Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive 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.

01 | 02 | 03 | Archive 04 | 05 | 06 | 07

Contents

MESSIANIC JUDAISM is not a new movement

but the resurgence of a very old movement. Messianic Judaism was the movement of the Schle'him "Apostles" and the community of Jewish and Non-Jewish believers "followers of the Messiah Yeshua ('Jesus')" in the first three centuries of Church history. Messianic Judaism is regarded by its followers as the latest stage in the development of authentic biblical Judaism. It is the religion "the form of worship" followed by Moses, David and the prophets. Brought to fulfillment through the coming of Yeshua ("Jesus") the Messiah. HISTORICAL MESSIANIC LEADERS: No, Messianic Judaism is not new, it was a continuation of true Judaism. Messianic Judaism was almost squelched out in the year 325 C.E.(common era.,or A.D.) when the Emperor of Rome who was the leader of the Church of Constanpinople. At that time Constantine and The Nicean Council issued a decree divorsing all Messianic Jews...unless they wanted to assumulate and join what then became "The church". After the bann on Messianic Jews, and Messianic Ger'eem (non-Jewish believers) to practise as they always had, it took a lot of chutspah (gall) to continue to do so. Many Messianic Jews have been killed by the Church. This article is to show you some of those who had chutspah to stand for the emeet of HASHEM (truth of G-d) when Messianic Judaism was not as widespread as it is today. Nu!..The purpose in this section is to show that Jews have not always rejected Moshiach, and have not always assumulated in order to embrace him. *a))- Rov Isaac (Yitzhak) Lichtenstein- early 1880's. A respected District Rabbi in Hungary, he picked up an old copy of the ReNewed Covenant (i.e. New Testament) and began reading it. As he later remarked, "Not the half had been told me of the greatness, power and glory of this Book, formerly a sealed book to me. All seemed so new, and yet it did me good, like the sight of an old friend who has laid aside his dusty, travel-worn garments, and appears in festive attire, like a bridegroom in wedding robes, or a bride adorned with her jewels." Not too long after that, Rabbi Lichtenstein starting teaching from the Newer Testament to his synagogue and people. Because of his reputation and position, the Synod of Rabbis in Hungary cited him to appear before them and explain himself. After prolonged discussion and much interaction with Rabbi Lichtenstein, the assembled rabbis demanded that he should resign his position and be formally baptized. he replied that he had no intention of joining any church. He had found in the Newer Testament the true completion of Judaism; so he would remain as before with his congregation, and preach it in the synagogue. And, that's what he did despite persecution and abuse. From his official place as District Rabbi he continued to teach and to preach from the Newer Testament (i.e. "Renewed Covenant" mentioned by Yerme'yahu haNovi, Jeremiah 31:31). This was a testimony to the strong attachment of his own community and the attentiveness of his synagogue. Soon, Rabbi Lichtenstein and his writings had become widely known, and many different church and missionary organizations sought his services. The Papacy, too, soon learned of his existence and significance. A special emissary from the Pope visited Tapio Szele, Hungary, with attractive offers to join the Catholic Church. To all he had the same reply: "I will remain among my own nation. I love Messiah. I believe in the New Testament but I am not drawn to join Christendom, so I will remain among my own brethren, as a watchman from within and to plead with them to behold in Yeshua (Jesus) the true glory of Israel.". *b))- Joseph Rabinowitz (1837-1899) is one of the most remarkable figures of the recent history of Jewish believers. Joseph Rabinowitz grew up a Chossidic Jew. In the Russian town of Kishinev he set up a congregation which is called "The Israelites of the New Covenant." As a Jew who believed in Yeshua, Rabinowitz insisted on his Jewish identity; that caused some problems which Messianic Jews of our day are familiar with. In 1888 Rabinowitz said, "I have two subjects with which I am absorbed: one, the Messiah Yeshua (Jesus); the other, Israel." Rabinowitz published at least one booklet in Yiddish in 1894 entitled "What is an Israelitte of the New Covenant?" in which two Rabbis dialog, one is Messianic, the other is not. All of Joseph Rabinowitz's derash'eem (sermons) were written in Hebrew, in which all, the term B'nai B'rit Chadasha (Sons of The Renewed Covenant) is found written upon them. There is a book written about Joseph Rabinowitz[[1]] called "Joseph Rabinowitz and the Messianic Movement" by:Kai Kjaer-Hansen, Birger Petterson (translator). ISBN #0-8028-0859-X (Library of Congress #) See the Messianic Seal. [[2]] This branch already has some antiquity, as findings in Israel had proven some archaeological objects that retrace the time of As the Temple, as the call messianic stamp, and are recognized for some ways, being related, for example, in "The Messianic Legacy" (Richard Leigh, Henry Lincoln and Michael Baigent), workmanship that preceded and prepared way for the commercial success of "The Of the Vinci Code".

The book ISBN 080280859X checks out and leads to a few more books. Where is the stuff about Jews prior to the Nicean Council and just exactly what does it say about this? Fred Bauder 00:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
What is the "Synod of Rabbis in Hungary" and what is a "district Rabbi"? Tomertalk 23:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Reminder to the first anon: Please remember to sign all your comments with the four tildes ~~~~ so that it can be known who made the comments and when. Thanks. IZAK 05:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of my changes of my changes - by Lorem

The previous statement Blatantly denies the existence of any Messianic prior to 1800, this is an unsupportable position based on an ignorance of history. While I do not have the documentation of prior groups, I see no reason to doubt the possibility they existed. Stating that the modern messianic movement can be traced to the 1800 is both supportable and historically verifiable.

If we are going to describe the practices of messianic Judaism as a range, we should include the full rage as it is practiced. There exists messianic Jews who attempt to fully emulate orthodox practices and who consider practical Halacha to be nearly as important as faith in the Messiah. And just as any similarity to Orthodox Judaism cannot make it synonymous with Orthodox Judaism so any similarity to evangelical Christianity cannot make it synonymous with evangelical Christianity.

The groups range from those comprised exclusively of ethnic Jews to.. The phrase "claiming to be" is inflammatory and unnecessary", that fact is no one can prove they are a Jew, and everyone’s claim to being a Jew is just that a claim. Among messianic congregations there exist some who do not allow gentile membership or participation.

The statement "Most converts to Christianity..." is an unsupported over generalization, no one has done a census. Likewise to say "Messianic Jew" is used only to refer..." is equally unsupportable; to say predominantly is a more prudent phrasing.

Jews for Jesus has never stated their purpose as "to convert Jews to Christianity”; and generally do not view themselves as “converts”.

The phrase "Messianic Judaism is not seen as a legitimate form of Judaism by any recognized Jewish organization or leaders whatsoever." is a blatant POV statement, that’s is stated as not defendable absolute and is nullified by even one voice of decent. By replacing any with the majority, it become more neutral and factual

Whether Yeshua is the actual name of Jesus is an issue of debate. However the majority of messianic Jews who use the name Yeshua do so because they believe it to be his actual name

  • Hello to the above anon: Please sign all your comments with the four tildes ~~~~ so that we can know with some degree of certainty who made them and when they were made. Thank you. IZAK 05:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Continued Problems in the Messianic Judaism Article

Fred, below is my response to Eliezer. I believe it is the only solution that will work.85.65.219.226 06:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

However I removed the caveat tag to try to come to a compromise. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not much of a compromise when none of the blatant factual inaccuracies raised in section 23, 25, 29 and 30 of this discussion have been addressed. Anybody who does even the slightest research into most "facts" in this article will find them to be embarrassingly wrong and unfair to Messianic Judaism. Whenever somebody tries even the smallest adjustments to make this article unbiased and accurate, Eliezer rejects their changes and threatens to block them. I am more than willing to retain the services of a Conservative Jewish scholar who teaches at an accredited university. His expertise includes Messianic Judaism. Allow him to write an objective article that gives a neutral point of veiw. Then we should lock his version of the article against vandalism. Can we agree to that as a true compromise? 85.65.219.226 06:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look today. Retaining the services of a scholar then locking the article is not acceptable. We simply don't work that way. Mostly I just have questions, questions that remain unanswered by the article. But I have one hypothesis, that the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire resulted in the the failure of the early Jewish Christian church due to anti-Semitism. I'm a sucker for original research, I guess. Fred Bauder 14:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC) We definatly should get more scholarly input, but i do not believe a Conservative Rabbi's single voiice is the answer. It would be interstingto see what the results would be if he colaboratted with Rabbi Stuart Dauerman of Ahavat Zion (mesianic), and Rabbi Chaim Citron of Ohr Elhanan (chabad); both of them are in Los Angeles)/ Lorem 03:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems like all the changes that Lorem who based on his edits is one of the anons and the other anon want to make is original research. They have not brought any sources to their changes. I agree that "Retaining the services of a scholar then locking the article is not acceptable. We simply don't work that way." --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Eliezer: the reason I have not brought sources for my edits, is that they were mostly toning down unsourced and unsupportable assertions in this article. The article as it was before my edits and has been reverted to unsourced information that cannot logically be argues is more viable without sources than the edits I made to maker them more inclusive. Where is the source that Jews for Jesus stated its purpose was to convert Jews to Christianity? Where is the source that states that no messianic Judaism existed prior to the 1800? Where is your source that most Jewish believer in Jesus do? Not consider themselves messianic Jews? Where is your source that EVERY non-messianic Jewish leader and organizational representative considers Messianic Judaism to not be a legitimate form of Judaism? You notice I didn't remove entirely those sentences but only changed the language to make them less disputable, for that, rationality itself is the source.

It seems apparent to me, that Eliezer has an agenda of injecting a sense of illegitimacy to "messianic Judaism" into this article. That behavior is inexcusable for an administrator of Wikipedia, especially one who claims to be a protector against vandalism. The article should neither present "messianic Judaism" as legitimate or illegitimate, but to objectively present what it is. If Eliezer continues trying to impose his personal agenda onto Wikipedia, and suppress any deviation from that agenda, then it is my opinion that he should have his administrator status revoked as it violates the principle and spirit of Wikipedia.Lorem 03:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that you are pushing a POV using unverified claims. If you have any evidence of a "messianic Jewish" movement before 1800, bring it forward. If you have any evidence that any Jewish leaders/organizational representatives consider the messianic movement to be a legitimate form of Judaism, bring them forward. Jayjg (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Let's see, can we start with the New Testament, which is 2,000 years old? They were clearly active Jews in the synagogues, Jewish communities and Sanhedrin. Is Josephus an acceptable source of first century history where he documents the existance of Messianic Judaism? What about unbroken histories of Messianic Judaism in Ethiopia, India and Assyria? Just because you are not aware of Messianic Judaism in your limited research outside of Europe and the USA does not give you authority to ignore non-western expressions and history of Messianic Judaism - that has existed for 2,000 years. What about the Spanish Inquisions that targeted Messianic Jews? Concerning sources and Jewish leaders who endorse Messianic Judaism, have you bothered reading any of the material in your bibliography? It's painfully obvious that you have not.85.65.219.226 19:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
All Christian movements claim a continuity with the events of 2000 years ago; nevertheless, we still respect reality by noting that they had a definite beginning point. As for the Spanish inquisition, that movement was significantly different than Messianic Judaism, involving Jews who were pretending to be Christian but secretly still practising Judaism. Next, if you are aware of Jewish leaders and organizations which recognize the legitimacy of Messianic Judaism, then name them. Otherwise, they don't exist. And finally, please restrict your comments to article content. Jayjg (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
And just what POV is that??? Imagine if the article on AIDS stated "AIDS originated in 1959” just because that’s the earliest case we can document, doesn't mean it didn't exist before that, and such a statement would not be allowed in that article,:Imagine if the artle on AIDS stated "AIDS originated in 1959" just because thats the earliest case we can document, doesn't mean it didn't exist before that. Likewise with the lack of sources on Messianic Judaism prior to 1800, it is more logical to state our discussion pertains to messianic Judaism within the documented period, than to assert without evidence that it originated at the point in time that we can document from. Similarly without documentation of the opinions of every Jewish leader, it is more logical to limit our statement to the majority, than to assertive without evidence, that there is absolute unanimity. After all, if hypothetically All Jewish leaders agree, the statement that the majority agree is still true, but if only one representative of any Jewish organization disagreed (whether he voiced that decent or not) the statement All agree would be false. Conversely, you edited "The groups range from those comprised exclusively of ethnic Jews, to those which are mostly gentile in membership", to “The groups range from those comprised mostly of ethnic Jews, to those which are mostly gentile in membership”. While it might seem that you were applying the same reasoning I just described, thus justifying the edit, in fact the edit does the opposite: When stating something is within a range, you must include the entire range it can fall within. If there exists groups that are mostly Jews, but none that are entirely Jews, it would still fall within the rage of "entirly Jews to mostly Gentiles. however, if there exists even one group that is exclusively Jews, then it falls outside the range of "mostly Jews to mostly Gentiles" (of course so does a group that is exclusory Gentile, but it would be reasonable to assert that a group is classified as a Messianic Jewish group based on it's Messianic Jewish component, and any Messianic Gentile component is extraneous to that classification). -Lorem 18:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
It is interesting that what you consider a "reasonable assertion" for the gentile component becomes "you must include the entire possible range" for the Jewish component. If you can find any group that is exclusively Jewish, then bring it on. Name it. Strong claims require strong evidence. Similarly, if you can find Jewish leaders who state that Messianism is legitimate, bring them on. Name them. Until then, the unsourced claims cannot stay. Jayjg (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
You obviously didn't carefully read my comments, or you do not sufficiently understand logic or set theory; the burden of proof lies on the position against my edits. Just to make it clearer I have added some clarifying phrases, so please re-read my argument as many times as it takes for you to be able to follow the logic; and if you can find a flaw in it, please refute it with correct logic. I will further explain the only part of my argument, that you address, that still needs further clarification: that is the exclusion of "entirely Gentile". If we are just talking any about Groups of Jews and Gentiles who believe in Jesus, the undisputable range of possibilities for that group to fall within is entirely Jews to entirely Gentiles. However, to my knowledge no one here is claiming that Gentiles are Messianic Jews. I am asserting, that the thing that classifies a group as Messianic Jews, is that it comprised of Jews that identify themselves as Messianic. Now if that group contains Gentiles those gentiles may be equal members of the group, their membership is not what classifies it as a group of messianic Jews. So therefore a group made up entirely of Gentiles would not be a group of Messianic Jews. Now if someone wants to Assert, that a Gentile can be a Messianic Jew, then I would have no problem with extending the range to be "entirely Jewish to entirely Gentile" -Lorem 20:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
To begin with, please observe Wikipedia's civility policy. Next, I did read your comments, and I do understand logic and set theory; however, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, not the "logic" of various editors. Please provide evidence that there are Messianic groups which are comprised entirely of Jews, and please provide evidence of any recognized Jewish leaders or organizations who say the Messianic movement is a legitimate form of Judaism. That should be simple enough to do, if true, don't you think? Oh, and finally, please stop blindly reverting; in your haste to revert you keep removing other non-controversial format grammar etc. changes. Jayjg (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as Civility, it was not my intention to demean you in any way, if it came across that way, I apologies. one of the unfortunate facts of text is that it allows does not convey "tone of voice", as a result our brains fiill in the blanks. unfortunatly that missing tone of voice contains meaning, and without it missunderstandings occur. Many of the minor i have made have been for the purpose of ettempting to lessen the degree in which hostile tone of voice would be projected onto he content of the article, and I was neglegent in not doing the same with my comments in the discussion. That being said I would like to adress assertion. Logic is needed determine which is the unsourced edit. my argument is that you who has not shown any reliable sources, and your edit is the one that need it. and that it is your edit that need the source. the polcy states that exeptional claims Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, if you follow my argument above you see that your postion is the one making the more exeptional claim. -- Of course this whole debate would go away if we changed the language of the sentence to reverse the set structure, to make the groups the superset and the range of membership the subset. I will attempt to find a gramatically correct way to do that. -Lorem 18:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Rather than doing that, why don't you simply provide sources for your claims, and propose the changes here first? Jayjg (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Because this edit is not making ANY claim, it mearly eliminates the unsourced claim that their AREN'T any groups comprised entirely of Jews. my goal is accuracy is yours? If you can provide a source for all messianic congragations containing at least one gentile, that I'll let the language stand; otherwise it MUST be fixed. If you object so highly to doing that by exending the range to include all possible groups, then I was proposing limiting doing it by limiting the statment to making a sampling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lorem (talk • contribs) .

Within the range of groups, are those comprised mostly of ethnic Jews, to those which are mostly gentile in membership; the majority are mixed.

Of course you're making claims; you're claiming that there are Messianic congregations with 100% Jewish membership, and also claiming that there are none with 100% gentile membership. You're claiming that various ancient groups (e.g. Marranos) were actually Messianic Jews. You're claiming that some Jewish leaders and organizations consider Messianism to be a legitimate form of Judaism. You've made it clear with both your edits and your comments on the Talk: page. Please back up these claims. Jayjg (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
ok a I found a way to express it that hopefullly satisfies everyone "Within the range of groups, are those comprised mostly of ethnic Jews, to those which are mostly gentile in membership; the majority are mixed." This is logically correct. and allows for all possible cases to be true, without being misinterpreted to being an unsupported clain of a verifiable exclusive group. as for your last response i will just say that there is a difference between saying all men are mortal and saying all mortals are men.
Lorem, I think you're making an assumption that is not entirely accurate. You keep saying we cannot document the existance of Messianic Judaism before 1800. In fact, several respected scholars have proven beyond any doubt Messianic Judaism has existed in non-western countries with an unbroken history for 2,000 years. The most prominent group to research and prove this is Shavai Yisrael - an ORTHODOX Jewish organization based in Jerusalem, Israel. The most famous debate of non-western Messianic Jews happened in the Israeli Supreme Court concerning the status of Ethiopian Jewery. It used to be that western Jews rejected Ethiopian Jewery because; 1. They trace Jewish lineage patrilineallly and not matrilineally and; 2. a high percentage of them are Messianic Jews. After years of intense debate, the Israeli government's position is these Ethiopian Jews are as Jewish as the rest of the Jewish world. They are therefore entitled to all the rights, privilages and responsibilities of any and all other Jews. There are now approximately 100,000 Ethiopian Jews in Israel and various levels of intigration into Israeli society. My example here is one of MANY similar situations. They can be well-documented if we make the effort to do unbaised and thorough research.85.65.219.226 06:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
To begin with, it has been pretty conclusively shown that Ethiopian Jews are the descendants of native group of Ethiopian Christians, who took on Biblical practices, and came to see themselves as Jews. Moreover, those who re-converted to Christianity (the Falash Mura), actually re-converted to Christianity; they did not practice "Messianic Judaism". And finally, the Israeli Supreme Court did not rule on whether or not their religion was a legitimate form of Judaism, but instead on whether they qualified under the Law of Return, which is an entirely separate matter. Jayjg (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I never made the claim the there isn't any evidence, only that so far niether I nore anyone else here has it. I'm not in a position to spend hours researching it without getting paid, but if you want to research it and provide the sources, please do.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lorem (talk • contribs) .

Re-factoring proposals

Please use the talk pages of articles to discuss article content, not other editor's behaviour. Your statements contravene Wikipedia's civility policy. Jayjg (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

People who really think that banning User:85.65.219.226 or desysopping User:Eliezer will equip us better to build an encyclopedia MUST use the proper procedures (Article RfC, User conduct RfC, mediation, RfAr... see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes). Using this talk page as done here is not at all warranted. I've removed the offending proposals diff, leaving only comments that are relevant to the article. AvB ÷ talk 11:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Ahh I don't think User:85.65.219.226 should be banned, I thought the "p.s." section made it very clear I was just fooling around. ems 11:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see that. Same result though :-) Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 13:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems like we need another section

BTW, the title is sarcastic. anyway, i wasn't offended by ems' perverted sense of humor. i understood he was joking and would have been willing to have a cup of coffee with me if he were in jerusalem. i think we've strayed FAR from the subject. i previously suggested having a conservative jewish scholar from an accredited university rewrite the article's basic format and support his claims. that was rejected by people whose behavior proves they have an agenda to keep an anti-messianic article in place. it seems the alternative is to delete ALL sections of the current article that: 1. make unsourced exceptional claims; 2. are not relevant to scientifically defining messianic judaism; 3. permit those of us who actually click on the sourced material and actually READ the content to clean up gross errors already supported by the books and web sites cited. is this the most fundamental good faith effort we can make? 85.65.219.226 19:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

6 months ago

I looked at this article nearly 6 months ago and I hardly recognize it. I did not realize this article is deserving of so many words. It has been expanded greatly.

who cares to write so much on messianic judaism?

  • Interested people.
    • To the above anons: Please sign all comments with the four tildes ~~~~ so that we can know who is making statements and when they were made. Thank you. IZAK 04:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

attempt to clean up this page and make it acceptable by Wikipedia standards

I have been going through the text and trying to clean it up stylistically, combine redundant sections and change phrasing that is either unclear, emotional or confrontational or persuasive in tone. My goal is not to take ownership of the article, or to attack any one elses position, but just to get to a workable starting point for future edits. What I ask is that whether you agree with what I write or not, that you not revert it, but make new edits, if you think I deleted something vital add it back, please correct the mistakes I make in content and style, but before making an edit take a moment to ask yourself if your goal is to persuade or to report, and ask yourself are if you are emotionally invested in the POV presented. If you are emotionally attached to any POV or if you have a stronger desire to persuade than to objectively report, please wait till you can approach the article from a more neutral perspective.

Most of the significant content changes have been removing text that was redundant either within this article itself or redundant to another article I have only made a couple of changes that were meant to change the meaning. Such as removing Pentecostal from the doctrine of the Mainstream messianic movement since a large segment is not in agreement with Pentecostalism. I also created a secion on history that i merged the previous introductory sentances with. Nistar 05:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Nistar, you're wasting your time

Nistar, a word of advice—you are wasting your time. This article is like Intelligent Design and a few others. Regular contributors are so biased they remove anything neutral or that they personally disagree with and a lot of what is factual. They routinely add material with no references. I contributed to this article for awhile until I saw I was wasting my time. For instance, some evangelical Christian in New Zealand—a hotbed of Messianic Judaism, to be sure—kept editing my contributions because they didn't agree with his personal interpretation of Messianic Judaism from a highly distorted perspective. Given his location and information on his user page, I strongly doubt he has ever even set foot in a Messianic congregation and he probably doesn't even know anyone Messianic.

Save yourself some grief. Look through past edits and you'll see what I'm talking about. If you do want to make edits, be aware that they won't be there a month from now.

RickReinckens 10:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Are These Guys Christians Pretending to be Jewish?

For those here who insist that belief in Jesus makes a group de facto Christians - could you please explain away this group of Orthodox Jews? http://www.netzarim.co.il/NetzHome.htm . Once you've explained this reality away to fit your misperception of the world, I will follow up with more real world facts (depending upon your response). 85.65.219.226 05:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • There have been discussions here about that group before. They are crackpots, plain and simple, like people who believe that the Earth is flat. It's like the joke in the chutzpah article: "A boy is on trial for murdering his parents, and he begs of the judge leniency because he is an orphan." Likewise, a group of nuts believe in Jesus and then they claim that they are not Christians? What craziness is that? IZAK 07:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
your orphan joke, while witty, has nothing to do with the subject at hand. since your exceptional crackpot statement is sourced and confirmed, i guess we cannot revert the edit. are you also saying rabbi shmuley boteach is a crackpot? he happens to be a crackpot with orthodox smicha and is currently the most famous and influential orthodox jew in the world. can we say he qualifies as a recognized jewish leader - whether or not he is a crackpot "plain and simple"?
look, you keep ignoring the most obvious standard by which we measure judaism and christianity. judaism is defined by the 13 principles of faith and christianity is defined by the apostles' creed. mcarthy told us if messianics look and quack like a duck - then they're ducks. we need to focus on that simple concept. compare messianic jewish theology to the 13 princples and the apostles' creed. let the reader conclude whether we're dealing with a christian or jewish movement. why is that so hard to do? 85.65.219.226 12:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Judaism is defined by so much more than just the 13 principles. While many Jews find the principles to be crucial to their own yiddishkeit, many do not identify with them as closely. The width and breadth of the Jewish experience encompases such a large amount of historical and halakhic material that it cannot be summed up by 13 (relatively simple) statements. Additionally, the Jewish world exists beyond Orthodoxy and the Orthodox establishment.yonkeltron 21:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I see . . . So you are admitting that Judaism is too pluralistic and tolerant a religion than to exclude groups that don't strictly adhere to it's most fundamental creed. Gosh, I doubt Messianic Judaism would even be so tolerant. Very generous statement on your part. An unbiased outsider would naturally conclude Messianic Judaism qualifies as a legitimate expression of Judaism by your comment. Can we quote you as a recognized Jewish leader? 85.65.219.226 05:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, the sarcasm is counter-productive and is not appropriate here. Secondly, I would be confident in my statement that the 13 principles laid out by Rambam are not Judaism's most fundamental creed. Thirdly, the belief that Jesus is a deity (in any way, shape form or other incarnation) is not a part of Judaism, fundamental or otherwise. "I am first; I have no Father. I am last; I have no brother. And beside me, there is no God; I have no son." - Shemos Rabbah, 29, 5. yonkeltron 06:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
looks like i struck a nerve, yonkeltron. i didn't mean to offend you in the process of applying consistent logic. by the way, i'm sure many reform, reconstructionist, jew-bu and humanist jews would disagree with your quote from shemos rabbah. conversely, it is the second principle of the faith. just applying consistent logic here. please don't get offended by it. 85.65.219.226 19:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello: With so many anons here making comments without using the four tildes ~~~~ it's kinda confusin' tryin' to know who's sayin' what to whom and when, ya'all. At any rate, coming back to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, do you really believe that he "is currently the most famous and influential orthodox jew in the world" ??? Yikes # :-/  !!! If you do then you obviously, yet very sadly, know NOTHING about rabbis, Jews, or Orthodox Judaism! While Shmuley is a nice guy, smart too, and all that and he is a great PR dude, he has absolutely zero standing within Orthodox Judaism as an important rabbi! Which Orthodox rabbis recognize him in any way, especially after even his own Chabad-Lubavitchers fired him from his position in England??? So get real man! Then what kind of simpleton would claim and make the comparison that "judaism is defined by the 13 principles of faith and christianity is defined by the apostles' creed...compare messianic jewish theology to the 13 princples and the apostles' creed" ??? You gotta be joking! Name one great rabbi who says this please? Ever heard of the logical fallacy of "comparing apples and oranges" ??? (Look up apples and oranges: "...used to indicate that two items or groups of items have not been validly compared. The idiom evokes the apparent differences between items which are popularly thought to be incomparable, such as apples and oranges. The idiom may also be used to indicate that a false analogy has been made between two items, such as where an 'apple' is faulted for not being a good 'orange'... (Wikipedia).) Anyhow, does Rabbi Shmuley even make such a ludicrous claim? Betcha Nyet! At any rate, I am not sure what your point is? Why are you so hung up on "jew," "jewish" and "judaism" (BY THE WAY WHY DON'T YOU CAPITALIZE THOSE WORDS: Jew, Jewish and Judaism NORMALLY??? Or do I smell a rat? I just dunno!) ??? If you like Christianity, then move on, forget about all them Jewish "sinners" and crusty old Judaism and move on to sell you great product to the big wide world out there instead of making a pest of yourself here! Gotta go bud... IZAK 14:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone plan to stop IZAK's banal conduct? 85.65.219.226 19:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
As soon as IZAK behaves, banally, it will be considered. yonkeltron 21:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Judaism is rarely defined by any 13 principles, but Rabbinic Judaism is often defined by giving credence to the Talmud (along with their rejection that a messiah has come, that Jesus was it, and that he was God or son thereof). Someone can choose to accept upon themselves a theology that includes both Jewish principles and the messianic element of Jesus, but that doesn't mean that they belong to either Judaism in the normative sense, nor that they are Jewish in any national sense. I am happy to accept that there may be other Judaisms, including "messianic" ones, but that these are not using the normative definition of Judaism as it is used today to refer to rabbinic J. jnothman talk 15:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Mikva and Baptism

Eliezer restored a both POV and unsourced statment about baptism that it is erroeously called Mikva. (Actually since Baptism is an action and a Mikva is an object it is erroneous. but the refered to Jewish custom makes the same error). to say it is unrelated is incorrect and even if it were correct would need to be sourced. in fact i can give you a contrary sources" "The primary uses of mikvah today are delineated in Jewish Law and date back to the dawn of Jewish history. They cover many elements of Jewish life. Mikvah is an integral part of conversion to Judaism." http://www.chabad.org/women/the_jewish_woman.asp?AID=1541 And jewsih sources refer to this as baptism" "According to rabbinical teachings, which dominated even during the existence of the Temple (Pes. viii. 8), Baptism, next to circumcision and sacrifice, was an absolutely necessary condition to be fulfilled by a proselyte to Judaism (Yeb. 46b, 47b; Ker. 9a; 'Ab. Zarah 57a; Shab. 135a; Yer. Kid. iii. 14, 64d). Circumcision, however, was much more important, and, like baptism, was called a "seal" (Schlatter, "Die Kirche Jerusalems," 1898, p. 70)." http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=222&letter=B&search=baptism

I also removed the statement about accpting prior Christian baptism because it was unsourced, and may not be true in all cases. -Lorem 12:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Although it has its source in mikvah, the way it is referred to nowdays is the christian form see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Baptism#mikvah --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the previous baptism see http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/baptism.htm "Messianic Judaism and those Protestant denominations that follow believers-only baptism consider any baptism performed after becoming a believer to be effective." --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
the what you quoted from talk:Baptism "The Jewish mikvah does not require a priest to be present - an individual washes him or herself, and this washing can be repeated by themselves as required, which contrasts with Christian Baptism, which is preformed by a priest on an initiate, and then only once. I cannot see why is there a claim that Baptism originated from mikvah." is not true of the Mikva of conversion to Judaism which is similar in that it also requires witnesses is perforemed only once, and is a also symbol of transformation. you are comparing baptism to the wrong mikva in Judaism. The second reference does not even make reference to Mesianic Judaism its beliefs or practices. so how is it a proof that Messianic Jews would accept a Christian Baptism (which I highly question that they would). Show a source about baptism within messianic judaism.-Lorem 18:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Read the comment following that and here is the full quote from that site which is run by a messianic who runs several messianic sites.
""I'm switching denominations. Do I need to get baptized again?"
Most mainstream Protestant denominations consider themselves essentially like "flavors" of Christianity, like dialects of a language -- American, British, and Australian English may sound a little different and seem a little different, but they are basically the same language and the differences are not fundamental. Hence, baptism in one denomination is good for life.
Messianic Judaism and those Protestant denominations that follow believers-only baptism consider any baptism performed after becoming a believer to be effective.
However, some denominations, believe you aren't really Christian unless you belong to their denomination. Therefore, they consider a previous baptism in another denomination as being ineffective and they require you to get baptized in their denomination. "
--Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
the site is not a messianic site it is a site with links to messianic sites. How do you know thats not true of messianic jews just like some denominations that require being baptisezd by thier denomination? Arguing from evangelical or protistant norms is not valid -Lorem 18:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether the referenced site is Messianic

I am the webmaster for the site. (Surprise!) The main GodOnThe.Net site is definitely not Messianic. I put it together years ago. About 90% of it was written before I had ever even met anyone Messianic. The site attempts to present mainstream Protestant/leaning toward evangelical views. It deliberately avoids denominational issues as much as possible. For instance, some denominations teach "Once saved, always saved. You can't lose your salvation." Others don't. You won't find that mentioned anywhere on the site.

The reason I say "main" site is that I host about 20 sites, some of which are mainstream Protestant and some Messianic. They have extensive cross-linking, so clicking on a link in a Messianic site actually could pull up a page from a Protestant site and vice versa. The main way to tell which site a particular page is from is that the Protestant-oriented pages use the name Jesus and the Messianic pages use Yeshua.

However, a number of sites are set up in subdirectories of the main GodOnThe.Net domain, e.g., MessianicSeder.com, DidGodLie.com. So, someone could visit, e.g., MessianicOutreach.com and see that the URL is GodOnThe.Net/mlo and assume the entire domain is Messianic.

In fact, the specific reason I started setting up separate Messianic websites is that a number of years ago I emailed a Messianic Jew and asked her to visit GodOnThe.Net and let me know whether it would appeal to Jews who believed in Jesus. She did and her response was, "No, it's too goyish." The reason I have not just totally switched over to Messianic sites is that I realize most gentiles would never be interested in anything Jewish. I'm not Jewish and at the church I attend pretty much the easiest way to start an argument is to mention anything about how Jews do something or did it in Jesus' day--even if what I am saying totally agrees with the church's theology! (I attend a Protestant church, a Messianic synagogue and a Reform temple weekly.) (At the Protestant church they also aren't too hot about gasp! quoting the Bible in Hebrew!) (But, hey, they're pentecostals. As Jesus said, "Father, forgive them. They don't know what they are doing.")

(I know . . . "NPOV, Rick!")

RickReinckens 10:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Mikva and Baptism

Regardless of the origins, changes, etc., Messianics refer to baptism as "mikvah" or "immersion". I can tell you that from personal experience because I was infant-baptized in Roman Catholicism and in 2000 I underwent a mikvah at a Messianic synagogue because there is no biblical basis for infant baptism (although the Protestant denomination I attend accepts infant baptism).

I have attended the Messianic synagogue for 5 years, completed five 20-hour yeshiva courses there (seminary level), and a 3-day new-members orientation program. The "Who's Who" of Messianic Judaism have taught and preached there. They all indicate that Messianic Judaism practices believers-only baptism and only baptism by immersion, not by sprinkling or pouring, like some Protestant denominations. In fact, when I first started attending a Messianic congregation, that was one of the questions I had.

RickReinckens 10:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Martin or Moishe?

The phrase 'Baptist minister Martin Rosen, who prefers to be called "Moishe" Rosen', was stated as such, for the purpose of trying to impeach his credibility, by infering that the use of the named "Moishe" was deceptive. The fact that his English Name atat birth was "Martin" and that he was a Baptist minister, are covered in the article "Moishe Rosen", and don't belong here. Even the toned down version 'Baptist minister Martin "Moishe" Rosen', is still disrespectfull and in violation of the cilility policy. Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan (zecher tzadik 'lbracha) also was born with an english name (I believe he told me it was Leon, but I may not be recalling correctly) but NO reference to Him refers to him as 'Leon "Aryeh" Kaplan'. Whenever Rabbi Kaplan mentioned Moishe Rosen (in my presence), he always did so in a respectful tone and simply reffered to him as "Moishe Rosen", "Moishe" or "Rosen", without adding any demeaning or even confrontational comments. We should learn from him. -Lorem 13:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah, maybe we should just call him Harav Hisreverence Hisholiness Hetarzanmejane "Moses" and pretend that he took the Jews out of Ancient Egypt, bypassed Mount Sinai and headed straight to the Sermon on the Mount...what a lovely Fairy tale that would make. Anyhow, maybe his name was Morris, or Marvin, or Manfred ??? Has anyone seen his birth certificate? Are there any people left from the time he was named at his bris? This really is not much of a discussion come to think of it if the debate is about what some Chaim Yankel who is classed as an apostate to Judaism (meshumad) should or should not be called. All very sad indeed. IZAK 14:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
To begin with, the "civility policy" applies to interactions between Wikipedia editors. As well, the fact that he was a Baptist minister is obviously important information in relation to his views of theology. Please stop removing relevant and encyclopedic information. Jayjg (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The fact that he is a baptist minister is significan't to his biography, but it is not significant to the the fact that that jews for jesus is a part of the evangelical wing of the messianic movement. If he were a methodist minister or or a layman the facts about jews for jesus would be the same. I ask you what is your motive for having it in there? is it because you think it in nessessary to understanding the facts about massianic judaism (as apposed to the facts of moishe rosen) or is it because you want to impeach his character, and that of the organization he founded? While I may disagree with Moishe Rosen's beliefs, I see no reason to accuse him of being disingenous in those beliefs. If I felt I needed to know more about him I cold click the link, where I would plainly see he is a baptist minister - 17:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
This that he is a baptist minister is vey relevant to this article in regards to his theology and views and for proper context of what Messianic Judaism is and who the people running it are. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
why? lets hear a plausable reason for it's importance

Hmm. Please don't tell me you're saying Mr. Rosen was a leader in any Messianic Jewish group of any kind. Please, please, please tell me you're not trying to convince everyone of that without solidly backing your sources. BTW, are you aware he is no longer in charge of Jews for Jesus?85.65.219.226 19:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

He was the founder of one of the earliest and most influential movements that tried to convince Jews that Christian theology was compatible with Judaism. As such, his own theological background is highly relevant. Jayjg (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Jews for Jesus is a fairly late organization dating only from the 1970's, and is composed of maybe a couple hundred people at most. And while it may be the organization that has the greatest noteriety for evangelism (mosatly due to the use if its name to extend beyond the organization itself, much the same way as all tissues are called Kleenex), it is not so influental on messsianic judaism, and is not even recognized by many as even being part of the movent at all. Including information about Moishe Rosen's backround is about as relevent to messianic Judaism, as including Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson's background in an article about the Satmar Hasidim. -Lorem 04:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Rosen was the guy who popularized the whole movement, including its use of "Jewish" terminology (e.g. "Yeshua"). Removing information about Rosen from an article on Messianic Judaism would be like removing information about Israel ben Eliezer from an article on Hasidic Judaism. Jayjg (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Israel ben Eliezer actually Founded the Hasidic Movement, Rosen only polularized the messianic movement to outsiders, it would be more removing Martin Buber from an article about Hasidic Judaism

Latest cleanup

I've removed some long, polemic original resarch by User:Lorem. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and if we're going to stick to the facts, then we'll stick to the facts. Philosphical speeches, revisionist history, and various religious apologetics are all well and good, but Wikipedia relies on sourced, verifiable information that is neutral and not original research. Jayjg (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If I had put somthing in there saying that "Messianic judaism was the attempt of gentile Christians to eliminate thier enemies the Jews by assimilation" would you remove it as unsourced?? My guess is no matter how unsourced it was you would defend it because it expressed a point of view you agree with, and revert anyones attempt to remove it. Yet you relentlesslesy remove anything that would support any viewpoint you oppose. What I put in was neither making a speach, as I am not a messianic jew; nor is it revisinoist history, I challenge you to dispute anything mentioned in that source, with any other source. What you removed was a direct quote from the source already referenced in the artcle, to say it is unsourced is absurd. Now if you want to impeach the source, please give some evidence of its unreliability. -Lorem 18:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
You've inserted a long polemic that appears to have little to do with the section at hand. If you want to quote something relevant, then please quote it directly, with page numbers etc., from an encyclopedic source. The text that was inserted was highly emotive, highly POV, and non-encyclopedic. And if that inserted text is indeed a quotation of some sort, assuming it came from some encyclopedic source (which, given the language, is highly unlikely) then it's far too long to include in the article, since a quotation of that length would not fall under "fair use" provisions, but instead would almost certainly be a copyright violation. Jayjg (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What I inserted is what the source said. what you reverted it tou is a blatent misquote of the source. if you are going to asserty that messianic judaism ORIGINATED in the 1800 you need a source that says so. the source namely "David Sedaca, The Rebirth Of Messianic Judaism," states verbatim the text you deleted and does not support the theory that Messianic Judaism ORIGINATED in the 1800's. I will agree with you that it needs improvement as far a NPOV is concerned but I don't know the protocol for rewriting the words of a source, other than the rewrite should not support a different point than the orginal. So to err on the side of caution I quoted it verbatim.

for sake of clarrity please adress the folowing points so that i can understand why you are so strongly objecting tro something that to me seems so self evident.

  1. do you accept, or what is your objection to the point, that the first followers of Jesus were jewish and created a movement that identified initially with judaism?
  2. do you accept, or what is your objection to, the point that when the movement started to include gentiles there was a division between those who believed that the gentiles needed to become jewish (follwers of James) and accept a jewish identity and those who wanted to let the Gentiles remain culturally gentile (followers of Paul)?
  3. do you accept, or what is your objection to, the point that after the Chritsianity was officially estblished as a religion, that there were still jews who believed in jesus but held on to their jewish ethnic identity?
  4. do you accept, or what is your objection to, the point that between the first and 19th century there may have been ( and that there are probably scholars who can document) the existance of groups of jews who believed in jesus butidentified themselves as jewish?

Since discovering this article and deciding to edit it I have done so with the clear motivation to make it as neutral, accurate and complete as I can, regardless of whether it supports or contradicts my own personal beliefs. At the same time it apears to me that Jayjg, Eliezer, and ISAK are trying to make this article reflect there judgemental belief that messianic judaism is a Christian plot to undermine judaism and therefor must be undermined. There also apears to have been other authors who made edits that were clearly POV evangelical or messianic propaganda (I don't consider presenting information about the stated POV of the subject, to be a POV information). The article still has lots of information that needs sources so instead of wasting time going back and forth on the same reactionary edits. lets agree to let the most reasonable objective position stand and as we clarify sources, and continue to make edits without trying to give an impression either for or againts messianic judaism. "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense for having a predilection to one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas." [Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute] -12.218.144.90 00:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I've found the source you used. Aside from the fact that the huge amount of information you copied from it was clear plagiarism (and a copyright violation), and should have at least been enclosed in quotation marks to indicate it was being quoted from somewhere, the source itself is hardly authoritative or encyclopedic, instead being itself an unsourced polemic from a dubious source. Anyone can publish anything they want on the web; please try to restrict sources to those with match Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. Jayjg (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
If the artlicle by David Sedaca, does not meet the standards, I fail to see how any of the other referneces meet the standard. As such, it appears that the best policy would be to romove all information, of questionable sources, until such rliable sources are brought forward. I will expect of you to be constistent with your standard of reliability, whether the included information is that which you agree with or that which you oppose, and I equally expect of you to aply the same standard to EVERY article that you apply to this one. The practice of being loose with that which you agree with and strict with that you disagree with, should be totally unacceptable to anyone editing wikipedia. -Lorem 04:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of Edits

If we can push forward in good faith; I would ove to have a clean and neutral article that we can remove the tag. If and when this article is clean and neutral, I will be happy to side with Eliezer, Izak, Jayig, OpenInfo and Shintle against Messianic propogandists who may try to edit the article to their side. But we must work together in good faith. 85.65.219.226 06:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh don't mind me, I just provide the comic relief around here...By the way, you do know that Moishe Oysher (NOT a messianic Jew or anything like that G-d forbid) was a wonderful Cantor... IZAK 09:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    Moishe Oysher was a commendable Jew, unlike some other "Moishe" anons around here...
    Enlarge
    Moishe Oysher was a commendable Jew, unlike some other "Moishe" anons around here...


Beseder18 would like to add in reference to Mkmcconn's opening words in the opening definition: "Messianic Judaism refers invariably to Christian groups...."

Messianic Jews, for the most part, do not identify as Christians, and the unfortunate insistence on people other than Messianic Jews to describe us as "invariably Christian" is another way that this minority voice in Judaism continues to be discounted. The truth is that Messianic Jews ought to be able to write their own description of themselves, rather than be categorized in inaccurate ways with perjorative meanings by fellow Jews who do not share their perspectives. Even within Messianic Judaism, we have disagreements about what it means to be a "Messianic Jew." However,the following statement was affirmed by the Delegates to the 26th Annual UMJC Conference on July 20, 2005. "DEFINING MESSIANIC JUDAISM Basic Statement The Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations (UMJC) envisions Messianic Judaism as a movement of Jewish congregations and groups committed to Yeshua the Messiah that embrace the covenantal responsibility of Jewish life and identity rooted in Torah, expressed in tradition, and renewed and applied in the context of the New Covenant. Messianic Jewish groups may also include those from non-Jewish backgrounds who have a confirmed call to participate fully in the life and destiny of the Jewish people. We are committed to embodying this definition in our constituent congregations and in our shared institutions. Expanded Statement Jewish life is life in a concrete, historical community. Thus, Messianic Jewish groups must be fully part of the Jewish people, sharing its history and its covenantal responsibility as a people chosen by God. At the same time, faith in Yeshua also has a crucial communal dimension. This faith unites the Messianic Jewish community and the Christian Church, which is the assembly of the faithful from the nations who are joined to Israel through the Messiah. Together the Messianic Jewish community and the Christian Church constitute the ekklesia, the one Body of Messiah, a community of Jews and Gentiles who in their ongoing distinction and mutual blessing anticipate the shalom of the world to come. For a Messianic Jewish group 1) to fulfill the covenantal responsibility incumbent upon all Jews, 2) to bear witness to Yeshua within the people of Israel, and 3) to serve as an authentic and effective representative of the Jewish people within the body of Messiah, it must place a priority on integration with the wider Jewish world, while sustaining a vital corporate relationship with the Christian Church. In the Messianic Jewish way of life, we seek to fulfill Israel’s covenantal responsibility embodied in the Torah within a New Covenant context. Messianic Jewish halakhah is rooted in Scripture (Tanakh and the New Covenant writings), which is of unique sanctity and authority. It also draws upon Jewish tradition, especially those practices and concepts that have won near-universal acceptance by devout Jews through the centuries. Furthermore, as is common within Judaism, Messianic Judaism recognizes that halakhah is and must be dynamic, involving the application of the Torah to a wide variety of changing situations and circumstances. Messianic Judaism embraces the fullness of New Covenant realities available through Yeshua, and seeks to express them in forms drawn from Jewish experience and accessible to Jewish people. UMJC Theology Committee; affirmed by delegate vote, July 20, 2005."

http://www.umjc.org/main/docs/Defining Messianic Judaism 2005.pdf

Later, Rabbi Resnik wrote an insightful commentary on the above definition. http://www.umjc.org/main/faq/definition/ResnikCommentary.pdf

Still later, Rabbi Resnik wrote the following addendum which specifically addresses what it means that Messianic Jews calls themselves Jewish and what the context is for that part of our self-definition:

http://www.umjc.org/main/faq/definition/ResnikCommentary.pdf

Since part of Wikipedia's aim to to furnish scholarly material which can be verified by non-adherents off-site, I hope that these links and wordings will be helpful.

Please allow elected leaders who are adherents of Messianic Judaism to be the ones whose definitions of themselves stand. One of the purposes of an encyclopedia is to correct the slander and misunderstandings that people may have about a group. We know the harm that slander and misunderstandings have brought about in history. Similarly, although our viewpoint is problematic to the larger Jewish community, we nevertheless would like the opportunity (while allowing for other views to state their disagreement further down in the "Critics of the Messianic Movement" part of the site) to publish our own viewpoint about who we are.

If the situation were reversed, you can surely see how you would want the same treatment.

When a larger group insists on the right to perjoratively and without real redress define a smaller group, both groups are diminished.

A compromise could be to let Messianic believers define themselves, according to real documents that Messianic Jewish leaders have thought and talked through at length, stand for the beginning definitions of who we are. After that, in the Critics of the Messianic Movement section, feel free to write your dissenting viewpoint. In the interest of fairness, I think that is the most appropriate way to procede.

Beseder18 (one who also loves listening to Moishe Oysher)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/s/Talk%7EMessianic_Judaism_Archive_4_8369.html"