Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 5

message: 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)
thread_title:  Don't confuse POV with PC 

message: thumb|274px| Sigmund Freud's couch used during psychoanalytic sessions can be found at the Freud Museum.
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)
thread_title: Limiting self-disclosure

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why ya revert my edits? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: "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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  according to all mainstream sectors  

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Messianic Terminology  

message: # Support Some even consider themselves to be of a different religion. ems 09:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: 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)
thread_title:  remove paragraph 

message: (Removal of personal comments which she now sees as potentially inflammatory) Sorry, Jon. Rivka 14:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Can we please clean up this page? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Website- book deletions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Torah Pole, Evangelical Pole" Question