antisemitic activity in Canada in 1998 was the growing number of incidents involving messianic organizations posing as "synagogues". These missionizing organizations are in fact evangelical Christian proselytizing groups, whose purpose is specifically to target members of the Jewish community for conversion. They fraudulently represent themselves as Jews, and these so-called synagogues are elaborately disguised Christian churches."[125]

It was a perfectly reasonable move of DeknMike to relegate this to where it belongs, in the footnotes (if even there), and whoever restored it needs to look at themselves in the mirror and ask what exactly they are doing here in an encyclopedia. : In ictu oculi (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, In ictu, I really don't think the use of words like "redneck" is helpful or appropriate to this or any other discussion on Wikipedia. Where I come from, that word refers to someone who works outdoors in the sun for his living and consequently gets a sunburn on the back of his neck. I can't see what good you can possibly think you're doing with the repeated use of that kind of bigoted language against those with whom you disagree.

Second, the likely reason these points are not listed in Judaism's view of Jesus is that they have less to do with that subject than they do with Judaism's view of MJ.

Third, it is not, as DeknMike says, to state the "centrist view" of a variety of sources, but to accurately portray all significant points of view. This is all made quite clear in WP:NPOV.

Lastly, In ictur oculi, the next time I see you engaging in this kind of gross incivility, I'll seek sanctions. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Steven

You're right of course. Sorry, it got my goat to see an inflammatory website (by any religious grouping) given a quotation box - we normally only do that for notable historical sources/documents/individuals, this kind of thing only needs a footnote in this article.

In ictu oculi (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi—this is an article on a group that diverts symbols from their original purpose to a new purpose. The repurposing of Jewish symbols into Christian symbols is an important aspect of this group, and as such should be thoroughly reported. The logic behind using symbols abscent of their expected purpose is in my opinion an interesting aspect of this group. Numerous reliable sources expound on the repurposing of Jewish symbols such as the Star of David, the yarmulka, and the term synagogue. This is important. The very name "Messianic Judaism" is an example of the repurposing of a word—Judaism. The symbolic aspect deserves coverage in this article and reliable sources are amply covering this dimension, therefore it would constitute a contrivance for our article to shy away from supplying that perspective. Bus stop (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Bus stop

I do understand, I have no sympathy for Messianic Judaism. But the point is that Wikipedia is supposed to be about academic sources. It isn't a place for reposting websites and blogs of special interest groups - of either side - that's what the rest of the web is for. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop, I understand your concerns. Some Protestants don't like Mormons appropriating Christian terms to call themselves something that is not mainstream Chrstian. Many Christians also don't like the actions of some extremists claiming the Bible tells them to protest funerals, or burn Korans, or terrorize another race. Muslims will disavow the actions of terrorists besmirching their faith. I don't like it that homosexuals have appropriated the legitimate use of the word 'gay' (very happy) for their own purposes, but it is what it is. Several hundred thousand people have been using the term "Messianic Judaism" for at least 40 years, perhaps longer, (/wink) and argue they retain the original intent of the tallit, kippah, and minyan. The concern for this section is that it looks like a partisan group's attack on the subject of the article's right to exist, which is not the function of Wikipedia. I can agree that it should be noted the religion has opposition, and the nature of the opposition, just not the sermonizing (marketing, advertsing, etc.) within the article, which is why I left the text and moved the list to the explanatory footnote.--DeknMike (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

DeknMike—you title this section of the Talk page "Off Topic anti-Messianic advertising" and you say "The concern for this section is that it looks like a partisan group's attack on the subject of the article's right to exist, which is not the function of Wikipedia."[11]

It is not an attack on the article's right to exist. No one has suggested deleting the article. I would argue for not deleting the article. But we have to look at the nature of "Messianic Judaism". It targets Jews for conversion to Christianity. You started out this section referring to "advertising" but I think it is this group's ("Messianic Judaism's") "advertising" that is understandably the natural focus of this article. It is hardly "off-topic" that the "Canadian B'nai Brith" has this to say: "They fraudulently represent themselves as Jews, and these so-called synagogues are elaborately disguised Christian churches." "Fraudulent" is a key word there. Bait-and-switch is a form of fraudulent advertising. Jews who fall for this are not getting Judaism (though they might get a nice community of people) even though they are going to a synagogue, wearing a yarmulka, seeing a Star of David on the wall, and aligning themselves with an institution with the term Judaism in its title.

The above being the case, a central concern of this article is the response of those so-targeted, as well as the analysis of objective outsiders. In the interests of WP:NPOV you would certainly be free to bring reliably sourced material of a different interpretation But I think it would constitute a contrivance to shy away from the numerous sources that delve into an analyses of "Messianic Judaism" and find that there is a usurpation of what were once solely Jewish symbols being repurposed in the Messianic "Jewish" setting to connote that which is solely Christian in its central theological underpinnings. Bus stop (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop.

The Talk page of an article is not for discussing the subject, but the article. "Jews who fall for this" has no place here. There are plenty of other places on the web for religious intolerance and inter-religion bickering. The basic issue here is of WP:source. That Canadian website may be notable, and probably does deserver a footnote in the absence of an academic source that says "some Canadian Jewish groups consider ___ to be anti-semitic", but what it doesn't justify is a big soapbox quote box. It isn't Wikipedia's job to be a blog for any sectarian or religious group. MikenDek, irrespective of other edits, was right to turn it into a footnote, and the person (I don't know who) who restored it doesn't understand what Wikipedia is. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi—I am only using the clearest language that I can when I refer to "Jews who fall for this" but that language may be a little crude and may lack the requisite refinement to assuage the feelings of those referred to in the "Canadian B'nai Brith" quote. I will try to be more diplomatic in the future. Thank you for pointing out my language shortcomings. Let me add that as this is a Talk page, and not article space, clarity would be a consideration of high priority. The means used by such groups as "Messianic Judaism" seem to be less than aboveboard in the assessment of many reliable sources. I think that this is because the symbols used are Jewish yet the group that is represented by "Messianic Juidaism" is theologically Christian.

Under discussion is a quote from "Canadian B'nai Brith" that unambiguously refers to "…target[ing] members of the Jewish community for conversion."

The "Canadian B'nai Brith" does not mince words when they say "One of the more alarming trends in antisemitic activity in Canada in 1998 was the growing number of incidents involving messianic organizations posing as 'synagogues' " and when they say that "They fraudulently represent themselves as Jews, and these so-called synagogues are elaborately disguised Christian churches."

When I or any other editor speaks about the "Canadian B'nai Brith" quote I think it is inevitable that we are going to use language that approximates their quote. I say this again in defense of the language I used, though I will try to be more diplomatic in the future.

You say "The basic issue here is of WP:source." Does the "Canadian B'nai Brith" material not satisfy the requirements of WP:source? I understand you feel it is too prominently placed. But it would seem to well-sourced.

You say, "It isn't Wikipedia's job to be a blog for any sectarian or religious group." Agreed. But does reaction and analysis not have a place in an article such as this? It is Jews who are targeted for conversion by "Messianic Judaism". Reliable sources speak about the means used to persuade Jews to convert to Christianity. I don't think you can sugar-coat this language. Even DeknMike is referring to advertising. Would it be preferable if we were to refer to those hypothetical Jews who buy Christianity? We are talking about persuasiveness in the context of religious conversion and we have to use some language that unflinchingly addresses that topic.

In my opinion the reaction to the means used by "Messianic Judaism" is very important to this article. Inextricably linked to reaction is analysis. What do reliable sources say about the substitution of traditionally Jewish symbols for attracting Jews to what is theologically a Christian institution? I disagree than any such material should be relegated to a mere footnote. Bus stop (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop What reliable sources say will be in reliable sources. As it stands giving that website's view a billboard advert in a quotation box is clearly not what quotation boxes on Wikipedia are for. If Wikipedia is for building up sectarian-hatred, religious-hatred or whatever else etc then maybe. But I'm reverting that to a footnote, and I hope there are one or two editors here with enough respect for what an encyclopedia should be to keep it there. Or billboard it on Canadian Bnai Brith's own article. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi—we have a section of the Messianic Judaism article titled Messianic Judaism#Reception among Jews. That section contains within it two sections. Those two sections are titled Messianic Judaism#Specific response to "Messianic Judaism" and Messianic Judaism#Generic response of Judaism to Christianity. With this edit you have pared back an entry in the Messianic Judaism#Specific response to "Messianic Judaism". Why? The material that you removed is exactly what the section title calls for. "Canadian B'nai Brith" is a prominent, responsible, and respectable Jewish organization. Their view is exactly what is called for in the section of the article in which it was found. You are referring to their statement, appearing in a quotation box as a "billboard". But it is nothing of the sort. It is part of the Messianic Judaism article. Wikipedia has a policy of WP:NPOV. What this means is that you are free to bring other perspectives into the article if they are reliably sourced and are given appropriate weight. But you are not doing that. You are simply paring back apropos material. I would contend that reaction to and analysis of Messianic Judaism is a primary aspect of this article. This article need not devote an inordinate amount of space to for instance explaining and describing Christianity. That can be and is done at a more generally-oriented article, such as our Christianity article. This article has some natural foci resulting from Messianic Judaism's propensity for seeking Jewish converts to Christianity, as well its means used, which uniquely involve appropriating the symbolism of Judaism, to bring Jews to a theologically Christian orientation. These are aspects of Messianic Judaism that are much commented upon in reliable sources. The use of Jewish symbolism in Christian proselytization provokes powerful and oftentimes negative responses. Should we not report those reactions? This article should devote sufficient space to the reception Messianic Judaism receives in various quarters. Rather than paring back material we should be expanding the inclusion of material relating to responses to Messianic Judaism. You are referring above to "sectarian-hatred" and "religious-hatred". No, our article is not spreading any such negative qualities. But our article need not refrain from reporting reactions of an extremely negative nature to Messianic Judaism if such reactions are expressed in measured terms and by responsible sources. I would suggest that "Canadian B'nai Brith" is an organization that choses its words carefully before publishing statements. Indeed it refers to "messianic organizations posing as 'synagogues' " and it considers this activity "antisemitic". You do not have to agree with their characterization. But I see no justification for removing their comments, therefore please don't remove such material. Bring other perspectives into the article if you wish, in keeping with WP:NPOV, but don't remove the material that belongs in a given section of an article, in this case a section set aside for specific responses among Jews to Messianic Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The subject is handled well in Judaism's view of Jesus, especially the Judaism's view of the Messiah and Prophecy and Jesus sections. The same information is presented, but in encyclopedic paragraph form. Can we edit down for this article and rely on the section heading cross-link? --DeknMike (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop, the issue is whether Canadian B'nai Brith's webpage is so notable that it requires textboxing. Then also there is the issue of whether Wikipedia wants to textbox inflammatory material stirring religious hatred? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi—we have a section in our article Messianic Judaism#Reception among Jews. That section specifically calls for responses by Jews to "Messianic Judaism". Is it your argument that as prominent an organization as the B'nai Brith Canada should not be allowed an expression in that section of our article? Bus stop (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Busstop, Wikipedia isn't for fostering religious hatred and intolerance. Much as I myself think MJs are a little odd, that website is clearly inflammatory and it's already there on the web once. Now it's on the web twice as a source for B'nai Brith Canada and doesn't need billboarding in a text box in the main text of the article. Feel free to add the text box to B'nai Brith Canada article however. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

More source falsification

DeknMike inserted the following text into the article:

In 1813, a Hebrew-Christian congregation called Benei Abraham (Children of Abraham) started meeting at a chapel in East London. This was the first recorded assembly of Jewish believers in Jesus and the forerunner of today's Messianic Jewish congregations.^[1]

What the source actually says, in the chapter on Hebrew Christianity, is

On 9 September 1813 a group of 41 Jewish Christians established the Beni Abraham association at Jews' Chapel. These Jewish Christians met for prayer every Sunday morning and Friday evening.

Note, nothing about it being "the first recorded assembly of Jewish believers in Jesus" or "the forerunner of today's Messianic Jewish congregations". DeknMike, when are you going to stop falsifying what sources say? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little bit concerned about this since the pattern of Jayjg's position here seems at first sight similar to the way at least one other article has gone - pack a controversial lede sentence with quotes that support one point of view (his own), and then take up WP:Ownership while simultaneously being overly aggressive again and waving the admin card in disputes where he personally is involved. At least that's what it looks like.

However "Messianic Judaism is a syncretic religious movement that arose in the 1960s.[1][2][3][4]" those 4 sources, look reasonably credible, particulary the 4th Melton, J. Gordon. Encyclopedia of Protestantism. Infobase Publishing, 2005, ISBN 9780816054565, p. 373. "Messianic Judaism is a Protestant movement that emerged in the last half of the 20th century among believers who were ethnically Jewish but had adopted an Evangelical Christian faith... By the 1960s, a new effort to create a culturally Jewish Protestant Christianity emerged among individuals who began to call themselves Messianic Jews."

On that basis the statement "that arose [in America] in the 1960s" would be verifiable. I don't know whether it's true of Palestine pre-1948, Israel pre-1960s.

DeknMike do you have any academic sources that would support "Messianic Judaism" as a term pre-applying to those Jewish Christian groups pre-existing the 1960s? Because if not you're looking at antecedents. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg posted this at my talk page

>>In ictu oculi, you had no issue whatsoever with my edits at Messianic Judaism, for months, until we disagreed at a different article. Now you suddenly have concerns? I'd appreciate it if you'd keep our dispute at one article separate from our editing at a different one, and remove your personal comments unrelated to that article there.<<

That isn't strictly true, - see edit history - even though it has to be said that I'm not particularly (well in fact remotely) sympathetic to North America-style Messianic Judaism, you'll note that I have intervened here both in edits and Talk looking for a more accomodating and balanced approach to DeknMike's continuity arguments. As it stands there's a black-and-white simplistic view presented in the lede sentence, which, evidently, is in some dispute here, and a little out of sync with some of the article content/refs. I'm suggesting to you that you need to pull back a bit.

As an example we don't need sub-section headings like /* More source falsification */ that is (i) intemperate, and (ii) rather than "falsification" this is in part someone reading a text differently than the way you're reading it, which is allowed. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The source nowhere says that "This was the first recorded assembly of Jewish believers in Jesus and the forerunner of today's Messianic Jewish congregations." This is not "reading a text differently", because it is not in the text to be read. One cannot "read" what is not there. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

I'm sorry but you're not being fully objective. We all "read" what is not there sometimes. You've done it, I've done it. In this case MikenDek is not jumping too far to say "This was the first recorded assembly of Jewish believers in Jesus" - since judging from the source it seems it was, in the UK at least. There was no segregated/separate Jewish Christian assembly prior to 1813, and a temperate review of sources should allow this fact into the article. The second sentence "and the forerunner of today's Messianic Jewish congregations." is a bit overstated - "a forerunner in [some respects _____what?]" would be better. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I am indeed being "fully objective". The source says none of those things, and WP:NOR and WP:V do not allow us to make claims or come to conclusions not stated explicitly in the source. Focus on policy and content, not me. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think "falsification" is a bit strong? The quote came from another moderated wikipedia page - Church's Ministry Among Jewish People. I can verify most of the quote about the services being established in a Jews Chapel in a section of East London which came to be known as Palestine Place from the other references given. The second half referenced a page from Cohen-Sherbok that Google Books won't let me see (in a section titled History and Beliefs of Messianic Judaism), so I have to trust the other editors. If you have issue with that phrase, remove it and only it. The rest of the quote is valid and was used by Cohen-Sherbok in his 2000 history of Messianic Judaism.--DeknMike (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No, falsification is not at all strong, because the source no-where says Beni Abraham was "the first recorded assembly of Jewish believers in Jesus" or "the forerunner of today's Messianic Jewish congregations". If the source says anything like this, then quote it doing so. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg,

Unfortunately this kind of commentary just looks like ~~ranting~~.

DeknMike

You might want to reword your quote using Yaron Perry as a source. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, unfortunately this kind of commentary just looks like name-calling. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

...just looks like a charge of "falsification" with no basis. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No basis? Where does the source say "This was the first recorded assembly of Jewish believers in Jesus and the forerunner of today's Messianic Jewish congregations."? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, you don't consider that your own subsection heading is POINTY? You have accused another editor of "falsification". In ictu oculi (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The statement "This was the first recorded assembly of Jewish believers in Jesus and the forerunner of today's Messianic Jewish congregations" was attributed to the source in question. The source says nothing of the sort. "Falsification" seems an accurate description, particularly when it's not the first example of such, or even the 10th. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

The problem is that "wikt:falsification" sounds like a charge of wikt:dishonesty.

Wheras, honestly, when I look at the chapter which this comment is refed by "In 1813, a Hebrew-Christian congregation called Benei Abraham (Children of Abraham) started meeting at a chapel in East London. This was the first recorded assembly of Jewish believers in Jesus and the forerunner of today's Messianic Jewish congregations.[1]" rather than "source says nothing of the sort" the first page does say the first two comments, and the rest of the chapter repeatedly points to the third comment. If I was asked to edit DeknMike's sentence I'd have changed "the first" to "among the first" and changed "the forerunner" to "a forerunner" but apart from that the edit is completely reasonable, and I wondering why it isn't in the article, given what's in Cohn-Sherbok's chapter 2. In fact I'm tempted to put in the article myself, but I'm more disturbed by the edit subsection being entitled "More source falsification" WP:POINTY at the least. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

As I've stated consistently since my first comment in this section, the issue here is with the second sentence, "This was the first recorded assembly of Jewish believers in Jesus and the forerunner of today's Messianic Jewish congregations." Rather than just claiming "the rest of the chapter repeatedly points to the third comment", please do what I've already asked you to do: If the source says anything like this, then quote it doing so. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, I'm sorry but past experience indicates that once you've made your mind up that a text is read or not read your way there's little to be gained in discussing it. My problem is with your subtect heading on a talk page which accuses another editor of "wikt:falsification" when other editors (that would be me in this case) consider that the edit the other editor made (DeknMike) in this case was supported by the source. The issue of you misusing a talk page subheading in this way as an wikt:accusation is not conditional on other editors being able or not to persuade you that you should change your reading of the source. Is there any other editor here who supports you using Talk page subheadings in this manner. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, the first part of your statement was about me, not about article content, so I didn't read further. Please Comment on content, not on the contributor, per policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg - Of course the statement was about you, since it is you who is using Talk page subsection headings in this manner (and counter to Talk page policy if you want to bring up policy) to make personal charges against another editor. How would it be if we changed your heading to something less aggressive? Well I'm doing it anyway... since it's unpleasant to see. And changing it to "Dan Cohn-Sherbok (2000) ref" In ictu oculi (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as content I have put in my own, based on a reading of Dan Cohn-Sherbok. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What you inserted was consistent with the source, and therefore made none of the claims made by DeknMike in the second sentence he inserted. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Messianic believers and the Trinity doctrine

Not all Messianic believers accept the Trinity doctrine, such rejection being based on speeches made by 'Jesus' in the gospels. This surely deserves a mention, or is it that such believers are somehow not included as there is a desire to lump them in with the idolatrous/pantheistic Christians? Many still pray the Shema daily.

I realise this is not the place for 'Trinitarian' discussions, but feel the omission of this fact is serious enough to warrant highlighting it.

(Sorry if this appears in the wrong place in the list of discussions - I am not experienced with Wiki-talk editing so just clicked the 'new topic' link at the top of the page as there did not seem to be a relevant, pre-existing topic) 81.110.126.221 (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think your question is well-placed (as well as well-titled). Do you have a source for the contention that you make that "Not all Messianic believers accept the Trinity doctrine…"? I'm not expressing doubt but verification is obviously called for. Bus stop (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

81.110.126.221 Unfortunately the WP:sources in the article support very strongly that the main MJ groups regard belief in the Trinity as absolutely fundamental. It would need source evidence of a physical Arian MJ congregation (not just eg a blog) to change what is in the article.: In ictu oculi (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Gabriel Roth (author of the Aramaic English New Testament) has written against the Trinity on the Refiner's Fire Messianic site. Does that count as a source, or possibly a community, or does someone have to track down his congregation? (http://www.therefinersfire.org/trinity.htm) He is quite well known in the MJ community owing mainly to his work on the AENT (http://www.aent.org/) and these particular MJs identify themselves as "Netzarim". Another MJ site that rejects the Trinity is at http://www.torahofmessiah.com/index.shtml but I am uncertain as to who the author is thereof 81.110.126.221 (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

(ADDITION) I found a page for a Messianic synagogue that reject the Trinity, Beth Israel Messianic Synagogue of Odessa, Florida, near Tampa (http://www.ifmj.org/bethisraeltampa/articles.shtml). Is this perhaps closer to the type of source that In ictu oculi was indicating to be necessary? 81.110.126.221 (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

We are Messianic Christians and we do not believe that The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost are the same person. We believe they are three different men. This verse is strongly speaking against the thought that they are the same person: John 17: 20 "I make a request, not concerning these only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word; in order that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us" Iesous is here saying that we messianic/christian believers may be united as one just as The Father and The Son are united as one. So that we may be united with them. We messianic/christian believers can not be the same person no matter how alike we believe. And the same rules about The Father and The Son. They are not the same person no matter how alike they think. But we as They do might be united as one if we believe the same.

Kindest regards

/Tove http://www.messianic-christianity.org/ --Skraddarbacken (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Tove, it seems you need to start a Messianic Christianity article. Its beliefs appear to be fundamentally different enough to not be included in the Messianic Judaism page. At least yours could be a mention on the Christian denomination page. --DeknMike (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

DeknMike, I'm afraid that's not correct advice for Tove since this group Messianic Christianity's web page fails the WP:Notability requirements, and a mention on Christian denomination will be deleted, and any new article will inevitably be quickly AfDed for non-notability and lack of WP:RS.In ictu oculi (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that 'Messianic Christianity' should not redirect to 'Messianic Judaism' and also that the group Tove is talking about is not WP:NOTABLE. The solution should be to just delete 'Messianic Christianity'. I have put in 2 requests to have it deleted but I guess I didn't do it right because that hasn't worked. Zad68 (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with deletion, too. I see only one speedy request in the article history (which was declined). You can try a PROD, or if that doesn't work a full AFD. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Messianic Christianity

Dear, we are a few founders of organizations by the name Messianic Christianity. I do not know exactly why the others have chose the name Messianic Christianity but in this case it is because we believe that Iesous not only was and is the nations´ Christos (by God appointed, and also anointed saviour). He was and is also the jews´ Messiah (by God appointed, and also anointed saviour). Why we claim this is because the jews hoped and waited for a political leader that would free them from the roman empire. Iesous the Christos and Messiah did free them by making Rome the first christened state. So he freed them in a religious way. As he did for the nations as well. This is our explanation conserning our name Messianic Christianity.

We would like to have a few words mentioned in this article about us. Or perhaps a page of our own?

Kindest regards

/Tove http://www.messianic-christianity.org/ --Skraddarbacken (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Tove, a group generally needs be mentioned in 3 WP:RS (print not web) sources before it is WP:Notable for inclusion in an article. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, What exactly does this mean? If you would like to help. Kindest regards /Tove --Skraddarbacken (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Tove, it means that it would require preferably 3 printed (e.g. reputable publishers, not privately printed) sources saying "group such-and-such is a Messianic Jewish/Jewish Christian group which has over 1,000 members and denies the Trinity", or similar. Of course I would like to help you edit/format if such sources exist, but I very much doubt they exist. American MJ materials seem to be very strong on the Trinity, as indeed do Hebrew-speaking churches in Israel, so I doubt you'll find notable sources demonstrating the existence of such a group.In ictu oculi (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

couple of low priority redlinks on Hugh J. Schonfield

In an idle mood/moment I just did a clean up of Hugh J. Schonfield, who I knew as a minor and slightly oddball figure in the Dead Sea scrolls world, but appears to have been briefly a creator of Utopian republics and Hebrew Christian as well. I left a couple of redlinks for 2 HC/MJ organisations he was involved in which maybe people here are more interested in/informed about than I am. :) Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Those redlinks are to pages recently deleted. When (if) I get time I'll look into restoring them, as they also link from this page, and are key to understanding the origins of the Hebrew Christian and Messianic Judaism movement.--DeknMike (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

NRM

Borock suggested Messianic Judaism is a New religious movement and changed the link. However, the context of a NRM is that these religions are novel in origin or practice, and "leaving can be difficult for some members and may include psychological trauma." There is nothing within MJ that would qualify on either term. The editors of this article may disagree whether the movement is a modern expression of first century Christianity, a movement among Jews beginning in the 1800s, a movement that began in the 1960s, or simply a covert/deceptive expression of Evangelical Christianity; but no one to date has made a valid case that Messianic Judaism is anything but either mainstream evangelical Christianity or else Christian theology with Jewish ritual. Neither case would satisfy the NRM definition, I changed it back.--DeknMike (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

BBC article

DeknMike keeps trying to introduce material into this article based on this article from the BBC. While it does discuss Who is a Jew, I have read it carefully and cannot find anything in it about Messianic Judaism, the topic of this article. Therefore, while it might be appropriate in the Who is a Jew article, it doesn't seem to be "directly related to the topic of the article", which is a requirement of WP:NOR. DeknMike, can you quote where this source discusses Messianic Judaism? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Lewis as unreliable source

Source 5, Odd Gods: New Religions & the Cult Controversy by James R. Lewis (Prometheus Books. p. 179. ISBN 9781573928427.)is an unreliable source, having been discredited by Thomas Robbins & Benjamin David Zablocki. ([Misunderstanding cults: searching for objectivity in a controversial field]) They note that his organization, called AWARE, "can no longer claim any semblance or resemblance to research." AWARE's 1994 report on the group CUT was called a "travesty of research. It was much worse than anyone could imagine." How can I believe, then that "The origins of Messianic Judaism date to the 1960s when it began among American Jews who converted to Christianity" is indeed a reliable statement?--DeknMike (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see where that book discusses James R. Lewis (scholar) or the book Odd Gods: New Religions & the Cult Controversy, which was published in 2001. Could you quote what it says on Lewis or his book? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the book is not listed with Google Books. However, there ARE reliable sources on the web that discredit his works and reliability of his organization's research. [[12]] --DeknMike (talk) 04:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That link isn't a reliable source. Could you please cite the reliable source(s) that discredit this book? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleting reliably sourced accurate material again

DeknMike has again deleted the reliably sourced, verifiable statement that Messianic Judaism arose in the 1960s and 1970s, despite the fact that five reliable sources state this explicitly.[13][14] Just to be clear, they are the following:

Feher, Shoshanah. Passing over Easter: Constructing the Boundaries of Messianic Judaism, Rowman Altamira, 1998, ISBN 9780761989530, p. 140. "This interest in developing a Jewish ethnic identity may not be surprising when we consider the 1960s, when Messianic Judaism arose."
Ariel, Yaakov (2006). "Judaism and Christianity Unite! The Unique Culture of Messianic Judaism". In Gallagher, Eugene V.; Ashcraft, W. Michael. 'Jewish and Christian Traditions. Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 191. ISBN 978-0275987145. "In the late 1960s and 1970s, both Jews and Christians in the United States were surprised to see the rise of a vigorous movement of Jewish Christians or Christian Jews."
Ariel, Yaakov (2006). "Judaism and Christianity Unite! The Unique Culture of Messianic Judaism". In Gallagher, Eugene V.; Ashcraft, W. Michael. Jewish and Christian Traditions. Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 194. ISBN 978-0275987145. "The Rise of Messianic Judaism. In the first phase of the movement, during the early and mid-1970s, Jewish converts to Christianity established several congregations at their own initiative. Unlike the previous communities of Jewish Christians, Messianic Jewish congregations were largely independent of control from missionary societies or Christian denominations, even though they still wanted the acceptance of the larger evangelical community."
Melton, J. Gordon (2005). Encyclopedia of Protestantism. Infobase Publishing, 2005, ISBN 9780816054565, p. 373. "Messianic Judaism is a Protestant movement that emerged in the last half of the 20th century among believers who were ethnically Jewish but had adopted an Evangelical Christian faith... By the 1960s, a new effort to create a culturally Jewish Protestant Christianity emerged among individuals who began to call themselves Messianic Jews."
Lewis, James R. (2001). Odd Gods: New Religions & the Cult Controversy. Prometheus Books. p. 179. ISBN 9781573928427. "The origins of Messianic Judaism date to the 1960s when it began among American Jews who converted to Christianity."

This is not the first time DeknMike has done this, nor the first time this has been discussed. On the contrary, this article's Talk: page is filled with sections on this disruptive editing. For example,

He has apparently used his claim that the fifth source, Lewis, is not reliable, as a pretext for removing the information again, despite the fact that there is no objection to the other four sources. The last time he did this he warned that the next time there would be administrative action. Is it indeed time for that now? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What are you ranting about this time? I only questioned the insertion of Lewis. There ARE reliable sources on the web that discredit his works and reliability of his organization's research. [[15]] Using him as a reference specifically is troubling. It was not an indictment of the reliability of the other references. There is no pretext for anything else. However your response clearly indicates your vendetta against me personally, and MUST STOP!--DeknMike (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

DeknMike, your edits today twice removed the phrase "Messianic Judaism itself arose in the 1960s and 70s", and the links above show you've done this many times before. The sentence has five reliable sources supporting it - even if you ignore Lewis, it has four reliable sources. Your response to Jayjg was a personal attack that didn't address Jayjg's points. Jayjg is right, this is disruptive. Why are you doing this, and why won't you stop? Will it take administrative action? Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't edited this page for some time but I can see little has changed. Mike, with all due respect, this kind of editing is what I encountered with you in the past. Your edits suggest that you know exactly what you are doing, and you do know better. Administrative assistance is probably the right move at this point. Best,A Sniper (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I would hold off - look at the whole history of edits in the past week. It takes two. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how these things work, but I find the great majority of DeknMike's edits do not follow the principles of Wikipedia, and as a result they actively dis-improve Wikipedia. The consistent, methodical misrepresentation of sources is appalling. POV edits are attempted to be snuck in with misleading edit summaries, and any subsequent discussion about them usually ends up with IDIDNTHEARTHAT and/or violations of NPA. Administrative action has been discussed repeatedly, over a very long period of time, but nothing has happened. What is supposed to happen next to maintain the best interests of Wikipedia? Zad68 (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What you're dealing with here is a classic civil POV push. Mike has had policies explained to him ad infinitum, but no amount of advice from his fellow editors has had any positive effect on his editing; he just keeps trying to find a way around them. This is either a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:COMPETENCE. There is no third option and I don't think it's a question of competence. Mike has actually shown quite a bit of competence in that he has become more sophisticated in his efforts to thwart Wikipedia's policies through deceptive editing and misuse of sources. He hasn't really engaged in the kind of gross disruption that merits a posting at WP:ANI and, failing that, your best bet is probably to look for a topic ban at WP:RfC. That can end up being a lot of work, but it might pay off. I'm sure any editor who initiates that process will not find himself lacking support. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to support that effort but it is indeed a lot of work. I'm not sure who the best editor would be to initiate that. I'm interested to hear from Jayjg on this. Zad68 (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Many sources say MJ existed as a fringe movement until outside influences - most notably the confluence of the 1967 Yom Kippur War, the Jesus Movement in late 60s and new aggressive evangelism techniques of the group that came to be called Jews for Jesus (not their original name) - created a 'rise' in affiliation. I have not removed the other references, only the recent add of Lewis. The other references do not provide proof that the movement did not exist prior to 1960, only that it was noticed then. Rather than addressing my objections and the breadth of references and sources that conflict with your POV, you continue to villify the alternate interpretation by other scholars. I'm not pushing an agenda the way you seem to be. I agree Messianic Judaism 'arose' in public awareness, and can live with only a deletion of the first controversial sentence ("Messianic Judaism itself arose in the 1960s and 70s"), and in not adding the explanatory phrase ("Messianic Judaism itself arose in the 1960s and 70s"). That should not change your meaning.--DeknMike (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

DeknMike, you have not provided any reliable sources for your statements, and the reliable sources listed above explicitly state that Messianic Judaism began in the 1960s. Direct quotes are provided, so there's no confusion here. You have again attacked Jayjg while ignoring what reliable sources (and the editors here) are saying. I ask again: Why are you doing this, and why won't you stop? Will it take administrative action? Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting, but not unexpected, to see that in a thread where DeknMike is accused of misrepresenting sources and IDIDNTHEARTHAT, he responds with misrepresenting sources and IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Zad68 (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I 'hear' you fine, but you continue to pound the same narrow-minded POV from the same shallow sources (one offhand unsourced comment in a book's conclusion statement does not make for 'authority'), when the stack of evidence to the contrary is maligned as 'unrelated'. --DeknMike (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

While I don't have much sympathy for the MJ movement, this is not as one sided as Jayjg is presenting it. Jayjg has a history of provoking DeknMike, either by edits on the article page, comments he leaves in the edit lines, or by talk page headings such as the one above "Deleting reliably sourced material again". The last time we had one of these it turned out that about half of what DeknMike was trying to add was completely reasonable and was eventually added after being toned down, which wasn't easy with Jayjg acting as page-policeman or page-owner. In this particular edit it does seem that those five sources show that the MJ movement "emerged" (the word Melton uses) in the 1960s. DeknMike could should improve his sourcing, but he's facing quite determined opposition from someone who appears by his edits and his own perception of any reading other than his own of sources as "OR" etc, to have a personal agenda against MJs and has appointed himself protector of the page from MJ editing. As per this recent flurry. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, I see five reliable sources above that explicitly support the sentence that DeknMike keeps removing. Instead of responding to that, you've made some vague claims about alleged bad behavior on Jayjg's part, in which you defend DekMike by saying that "half" the material he added was fine "added after being toned down". Looking through the archives of this Talk: page, what you describe as "toned down" looks more to me like "removing false claims and original research". Looking through your own editing history, I see you've had previous disagreements with Jayjg, particularly at the Yeshu article, and most recently at Ger Toshav with this very aggressive response. Please do not let your previous disagreements with Jayjg cloud your judgment on the issue raised here. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler, well I made comment to the page history here, and you're bringing in talk from other pages, so you if you say we should stick to things here we should. Jayjg in my view (and who else's view would I have?) has a problem which is apparent on several related pages yes. But I'm simply saying that it's not as one-sided here as Jayjg is painting it. I would like to see a more balanced atmosphere on this page not an anti-MJ and a MJ fighting. I would also, to be even-handed, like to be sure when making comment (because I don't follow every twist and turn on this page) that Jayjg hasn't in turn removed some of MiknDek's sources as he's done in the past. As far as the Lewis source goes, I'm not sure what the point of it is? There are already 4 more academically mainstream sources which use "emerge" "arose" reflecting earlier precedents, why is a 5th needed from a book with Cults in the title which says "when it began",... seems like overkill. And just makes me wonder what other sources aren't being allowed in? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler, if you had read the comment page before reacting, you would know my objection was only to the recent addition of reference #5, after reviewing the credibility of the author (much discredited for sloppy research methods). I may personally disagree with the conclusion Jayjg has reached in his reading of references 1-4, I have chosen to leave them alone while I continue to research the topic (some couple dozen books so far). Note that Feher's unsourced off-hand comment, Ariel's "surprised to see the rise" and Melton's "emerged" are hardly ringing endorsements of a 'new start' thesis. The second Ariel quote is notable only in that it shows the independence of the movement from Christian missionary societies, which in standard missiology indicates a level of maturity not seen in new movements.(see Church Planting Indicators at Joshua Project) --DeknMike (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Dekn, it is very hard to understand why you are claiming that your problem is only with a single source if your actual edit removes the claim which is sourced by the other four sources also. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, when you say "just makes me wonder what other sources aren't being allowed in?", you appear to be admitting that you've accused Jayjg of misbehavior here without actually being aware of any. DeknMike, if your only objection was to adding reference 5, why did you delete (more than once) the sentence that was supported by four other sources, as JoshuaZ asks above? Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As James R. Lewis (scholar)#Reception indicates, Lewis' work has been lauded, criticized, and defended - about par for the course, considering the topic matter. This in no way makes him an unreliable source in general, and it definitely doesn't make this specific work unreliable. Regarding the rest, we still have no answer as to why DeknMike keeps deleting this sentence, then insisting he is only deleting the Lewis citation, and we have nothing substantive from In ictu oculi except that he obviously doesn't like me. Perhaps more relevant, these same issues have come up in relation to a different article on the Administrators' noticeboard. You can find the discussion at WP:ANI#User:DeknMike edit-warring, incivility, and refusal to accept sourcing policy in a new 'Church Planting Movement' article. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, In icto oculi doesn't like Jayjg. Big deal. We are dealing with a simple matter: is it right to delete this content from the article? With all of these reliable sources, I see no basis. I also don't think Wikipedia is the place to argue over whether Mssianic Judaism is good or bad. It is the place to write articles based on verifiable sources. Does In ictu oculi think the sentence removed is inaccurate? Well, okay, please provide reliable sources. IIO wrote that "it takes two." Well, one person has provided multiple sources to support a fairly uncontroversial claim. Where is the second person to argue that the sources are unreliable, or that this view is controversial? Please let's focus on the content and the policies rather than try to personalize it. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, FWIW I don't like you either. But as you say big deal. Does In ictu oculi think the sentence removed is inaccurate? Partly it is but what In ictu oculi said was he thinks it goes further than the other 4 refs already there and is there because of overkill. The anti-MJ editors on this article want to present MJs as a "new" religion to make MJs seem less legitimate. Wheras MikenDek wants to present development from earlier 19thC movements to make MJs seem more legitimate. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any "anti-MJ editors on this article". Please start commenting on content, not on contributors. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

In ictu, I have no opinion about you as a person since I know nothing about you. But I do not think it is constructive for any editor to continually personalize discussions of encyclopedia content. You think it is overkill - okay, this is a legitimate question of style which we can discuss. You think that to suggest a religion is new is to suggest that it is less legitimate. I have no idea on what basis you think the article says that MJ is illegitimate. It's age has nothing to do with its legitimacy. Since 1990 at least thirty new countries have come into existence. In some cases, this was the outcome, or immediately led, to a war — but in most cases it did not. And in any case, I do not think anyone disputes the legitimacy of these new countries. A friend of mine just had a baby - as new as one can get. Does this make the baby illegitimate? I simply do not follow this reasoning. Once upon a time, Judaism was new, but that did not make it illegitimate. The same goes for every other religion.

Certainly, there are many people who believe MJ is an illegitimate religion. This is an important view and the article needs to present it in a neutral way. But obviously MJs do not consider their religion illegitimate ansd this too must be presented in a neutral way. But I haven't read anything to suggest that in either case the newness is related to its legitimacy or illegitimacy. Is there any objective basis for calling any religion illegitimate or legitimate? I do not kbnow of any. Dating the emergence of a religion, like the date of the independence of new countries, or the authorship of new books, should not be controversial. And I just don't see what it has to do with whether people like or don't like the religion, or do or do not believe in it. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Back to Jayjg's original accusation. His sources do not justify the assumptions they make about a 70s start; by contrast, David A Rausch("The Messianic Jewish Congregational Movement", The Christian Century 99 (28): 926. [16]) notes that while the movement did "arise" in the American branch of the Hebrew Christian Alliance (HCAA), he also wrote that "the tension between the Messianic Jewish movement and the Hebrew Christian movement had always been present. After the inception of the HCAA in 1915, the first major controversy was over an “old” heresy -- and the “heretical” dogma that was being proposed was Messianic Judaism." The movement may have "arisen" within the HCA and the public consciousness in the 1970s, but the journals show it existed as a separate movement long before then.--DeknMike (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

DeknMike, two more reliable sources have now been added indicating that Messianism arose in the 60s and 70s.

We now have seven reliable sources that explicitly state that the movement began in the 1960s and 1970s. You do not have even a single source that explicitly states it began at any other time. Rausch says that the term was used earlier, and related or precursor ideas proposed. The Wikipedia article states this quite clearly (in an informative and NPOV way), in the History section.
Even if Rausch has stated what you claim for him (and he didn't), Rausch was a former associate professor at Ashland Theological Seminary, and this brief article was published in the magazine The Christian Century - clearly this does not rise to the level of reliability of the sources currently used to support the 1960s/70s date.

If you have any reliable sources that explicitly state Messianism began at some other time, please bring them forward and quote them. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Not to clutter the discussion any more, but I am finding now that even organizations of Messianic Judaism itself quote that the movement arose in the 1960s and 1970s. I wouldn't say these sources pass WP:RS muster, but I just wanted to point out to DeknMike, and any others following this conversation, that this isn't a "followers of MJism vs. the outsiders" split in opinion. It's really "DeknMike's personal view vs. the world." Two quotes I ran across:

From http://baruchhashemsynagogue.org/?p=286 the website of "Baruch Hashem", a MJ group in Texas: "The rise of Messianic Judaism in the late 1960′s and early 1970′s represents as much a new direction and a discontinuity with the “Hebrew Christian” movement as it represents a continuity"
From http://www.tjcii.org/userfiles/Image/messianic-jewish-movement-an-inttroduction-Eng.pdf "The Messianic Jewish Movement: An Introduction" by Daniel Juster (a Ph.D., the founding president and general secretary of the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations for nine years, the senior pastor of Beth Messiah Congregation for 22 years, and a co-founder of the Messiah Biblical Institute) and Peter Hocken, a Catholic Monsignor and Ph.D.: "Of the more immediate “trigger” factors, the one with worldwide impact was the reunification of Jerusalem through the six-day war of 1967." and "The actual rise of the Messianic Jewish movement in the USA was particularly triggered by the Jesus movement of the late 1960s..."

So DeknMike really has a very uphill battle here. Zad68 (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see your point. I say one thing and you argue I meant something else and attack that straw man. I have always agreed that the movement 'arose' -- become a noteworthy organization with the influx of the Jesus Movement -- in the 1960s. But arose from what? From the Messianic Jewish elements of the faith of course, from those Jews in the 1800s who worshiped Jesus without changing the Jewish forms - and called themselves Messianic! You may not like the sources, but they are historically verifiable.--DeknMike (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

My point stands. You say "I have always agreed that the movement 'arose' -- become a noteworthy organization with the influx of the Jesus Movement -- in the 1960s.". However your edit history shows otherwise. I reviewed your edits to the article over just the past few months, and found the following cases where you have taken the article's sentence "Messianic Judaism itself arose in the 1960s and 70s."--a sentence which is now directly supported by seven reliable sources--and attempted to modify it by either adding qualifiers to it that the reliable sources don't support, or even removing the word 'arose' altogether. Let's review:

In this edit you removed the word 'arose', and you attempted to sneak your edit in by marking it 'minor' and providing no edit summary
In this edit you removed the word 'arose' and provided no edit summary
In this edit you changed "Messianic Judaism itself arose" to "modern Messianic Judaism movement arose to public attention", improperly marked the edit 'minor', and provided no edit summary
In this edit you changed "arose" to "arose to public notice"
In this edit you attempted to sneak in a change from "arose" to "arose to public notice" under an edit to a different part of the article with the edit summary "noted Chicago-based American Messianic Fellowship", not mentioning your change

I'm sure I could find more like this if I went back further. So to summarize, it's clear that your actions don't match your words, you will misrepresent reliable sources to try to get your way, and you know you are doing the wrong thing because you attempt to hide your behavior with deceiving edit summaries. Zad68 (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow! How big is my file in your library, that you have these trivialities at ready reference? Seriously, do you really not understand plain language? It is a minor edit to say that the sun 'arose' when it breaks the horizon, but who would say it was 'created' at 6:58am? Therefore, each of these are consistent with the position I have long held (justified by sources your POV won't acknowledge) that Messianic Judaism began in the 1800s and was noticed by mainstream religious writers in the 1960s and 70s. Note also that your items 1 & 3 were a rewrite of the same thought as previous: minor. Item 2 clearly points to a longer discussion on this talk page that couldn't be properly discussed in an edit summary. Item 4 restates my point. Item 5 was restoring text after a curious insertion asking for sources in the middle of a properly-referenced paragraph, and added additional documentation to validate the previous edit. In summary, I find it curious you spend so much energy directed at me to justify the exact wording of a debatable phrase I don't disagree with, to assert connotations you attach to your interpretation of it.--DeknMike (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a real shame that you've been a registered editor at Wikipedia for over 4 years now and still don't know some pretty basic stuff about how to use Wikipedia.

I of course have no 'library', any editor can click on an article's History tab and look at the past edits and who made them. On this History page, you can use the Diff feature to see what changes were made with each edit. Just a few minutes of looking at this history pulled up the 5 edits I found. For more in-depth analysis you can use the External tools, but perhaps that's a little too advanced to discuss right now.
It is apparent you do not understand what the Minor edit check-box is for. Please read, review and start applying WP:MINOR. At the very least read this: "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions. Examples include typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, and rearrangements of text without modification of its content."
I still stand behind my statement that with edit #1 in my list, your intent was to slip in a change removing the sentence "Messianic Judaism itself arose in the 1960s and 70s."--a sentence that you know, without a doubt, has as a long-standing history between you and other editors--without notice or debate by marking your edit 'Minor', a clear misuse of the 'Minor edit' checkbox.
You did not provide any edit summary at all for edit #2 in my list above. If you want to indicate that there is a discussion on the Talk page regarding the edit, you need to at least put 'See Talk' in your edit summary.
Regarding entry #5 in my list, in general you need to read, view and apply WP:EDSUM for your edit summaries.
Please read, understand and start applying WP:RS. This has been requested of you many, many times now. Reliable sourcing is one of the most fundamental principles of adding content to Wikipedia.
If you have any sources that you think should be considered reliable sources, but are not being considered so here, and you cannot accept the consensus about them on the Talk page, bring your sources to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I will accept the consensus of the discussion there about the sources, and you will too. If you are unwilling to bring your sources to the noticeboard, then please accept the consensus about them here and stop trying to use them. In fact, I will do you a favor and start bringing your sources to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard myself if they are questionable. This way you can benefit from getting new, uninvolved editors reviewing your sources and how you are trying to use them, so that you do not feel that it just yourself "vs." me and Jayjg and others.

You would benefit from going through the Wikipedia tutorial. Thanks. Zad68 (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

What is required is independent reliable sources for the belief that the MJs started earlier, but were "not noticed" by academics until later. I have to say, on the face of it, that this assertion is very questionable. Given the huge number of sources about virtually every aspect of Christianity in that period, I have to very much question how anyone can think to make this article say that the MJs could have gone "unnoticed" for such a long period of time. If we do have independent reliable sources which make such an assertion, fine. Alternately, if the sources are not independent, but reliably present beliefs within the MJ movement, the article could be structured to read that the MJs themselves trace their history earlier.

Also, I have to say taht Zad68's comments above about the correct use of the "minor edit" button and other such conduct is seriously problematic. I too would encourage a full review of the appropriate and inappropriate usage of such functions. And I also agree taking the sources to RSN might be useful, although, given the comparative lack of independent reliably sourced material on this subject that I have seen, the editors there might conceivably be able to do little better than those already associated with the topic. John Carter (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

DeknMike, John Carter and Zad68 are correct to point out that the minor box shouldn't be ticked on anything more than changing a comma. It also shouldn't be used at the end of a series of larger edits (not that I'm saying you have). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Just be clear here, DeknMike has been edit warring over this sentence for well over a year now:

That's 22 times he's changed it from what the sources say to his own POV unsupported by any source. The edit summaries have ranged from obscure at best to non-existent or deliberately misleading at worst. When confronted, his responses are typically much the same; obscure, non-factual, or deliberately misleading (see, for example, above, where he claims only to be removing a source he dislikes, despite the fact that the diffs clearly show he removes the entire sentence). This is just one example of the long-term disruption that has gone on here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

per Melton, Lewis & Bülent Şenay "emerged"

Hi John Carter, Zad68, my natural inclination would be to be against MJ position, and fairly or positively presenting MJs in this article. However in between the two "sides" in the editing here, this insistence on having "syncretic religious movement which arose.. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]." in the first line immediately signals the history of aggressive editing. Particularly as "emerge" rather than "arose" is what is more evident in the more reliable sources among [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

[1] Feher arose."

[2] Ariel rise of a vigorous movement of Jewish Christians or Christian Jews."

[4] Melton emerged among individuals who began to call themselves Messianic Jews."

[5] Cohn-Sherbok emerged a growing segment of the Hebrew Christian community that sought a more Jewish lifestyle. Eventually, a division emerged between those who wished to identify as Jews and those who sought to pursue Hebrew Christian goals... In time, the name of the movement was changed to Messianic Judaism."

[6] Lewis began

[7] Bülent Şenay "latter group emerged in the 1960s when some Christian Jews adopted the name Messianic Jews..."

Therefore the lede line, according to the balance of 3 of 6 sources given, should say "emerged."

An unrelated problem I've just noticed is the use of the adjective "syncretic" in the lede sentence. All religions are syncretic. OT Yahwehism is syncretic, Christianity is syncretic, rabbinical Judaism is syncretic, Islam is syncretic, etc. Therefore propose deleting that adjective as gratuitous in the lede.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, back in July 2010 the word used was "emerged", before DeknMike started edit-warring over it; see here, where he changes it to "The term... came in to general public use" and here where he changes it to "gained strength". Anyway, I'm not convinced that the "average" of arose, rise, emerged (x3), and began is "emerged". Regarding "syncretic", it's true that all religions are syncretic to an extent. But this this case, the sources indicate that Messianism is a recent mix of two very specific parts of different religions; the theology of evangelical Protestantism mixed with the ritual and terminology of Judaism. As such, the syncretism is marked and notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If any other editors have similar comments I will happily discuss. The rationale for the edit I have made conforming the lede sentence (and its duplicate in article body) to 6 sources given is above. I also added in a sentence sourced from Hocken 2009 about the charismatic element in "turning Hebrew Christians into Messianic Jews." In ictu oculi (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi IIO, saying that you have a natural inclination "against MJ position" is troubling. We all really should be "for what reliable sources say." Your thought that the use or placement of 'arose' "signals the history of aggressive editing" is also troubling. There has been indeed contentious debate over this article, but I think you're reading far too much into the placement and wording. You again seem to be very focused on what you perceive to be the motives and personalities of individual editors here, like here where you call Jayjg 'page policeman' or on Talk:Ger toshav where you call Jayjg 'aggressive' and in 'personal attack mode'. Please refocus on what the reliable sources say.

Your change from "arose" to "emerged" to me sounds like a distinction without a real difference, and it looks like a change for no other reason than to want to change it. It's splitting the hair overly fine. Can you describe what the semantic difference is between saying it 'arose' vs. 'emerged'?

You write that you are interested in "fairly or positively presenting MJs in this article". Please do look at what authoritative MJs write about themselves: Read the quote I provided above from Juster and Hocken, two "insider" pro-MJ Ph.D.'s, who wrote "The actual rise of the Messianic Jewish movement in the USA was particularly triggered by the Jesus movement of the late 1960s..." These are academically-credentialed MJ insiders who also use a form of the word 'arose' ('rise' being the present-tense form of 'arose'). Zad68 (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the previous wording pending consensus here. The rationales given for the changes were not particularly strong or compelling, and were more focused on animus towards specific editors and personal opinions than sources and policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg,

Sorry, I have to ignore the "animus towards specific editors and personal opinions" as counter WP:NPA and WP:AGF.

Zad68,

I don't see why you should be troubled that any editor is aware of his own biases and able to separate them from the way he or edits. You know what the alternative is.

As far as the difference between wikt:arose and wikt:emerge if there's no difference, why not have the one used 3x than the one used 1x?

And as for other Talk pages. Yes.

John

Irrespective of the rest of the fuss on this page, I stated from 6 sources arose x1, rise x1, emerged (x3), and began x1 the most neutral term "emerged" x3 was selected. As for "syncretic" it was removed for the reason given, and for being unsourced.In ictu oculi (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

At issue for me is that Jayjg wants to define 'arose' as 'began' by citing sources that did not explore the beginnings of the movement, and vehiminently discounts those that did explore its origins (which would change the balance of the equation). Most edits cite one 'denomination' within the movement that reverted to the Messianic name in the 1070s after discounting it in the early 1900s. Also, his recent edits also point to the charismatic portion of the movement, and he makes a logical jump to infer the same for other parts of the movement, especially those parts outside the USA.--DeknMike (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi DeknMike, well you are correct about the difference between wikt:arose 1x and wikt:emerge 3x, and "arose" naturally makes MJism sound "newer", and therefore worse. Without following every blow here, I think Jayjg did not add charismatic, I did. Jayjg re-added syncretic with a source this time, to present in the first line of the lede that, in his view, above, that MJism is more syncretic than any other form of Judaism/Christianity/Islam. The reason I added charismatic was that it seemed significant in the source, and consistent with other comments relating to music and worship. It would be nice to have more on that, rather than the overweight religious conflict material. One other specific area where I'd be interested to see content, plus source, is the apparent greater attachment to Hebrew terms in the MJ movement compared to earlier "Hebrew Christians". Is this something that happened in parallel with general developments in Judaism - compare Jewish Encyclopedia 1911 with Artscroll texts? or is it something specific to the cultural identity of MJs. Are you aware of a source discussing why MJs use Hebrew terms in the English text, like David Stern's NT for example? Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

^ Cohn-Sherbok, Dan (2000). Messianic Judaism. Continuum. p. 16.

[1] Cohn-Sherbok, Dan (2000). Messianic Judaism. Continuum. p. 16.

[1]