Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Explanation of Total Dispute Tag 1.1 About the caveat tag 1.1.1 Don't confuse POV with PC 2 What the heck happened to the article? 3 Merge from Messianic Religious Practices 3.1 Alternate recommendation: remove Religious Practices Section 3.2 Limiting self-disclosure 4 Why ya revert my edits? 5 according to all mainstream sectors 6 Messianic Terminology 7 NPOV section tag 8 Move 8.1 Support 8.2 Against 9 remove paragraph 10 Can we please clean up this page? 11 Website- book deletions 12 "Torah Pole, Evangelical Pole" Question

Explanation of Total Dispute Tag

The problems outlined in sections 23 & 25 of this talk page express this article's NPOV violations. Additionally, Eliezer is further abusing his authority by editing the article to make it worse. All the other administrators just sit back and watch him make a mockery of the Wikipedia process.

Evidently Eliezer neither read my explanation nor explained himself before vandalizing my tag. Firstly, SECTION 25 gives a very clear and detailed reason for this tag BEFORE Eliezer added his Caveat section. Instead of respecting Wikipedia's mission statement or the mediator's instructions in resolving this debate, he makes unsupported sweeping generalizations that are largely false. Isn't this supposed to be an accurate and neutral article? The entire article needs to be a short scientific definition of Messianic Judaism. There is no reason why the article should be more than three paragraphs in length. This is not supposed to be Outreach Judaism's propoganda machine. Eliezer's Caveat is: 1. Completely irrelevant in an encyclopedia's article; 2. Absolutely unsupported with any facts; 3. Outright false and misleading. Isn't somebody going to do something meaningful to stop him from abusing his power? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.65.219.226 (talk • contribs) .

The Idea of Neutral Point of View, is that the writer not interject there own judgments and interpretations on to the subject matter, and that by reading an article you cannot deduce anything about the POV of the author. However some subject matter such as a religion or a philosophy has an inherent point of view. Regardless of the topic, the POV of the subject should be reflected. So an article on Hasidism should reflect the views of the Hasidim, an artlcle of Nazism should reflect the POV of the Nazis, and an article on Messianic Judaism should reflect the Messianic Jews. However even in those cases those views should be objectively reported and neither advocated nor impeached. If you disagree with an article or its subject matter offends you, learn to live with it. Wikipedia articles are not a place to express your judgments; you can do that on the discussion page. Eleazer, being neither a scholar of Messianic Jewish history, nor an adherent to its beliefs should only be making corrections to blatant factual errors and grammar. I'm sure he would have problems with a Reform Jew putting Caveats in an article about Hasidism stating that Hadisms is a deviants sect of Judaism that holds to extremist mystical beliefs that don’t reflect the majority of Jews, or if a member of Chabad added a Caveat to the article on Conservative Judaism that since it doesn't follow Halacha that it can't really be considered Judaism; Eleazer's caveat is equally inappropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.218.144.90 (talk • contribs) .

The caveat was written by RickReinckens see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messianic_Religious_Practices&oldid=26170335 and as you can read from his user page what his views are. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

(Deleted my 11:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC) comment, as misunderstanding has been resolved.) RickReinckens 00:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the history of Messianic Religious Practices the first edit to that article was by RickReinckens that edit has the caveat tag see this diff. If you want to deny that you wrote that it's fine, and I apologize for saying that you wrote it, it was however in the wikipedia history as something that you inserted. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I did a little research into the history. YOU were the one who posted the caveat - not him. Furthermore, I am willing to hop on an airplane and go anywhere he is in the world and we can confirm each other's identities face-to-face (provided I don't need a visa to get there). If he is for real, I flip the bill. If not, you flip the bill. Are you up for that challenge?85.65.219.226 08:00, 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 06:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

About the caveat tag

Apparently there is some confusion about the "caveat tag".

---

I posted the Caveat in the Messianic Religious Practices article to avoid misrepresentation. Eliezer says above he removed "the" tag but the one in MRP is still there and the History doesn't show he has ever edited MRP. The above discussion gives the impression that there was some sort of caveat tag in the Messianic Judaism article or this talk page and I am the one who added that tag. If true, that is what I was referring to. Whatever Eliezer did remove, it wasn't on the MRP page.

---

Can anyone point specifically to the tag that Eliezer allegedly did place, someone allegedly traced to him and Eliezer says he removed?

RickReinckens 01:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I had copied it from Messianic Religious Practices to Messianic Judaism, as I believed it was an apporpiate warning. However after some discussion with some other editors who believed that it was POV, I removed it from the Messianic Judaism article, I did not do anything to the one in Messianic Religious Practices See this diff where I inserted it and clearly write in my edit summary where I got it from, and this diff where I removed it --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Eliezer, thanks. As far as I am concerned, that clears it up. I had gotten the impression that you had put some other caveat to a particular section of the article that others felt was grossly misleading and then when people complained you falsely claimed I did it. I tried to find the "caveat" before posting my remark but couldn't.

I removed the material in the Admin page (no need to go into detail here). I apologize for the confusion.

RickReinckens 00:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't confuse POV with PC

I agree that the caveat is accurate and appropriate. Speaking as a Messianic I would say that it definitely is not POV.

As indicated, I did put the MRP tag and it needs to stay pretty much as is, including the italics. The MJ article should have the same caveat. Messianic Judaism is a very hot-button topic with Jews who are not secular. Even a plain notation (e.g., without italics) would give the average reader a grossly distorted impression of the relationship between Mesianic Judaism and rabbinc Judaism. Worldwide, maybe ten rabbinic Jewish leaders with more than a strictly local reputation consider MJ to be a valid form of Judaism—and that is estimating on the high side. Even if the caveat as written is not "politically correct", it does accurately state the facts with enough emphasis to avoid misunderstanding by average readers.

RickReinckens 00:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What the heck happened to the article?

This thing has been so gutted it is really just a stub! I realize there have been severe and on-going disputes, but at this point the article is pretty much useless! THREE SHORT PARAGRAPHS, TWO ON HISTORY AND ONE THAT SAYS BELIEFS VARY??? And the rest is just links? C'MON! Now the article violates the "Wikipedia is not a link list" restriction!

And now it really needs the Caveat. If I didn't know anything about this subject, I would think Messianic Judaism is just one more branch along with Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Chassidic, etc.

Is there really so much religious prejudice on all sides that no one can agree on a reasonably accurate and complete article on the basics?

RickReinckens 01:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have been racking my brains out trying to find where Rick Reinckens fits as an authority on Messianic Judaism? I say this in all sincerity because he may be an authority and I'm not able to see the connection. I don't see from any outside trustworthy sources that either he is a recognized leader within Messianic Judaism or a neutral scholar outside Messianic Judaism. His user page indicates his level of training on the subject is as a gentile with a few years' membership at a large and famous Messianic congregation and has had a three-day seminar on Messianic Judaism. While these are commendable, I'm having a hard time understanding how they constitute expertise on the subject. Besides Eliezer, my research has not turned up anyone quoting Rick Reinckens as an authority. If there is something I am missing, please let me know. 85.65.219.226 05:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

When I saw the article earlier today there were THREE paragraphs. Whether I am a recognized scholar or not has no bearing on THAT.

I am neither a recognized leader nor an outside scholar. What I am is someone with a doctorate and a broad background in religion who is actually Messianic, has studied it quite awhile rather than just being a "pew warmer" and who will spend some time on WP writing about it. As I indicated previously, however, there have been so many problems with the MJ article that I gave up on that.

Frankly, I didn't intend to spend much time on WP involved with Messianic stuff. As I'm sure you can understand, taking that into consideration I didn't want to load up my user page about MJ. See the Source section in Messianic Religious Practices. (I plan to delete that part shortly now that the article is more documented.) The section doesn't mention that I also attended a Prophecy Conference at BHS (while Hurricane Wilma was forming) and a number of full-day Christian training seminars on things like children's ministry.

At most Messianic congregations, including BHS, the sermons are similar to Baptist sermons—an hour long and at an intermediate-to-advanced level. So, if you figure six full years at about 50 sermons per year times an hour each, that comes to 300 "class" hours of college-level instruction plus the hundred hours of seminary-level yeshiva courses plus 50 hours of MJ orientation (I attended one orientation and viewed another on videotape). So, that's about 450 hours of "training" specifically in MJ. Also, because BHS is one of the MJ leaders, the "Who's Who" of MJ teach and preach there, not just the Congregational Leader. So, I get to see and hear what other congregations do, not just BHS.

Incidentally, I attended Zola Levitt's Shalom Shalom congregation for about a year too, but he's a Baptist who thinks he's Messianic, so I don't consider that MJ "training".

RickReinckens 06:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi RickReinckens: As I read your words here, I find it incredible that you have the audacity to claim that "...six full years at about 50 sermons per year times an hour each, that comes to 300 "class" hours of college-level instruction plus the hundred hours of seminary-level yeshiva courses..." You obvioulsy have never been inside a real yeshiva or else you would refrain from assuming that you have an equivalent education. To show you how ridiculus such a false analogy is, how would a reasonable person react if a regular Orthodox yeshiva student would say that after spending five to ten post-high school years of full-time study in any one of Orthodox yeshivas studying Talmud, Responsa, Rabbinical literature, Shulkhan Arukh, Rambam etc (not only these texts are studied in depth for many years) -- in addition to attending many shiurim ("lectures") by Rosh yeshivas and Mashgiach ruchanis amongst many others and then what if that person would later claim to be the equivalent of a regular "lawyer" or "Professor" ? Who would take it seriously? (besides some yeshiva students themselves perhaps trying to convince themselves?) Obviously such an argument would be dismissed as pure false contrivance and of having no standing whatsoever in the academic world (because not every Talmudist is equal to a "lawyer" in spite of having studied Jewish law for many years.) So while your zeal is interesting, kindly do not let it effect your better judgment or the self-opinions you project because, this may or may not come as a surprise to you, quite a few Wikipedia editors that you have encountered are themselves genuine scholars in their own right, but they do not go about trumpeting it and they dislike exhibitionism and displays of unbecoming self-importance. Besides, isn't "walking humbly with ones G-d" supposed to be both a virtue and a behavioral guideline? Take it easy, it's a long road we all have to travel yet. IZAK 12:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me. I keep writing here but the original poster of "What the heck happened to the article?" is right; I just noticed a TON of differences in this article. Now it's no good. I loved the article the way it was BEFORE; why'd people change it so? I understand that people all feel a certain way about MJs -- but I felt that the page originally was about 85% correct. Which I feel is alot. Now it's practically nonsensical. You will never be able to get every absolute belief in a religion on a page. Every congregation has a little something different. What the page did BEFORE was attempt to encompass that. I will sign in soon, ~Rivka~

can you please link to a particular revision that you thought was good so we can all compare it to the current one. Jon513 00:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Jon513 -- I see some revisions have been done; it's better now (I like when they list the things a Messianic could POSSIBLY believe). But there was a section before, that had like 2 other "types" of Messianics along with the "Mainstream Messianic Movement" segment. I will look for a copy of it for you and, if I find one, I will link it... ~Rivka~

Rivka, have you considered the benifits of creating an account? Jon513 13:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have done that, but have no idea what I'm doing. I have found the reivision that I liked best -- the one on Orginizations and beliefs where you guys have the Tora Pole and the Evangelical Pole -- do you know why that was removed? I don't know how to post the link. Here is the url: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messianic_Judaism&oldid=5879969 RivkaRebecca

here is a link for comparing the past one the current one [1] Jon513 17:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Jon. I have compared the two and I must say, I have a problem with the current one. Why? Because it does not seem to come from a Messianic standpoint of what it is we believe, anymore. It's from a Jewish standpoint. What I expect from an encyclopedic article is to also encompass what the people at hand believe. This does not do that; it downplays our beliefs as nonsense – which, for us, it’s not. Whatever Jews (or Christians for that matter) believe we believe should not be the standpoint of the page. For example, to call the Messiah Jesus on a Messianic site, when we do NOT accept that as his name, is quite a slight, in my opinion. To say that we are out to convert Jews to “Christianity” is the Jew’s point of view, not our own. It’s as if the current author used the “Jews for Jesus” group as their basis for Messianic beliefs when they are CERTAINLY not the norm for Messianic Believers. The majority of Messianic Believers tend to abhor Jews for Jesus and the majority of what they stand for. I feel the page now, on the whole, misrepresents who we are. Passed pages have more encompassed our beliefs and I enjoyed them thoroughly. Rivka 14:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Messianic Religious Practices

The {{merge from|Messianic Religious Practices}} template was placed here because Messianic Religious Practices is about the exact same subject as this article, and seems to have been created to avoid the valid scholarly scrutiny that this article is required to attain to be viewed as a truly NPOV article. IZAK 08:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

i agree with izak's point that the religious practices page avoids valid scrutiny in the process of trying to avoid vandalism. it is most definately a very limited and distorted view of reality. i respect the fact that rick has a phd. that requires many years of scholarly efforts. i also respect that he has been active in one of the most prominent messianic congregations in the world. given those two factors, i can't remotely understand or follow his logic. he speciously alleges, "At most Messianic congregations . . . the sermons are similar to Baptist" then contradicts his own logic, "I attended Zola Levitt's Shalom Shalom congregation for about a year too, but he's a Baptist who thinks he's Messianic." it's hard to fathom a phd would reason so illogically. rick has certainly not been to most messianic congregations to make such an absurd statement. i can honestly say my circle of influence has been to most messianic congregations. if rick thinks they're remotely baptist, he has completely missed the point. furthermore, he obviously lacks even the most basic knowledge of non-western expressions of messianic judaism.

let me apply rick's logic to my own life. i have friends who are very reputable doctors. they have explained their work with me extensively. my favoriate t.v. show is e.r. and i used to like watching doogie hauser, m.d. i have "bringing out the dead" in my vhs collection which i have watched at least half a dozen times. this doesn't include shows like csi, x-files and many others where i have studied doctors behaving in their environment - though such a topic was not the main theme of the show. i have had to run various members of my family to the doctors for many ailments. i'm sure i've logged enough hours to be an m.d. by rick's standards. it's one thing to be an editor among peers on wikipedia contributing that which you perceive. it's another thing to try convincing your fellow editors that we should just give you cart blanche to control the article. 85.65.219.226 19:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

How anyone can so totally misread something is beyond me. I never said I have a Ph.D., I said I have a doctorate.

You say your circle of influence has been to most messianic congregations. Oh, really, who are you? Etian Shishkoff? Jonathan Bernis? John C. Fischer? Mitch Glazer? Russ Resnick? Marty Waldmann? David Rudolph? Emma Rudolph? Ron Cantor? Lo Kay-Wilson? Asher Intrater? Jeffrey Seif? Dan Juster? Michael Brown? Seth Klayman? (All of whom have taught and preached at BHS except Fischer.) Why don't you stop hiding behind an anon entry?

I never said most MJ congregations are Baptist. I said the "sermons" (at least in the mainstream U.s. congregations, from what I have been told by numerous MJ leaders) tend to be like Baptist sermons in that they are about an hour long and tend to be taught at an intermediate to advanced level, (unlike Methodist or Catholic or rabbinic Jewish sermons that tend to be no more than 20 minutes and tend to teach at a much simpler level). If you want to get an idea of the "sermons" you can visit the www.messianicworshp.com site and listen to two of them by people from outside BHS. I also transcribed a third one. They are essentially 1-hour college-level lectures.

There is a huge difference between watching entertainment shows and listening to these types of "sermons". I put "sermons" in quotes because these are, as I said, 1-hour college-level lectures. They are intended as teaching and they cover the same type of material by the same speakers at the same level as their various courses.

I ddn't say Messianic congregations are Baptist, I said Levitt is a Baptist who thinks he's Messianic. He teaches, "Christ is the end of the Law," he can't read Hebrew even moderately well. The guy who leads the congregation most of the time is Todd Baker, a gentile who was raised Roman Catholic, became atheist, became a Christian and went to a Protestant seminary. Baker knows no more Hebrew than the average gentile Protestant seminary graduate and doesn't even attempt to do anything in Hebrew. His "training" in MJ is what he got from Levitt. They do virtually nothing Messianics do except hold a Passover seder. At their weekly service, some woman in the congregation sings the candle blessing and at the end of the service if Levitt is there he pulls out his little card with the Aaronic benediction and reads it because he doesn't know it from memory. They don't even recite the Shema! He is totally disdainful of any of the Messianic writers such as Asher Intrater, David Stern, Dan Juster, etc. He never quotes or references Messianic writers and they never quote or reference him. They don't recite any traditional Jewish prayers, don't do Davidic dance, don't sing Messianic or traditional Jewish religious songs, don't celebrate the Jewish feasts, (and I'll leave it at that.) For about the first 3-4 weeks I attended I didn't even realize they considered it a "service" because it looks and feels like a small Bible-study group.

RickReinckens 07:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Alternate recommendation: remove Religious Practices Section

I have added a template to merge the Religious Practices section to the separate article instead of merging the MRP article into MJ.

The MRP article deals with religious practices and it is listed in the religious behaviour and experience and religious faith, traditions and movements categories—both of which are relevant and appropriate to the article topic. It is not about theology (as much as possible), history, similar beliefs, umbrella organizations, sponsoring organizations, who approves or disapproves, etc.

This will allow contributors to add documentation, references, etc., appropriate to the specific topic without loading up the References and See also sections with material that is irrelevant to most of the article.

The MRP article can use sections on "Common non-Western Practices", discussions about differences due to congregation size, gentile/Jew ratio, etc. (Some Messianic congregations that are extremely small and almost 100% Jews conduct services in Hebrew. No congregation outside Israel with a large percentage of gentiles does because they wouldn't know Hebrew.) As that grows, it would tend to take over the MJ article and people would keep removing it as not particularly relevant to an MJ article. It would also be appropriate to point out that many MJ practices are different from apostolic times and to discuss practices in apostolic times.

RickReinckens 07:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that these don't deal with the same, I feel they should be left as separate articles. Thank you.Pat Bess

ran across this article while helpin g my kid with a school report on moses. you messianic jews shure seem to argue a lot. the other article doesn't seem to have as many people arguing and seems to deal with a lot different stuff. it probabley would be bettter to have two articles since they talk about differrent things mainly. one on each topic. maybe you could move the practises stuff to the other article or something. timothy jackson march 2 2006

Even thou they call themselves Messianic Judaism they still are Christians. Just like how terrorists can call themselves a peace group. ems 15:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I read up a bit on what Messianics teach and talked with a few Messianics and when I was visiting a church to attend a wedding I started talking to some Christians about it. Boy, did they get ticked! They didn't want to hear anything about Passover, Sukkot (I forget what they call it), Shavuot, or anything Jewish! They told me Jesus did away with all the Jewish feasts and "Christ is the end of the Law." One of the Messianics I spoke with said they believe Jesus was the one in the Garden with Adam and that he also met with Avraham and Moshe. I told that to the Christians and they said, "Christians know the Old Testament is about the Father." I told them we don't believe there is an "Old" Testament and they got mad some more and walked away.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that I think it would be better to have the religious practices described in one article and the history, etc., in another one. If it's all mixed together, that kind of obscures one or the other. Also, from what I understand, they do a lot of music and lots of applause and even have people dancing in the aisles! Like the Reform, a lot of them don't wear kippot but I don't think they have choirs. (Makes me wonder if they do Kol Nidre.) Light Orlanu Brecker 07:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Limiting self-disclosure

Err folks, can we try to place a serious lid on all this nauseating self-disclosure. Wikipedia provides free User pages where people can toot their horns. But let's keep in mind that "Wikipedia does not provide free psychotherapy sessions" ... and the talk pages of articles are not meant as subsitutes for what should take place on the couch in this interesting picture... IZAK 12:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

HI, everyone! I'm kinda a newbie, so please bear With me if i'm doing this wrong. It says somwhere people are supposed to add stuff only to the bottom? I like the idea of two articles. I looked at th eother article and it's a lot easier to fiind stuff. I don't see why it all needs to be in one article. I looked for stuff on Jesus and Messiah and their are a bunch of articles with different names that talk about similar things. Why not have one article about history and stuff and a different one about the pract ices? (I cant find the spell chcker on this. I'm sorry.)) they both look like interesting articles, though. Melanie Carson' (I don't know how to get it to show the time.)

• Hi, no need to worry, just type the four tildes ~~~~ and your user name and the time will be shown automatically when you click "Save page". IZAK 18:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well can we do it and get it done, please? I love to read this page over and over and I just cant with all the rectangular messages everywhere... Merge them. A merge sounds great. ~Rivka~

Why ya revert my edits?

well?

I did not revert your edits, but you should read what I wrote on User_talk:203.206.251.116 Jon513 18:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

according to all mainstream sectors

The sentence

It isn't considered to be a valid sector of Judaism according to all mainstream sectors of Judaism.

was inserted by em2 and removed by an anonmous editor. I put it back as it is true. Jon513 18:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it is true, it is irrelevent to what messianic judaism is. To say that it is relevent to this article. the only reson to have this line is to present a po9int of view of those outside messianic judaism. This is the same as the reason the CAveat section was removed previously. 12.218.144.90 20:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Messianic Judaism has the word Judaism in it might make some people to believe that it is a viewed as a valid sector of Judaism, and it should be made clear that it is not. Jon513 20:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

that statement is entirely POV. Who gets to Judge what is a valid sector of Judaism? If it is Torah, then ONLY Orthodox Judaism is a valid form of Judaism, and conservative and reform Judaism are as much invalid sectors of Judaism as Messianic Judaism. But since Wikipedia does not accept Divine authority, then Judaism is only defined by self identification, which makes it invalid to say that messianic judaism is not a valid form of Judaism, since there is no authorative entity to decree it as such. Lorem 00:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The disclaimer was awkward and POV. For some reason, an anonymous editor was insistent that the introduction state that Messianic Judaism was a religious movement that believes that Jesus was the Messiah. That, of course, tells the reader nothing about what makes the movement unique; in fact, Christianty and Islam also believe Jesus is the Messiah. I've replaced the previous introduction with something meaningful. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

your edit is meaningful, but inacurrate. there are many aspects of Christian theology that are rejected by segments of the messianic Movement (such as the trinity, original sin, abolition of the law), as such saying that messianic Judaism combines Christian theology with Jewish religious practice is only true of one end of the spectrum.

Most of the movement accepts critical beliefs like Trinity, and some Christian groups don't accept the beliefs you've listed above. For that matter, most Messianic groups only follow a tiny portion of Jewish practice, but we haven't qualified that. Christian theology is broad enough that the original statement is accurate. I'm returning the original statement. And please watch that you don't violate [[WP:3RR]. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see absoutly no justification for your reversion., other than to present pointo of view. what possible objection could you have to adding some aspects of except that it limits your agenda of presenting Messianic judaism as being Cristianity. Messiqnic Judaism is NOT christianity it has an Identity of its own and many segmentys within it are opposed and even offended byidentification with Christanity and Christian organizations. biut since the WP:3RR revents me from reverting I will make another edit.

"Gaming" the 3RR is considered a violation as well; please stop. The intro does not present Messianic Judaism as Christianity, but as what it actually is, a hybrid of Christian theology and Jewish practice. Saying "the Messiahship of Jesus" is POV and inaccurate, since the vast majority of Messianic Jews believe that Jesus is much more than just the Messiah. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You have violoated the 3 revert rule to have your point of view expressed. Saying "the Messiahship of Jesus" is only POV as in that it is the POV of Messianic Judaism which relevent to the definition of Messianic Judaism. Similarly saying Libertarians believe in the sovergnty of the individual is the POV of libertarians and would be relevent to Libertarianism. I have been trying to be objective and represent the beliefs of Messianic Judaism in a way that is consistant with the actual beliefs of Messianic Judaism, while you are trying to present them as what outsiders to Messianic Judaism would like to percieve them as. I know most jews believe that Messianic Judaism is an anti-semitic plot of christian missionaries to destroy Judaism, but that kind of conspiracy theory is as accurate the idea that there is a plot among Jews to take over the world, as idea enumerated in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. If you are going to edit this article please do so in a way that does not try to interpret messianic judaism through the filter of prejudice and conspiracy thinking. I am not going to edit the article today because I expect you will just revert it again, but I challenge you to justify the objectiveness and nuetrality of your edits and demonstrate them as not being motivated by an agenda to diminish the validity of Messianic Judaism as a valid jewish expression.

To begin with, it is impossible for me to have violated the 3RR when I have only reverted twice; I would have to revert 2 more times to do so. Next, I haven't presented Messianic Judaism as an "anti-semitic plot of christian missionaries to destroy Judaism", but instead have neutrally described them as the article itself describes them. The theology that Jesus is the Messiah, part of a Trinity, will return to Earth in a Second Coming, that one must accept him to be absolved of sin, that the New Testament is valid scripture, etc., is pure Christian theology. The use of various Jewish symbols (kippah, tallit), Torah reading, Hebrew prayers, bar mitzvah etc., is Jewish practice. There's nothing nefarious or even pejorative about that description. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

“I have been trying to be objective and represent the beliefs of Messianic Judaism in a way that is consistant with the actual beliefs of Messianic Judaism, while you are trying to present them as what outsiders to Messianic Judaism would like to percieve them as. I know most jews believe that Messianic Judaism is an anti-semitic plot of christian missionaries to destroy Judaism”
I have not seen this topic until now (because I’m constantly working and do not have time to be online all day) but I must say that I wholeheartedly agree with this statement, Jayjg. The article says what others believe Messianic Believers believe, and not what we actually believe. And I, for one, am greatly offended when I read it.
Next, I haven't presented Messianic Judaism as an "anti-semitic plot of christian missionaries to destroy Judaism", but instead have neutrally described them as the article itself describes them.
There should be a few things in this article – what Believers in Messianic Judaism believe, what they don’t believe, and what others believe about them. The majority of this article is what others believe about them. Are you an MJ, Jayjg? Because if you’re not I don’t feel that you are who should be writing it. I’m not saying the page needs to be quoting scripture or saying that what we believe is the absolute truth. But what I believe is that it should be just like the other religious pages (Christianity and Judaism) and truly attempt to encompass us and what we are as a people.
The theology that Jesus is the Messiah, part of a Trinity, will return to Earth in a Second Coming, that one must accept him to be absolved of sin, that the New Testament is valid scripture, etc., is pure Christian theology. The use of various Jewish symbols (kippah, tallit), Torah reading, Hebrew prayers, bar mitzvah etc., is Jewish practice. There's nothing nefarious or even pejorative about that description.
There IS nothing wrong with this statement. I agree. But that’s not ALL that is in the article. The article seems to me to be against us and our beliefs in every way, it states we have some ulterior motive of converting Jews to *gasp* Christianity, when we don’t even consider ourselves to be CHRISTIAN! A lot of us (such as myself) are AGAINST Christianity and would love to not be lumped in with them.
As I said before, it sounds as if you read all of the “Jews for Jesus” doctrine and concocted in your head that that is the basis for all MJs. FYI – I read once, somewhere on the ‘net, that the Messianic councils don’t recognize the Jews for Jesus organization as Messianic AT ALL. And, when I hear the stories of them, I don’t, either.
Personal note: No MJ I know is focused on getting Jews to accept our beliefs. No MJ I know refers to the Messiah as Jesus Christ – THAT term itself is for a lot of us almost a curse word! No MJ I know worships on Sunday or observes/ accepts the Sunday as the Sabbath. No MJ I know celebrates Christmas or Easter. The MJs I know observe the laws of Kashrut. The MJs I know believe that the Messiah’s name is Yahshua (or something similar to). The MJs I know observe the feasts (Sabbath included). The MJs I know mikveh. The MJs I know wear kippot and tallit. The MJs I know sign ketubahs, pray at the authorized times, speak Hebrew and read the parashah right along with Israel. Suffice it to say, MOST of us aren’t even born Jewish. I feel we have a LOT more in common with Orthodox Jews than we could ever have in common with Christians. In fact, I mostly talk to Christians about how wrong and non-biblical their faith is. I don’t go looking to convert Jews to anything. My focus is Christians because I see how incorrect they are.
I think a Messianic Believer should be the one to write the article and perhaps give people a better understanding of what we are as a people. Your article is one-sided.
And if two people are telling you this, perhaps you should rethink your stance.

Rivka 15:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• And may I be the third. I'm almost tempted to rewrite the entire article from a truly neutral standpoint, and if I do, I will probably use Rivka's outline above, as the foundation. inigmatus 18:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Messianic Terminology

(Raul's Razor) states: an article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. An article is not neutral if, after reading it, you can tell where the author's sympathies lie. Therefore, using Messianic Judaism terminology to describe them is POV therefore the sentence

Evangelical and Trinitarian in doctrine, but drawing heavily on Jewish sources to interpret the B'rit Chadasha (New Testament) as well as the Tanakh (Old Testament).

should be

Evangelical and Trinitarian in doctrine, but drawing heavily on Jewish sources to interpret the New Testament as well as the Tanakh (Old Testament).

Since the term "B'rit Chadasha" is only used by Messianic Jews it is POV. I will revert it back soon if no one objects. Jon513 12:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

May I propose this rewording:Evangelical and Trinitarian in doctrine, but drawing heavily on Jewish sources to interpret the New Testament, which Messianic believers call the B'rit Chadasha, as well as the Tanakh (Old Testament). David Cannon 21:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

the use of different terminology is already mentioned in Religious practices, does it have to mentioned every time the article says "New Testatment"? Jon513 13:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV section tag

• Section heading POV. "Supporters within secular Judaism" violates POV by making a value judgment that Humanistic Jews and the two named rabbis are secular.
• Libelous and POV. Calling a rabbi "secular" could be considered libel and also violates POV.
• Self-contradictory title. "Judaism" is a religion. If the term "secular Judaism", is not a simple POV value judgment, then it is self-contradictory, like saying a "religious atheist" or a "born-again virgin".
• Irrelevant and off-topic. Why is "supporters within [any] branch of Judaism" relevant? Should there be a section "Supporters within Protestantism" and another "Supporters within Shintoism" another "Supporters within Hinduism", etc.,?
• Weasel-wording violation. "Some individuals"? See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words "Some" Humanistic Jews support it. Who? Without an attribution this should be removed.
• Misleading. "Some individuals, especially Humanistic Jews support" it. Is this saying that many Humanistic Jews support it?
• Extreme minority views violate NPOV. Regarding the two named rabbis, per Wikipedia NPOV guidelines, extreme minority views should not be presented except in an article specifically on such a view. The mere act of including and e.m.v. grossly exaggerates its importance.
• Ambiguity. "They themselves are rejected by mainstream Judaism." Who, the individuals who support Messianic Judaism or all Humanistic Jews?
• Vague and confusing. "Should be considered a viable approach to Judaism". What is "a viable approach to Judaism" supposed to mean?
• Lacks references. No support is given for statements such as "Their work has failed to win any acceptance among their denominations."
• Vague and misleading. Regarding the rabbis, this says the rabbis' works have not been accepted and have "provoked criticism". It does not state the type of criticism, the basis for the criticism or what in particular is criticized. Is it the entire book(s)? Unrelated works those rabbis have done? Their conclusions about Messianic Judaism? Other conclusions? Their methodology?

Light Orlanu Brecker 06:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC) (original comment revised and expanded 22:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC))

Only thing is they [the two rabbis--Orlanu] might be few in number but they are highly visible and prominent exponents, plenty of published work to their credit etc. And on many subjects this is a very minor part of their output. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 08:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, I have added some additional problems with the section. In direct response to your comment, "they are vocal and prolific" is not relevant. We are talking about two identified people—and they are not even in the same denomination. The WP guideline does not say "extreme minority views" may be included. It says they should not be included except in a separate article. There are several reasons: (No, I don't have OCD regarding lists.) (My kids might disagree.)

• WP is a general encyclopedia.
• Including "extreme minority views" gives them undue weight and thus, as a practical matter, grossly distorts the presentation of the article or section.
• People not familiar with the subject could easily be misled into thinking that the e.m.v. is important even if it is held by only one person, e.g., "Albert Einstein, a clerk in the Swiss Patent Office, recently published a paper on what he calls "special relativity". The paper says, among other things, that space and time are not two distinct things."
• If WP starts allowing e.m.v., every whacko will start adding his pet e.m.v. as long as he can find at least one published work he can cite. Under WP reference requirements, the work doesn't even have to be a print work, a web page, or even easily accessible. Even "newsgroup reference" is allowed! [2]
• If articles get packed with e.m.v. it severely diminishes the overall usefulness of WP. Users will have to wade through loads of garbage to find anything useful.
• If articles get packed with e.m.v. it severely impairs WP's credibility as a source of reliable information.
• If articles get packed with e.m.v. it will make it extremely difficult for editors, especially administrators, to keep articles reasonably accurate. Even a valid view that is an e.m.v. can be extremely difficult or impossible to corroborate from multiple credible sources.
• If articles get packed with e.m.v. it uses bandwidth and disk space that are sorely needed.
• If e.m.v. are allowed many articles will become extremely long with little useful information.
• E.m.v. advocates frequently have no regard for NPOV requirements.
• E.m.v. advocates often tend to become abusive, violate WP civility requirements, engage in edit and reversion wars, engage in vandalism, etc.

(Cool! I think I'll put this in the NPOV page!) Light Orlanu Brecker 23:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

remove paragraph

I removed the paragraph

Messianic Judaism are Jews who believe that Y'shua (Jesus) was, and still is, who he claimed to be-the Messiah of Israel and of all nations. Messianic Jews join with those first-century Jews and Gentiles who found Jesus-in Hebrew, Y'shua-to be "the way, the truth, and the life"

This is POV, as the author is clearly a messiaic Jew (User:69.105.52.128 - see his contributions). As Raul's Razor's states - An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. An article is not neutral if, after reading it, you can tell where the author's sympathies lie.. Jon513 17:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we please clean up this page?

(Removal of personal comments which she now sees as potentially inflammatory) Sorry, Jon. Rivka 14:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hum, I don't see the "hot mess" you are referring to. If you see something specific that is wrong with the article free free to correct it. Otherwise please tell us exactly what you think is wrong with the article and how you think it can be improved. I believe you said that this article used to be better. If you can provide a link to an earlier version that you thought was superior we can compare and contrast them. Jon513 15:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Website- book deletions

I am curious why several of my website additions were deleted: First Fruits of Zion (www.ffoz.org), Torah Resource (www.torahresource.com), TNN Online (www.tnnonline.net), and D. Thomas Lancaster's book- "Restoration: Restoring the Torah of God to the Disciples of Jesus."

First Fruits of Zion and Torah Resource are considered by a large number or messianic groups to be instrumental in the development of the theology of the movement.

TNN Online approaches Messianic Judaism from a very scholary vantage point and John McKee has done tremendous work in the apologetics arena.

D. Thomas Lancaster's book (Lancaster is associated with FFOZ) has also been hailed all across the messianic movement.

Considering the other website links and books listed that it would only be fair to include these. Thanks for your consideration.

I have not looked at these website so I cannot tell you what the objections to these websites were. However if you look at Wikipedia:External links you will see all of the rules related to external links. In general the Wikipedia has a very high standards of external links. In general we look for strong reason why a link should be included and we don't ask "what's so bad about this link". If after you read about wikipedia's rules you still feel that these links deserve to be in the article feel free to add them and leave a message on here on the talk page explaining why the links deserve to be in the article. Jon513 15:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• First Fruits of Zion (and the various authors that have written articles for their magazine, and spawned multiple books on Messianic Jewish theology) is looked at as one of the most popular Messianic ministries espousing the grafted-in view of Gentiles which is adopted by many (dare I say most - at least in Colorado) messianic congregations as opposed to other theologies dealing with the inclusion of gentiles in the Messianic movement. The link should be shared on this page if only for that fact. Please re-include it. May I also recommend other sites dealing with alternative views of Gentile inclusion. inigmatus 22:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• With no objections stated for their removal, except to revert edits by an unregistered user, and until someone objects to these links, I have added them to the links list simply because they are valid sites that I have found many torah-observant Messianics use as their source information on their positions. Including these links can only serve to move this article closer to NPOV. inigmatus 18:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"Torah Pole, Evangelical Pole" Question

Can someone tell me why it was removed? I don't yet understand. It was under a section called "Beliefs" so I don't think it violated the POV rules. I am taking time to maybe edit this article and I preferred the opinions expressed therein.

Thanks, Rivka 14:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that explaining two extremes is the correct way to explain the middle. I would like to see it rewritten in a different way. Jon513 12:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)