Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Jews for Jesus 2/Archive 2

message: As the mediator is aware, I have contacted the organization in question to find out whether they believe one can be both religiously Jewish and religiously Christian.  Here is the copy of the correspondence:
:My question 
:Does Jews for Jesus believe that one can accept Jesus as Christ, and Deity yet remain an adherent to Judaism? If so, please explain how one can be a follower of both Judaism and Christianity.
:Their response
:No, one cannot follow both Judaism and Christianity. Judaism (that is, modern rabbinic Judaism) denies the deity and messiahship of Jesus.
:In Messiah's service,
:(Mrs.) Marty Walker
:Chief Correspondent
:Jews for Jesus
:60 Haight St.
:San Francisco, CA  94102-5895
:My e-mail address is jfjcorr@jewsforjesus.org
:Jews for Jesus' general e-mail address is jfj@jewsforjesus.org
:On the web: www.jewsforjesus.org
I can forward the full email to all who wish to have a copy of this.  But it is clear that JfJ does not maintain that one can be both Jewish and Christian in a religious sense, that JfJ does not consider itself a dissenter group in Judaism, and that JfJ believes that a belief in Jesus as Christ or Deity is incompatible with Judaism or as they call it--modern rabbinic Judaism. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd appreciate it is you forwarded this email onto me; anthony.cfc@gmail.com. I'll post more mediation discussion when I receive it. Regards, Anthonycfc [T • C] 17:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, JfJ was alot better at looking than Judaism than I thought, serves me right for not reading about them carefully, until recently, I thought their definition was based on religion not culture.... Homestarmy 19:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is their position on this stated publicly anywhere, I wonder?  Otherwise it seems like kind of a tricky situation.  We could then make it very clear that they don't claim to follow "modern rabbinic Judaism," but without a source, I guess I don't know how we'd do that.  One of the issues here, of course, is whether they're totally straightforward about what exactly they claim to be. Mackan79 20:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me this states the same thing as the email I received.  Also, "modern rabbinic Judaism" is, for the purpose of this discussion, is in effect "Judaism".  I don't know why the responder put that phrase in the response, as the separation of rabbinic and other groups deals with how to interpret the holy scriptures and not how to interpret Jesus.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the website makes the point.  From reading their material, I think the distinction is simply JfJ' way of protesting the failure of modern Judaism to recognize Jesus as Messiah, since the schism only happened 2000 years ago.  E.g., I think they believe Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, and so they're not willing to completely give up the idea that Christians are the ones who have truly kept the Jewish faith alive.  Not my view, but I think that's where they're coming from. Mackan79 21:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sure thought so too. (Out of curiosity, Ramsquire, did you get that email I forwarded to you? It seemed to somewhat contradict that, now I'm good and confused.) Seraphimblade 03:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are speaking about the one in early January, yes, I received it. But when I read it, I figured he was speaking of Jews as an ethnicity.  In other words he was saying "the most Jewish thing you can do is be Christian".  The problem is that the ethnicity and the religion have the same name, and in my opinion, JfJ uses that ambiguity to assist its conversion of Jews.  That's why in my question, I made it clear that we are only speaking of Judaism and Christianity. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly looks like you're quite correct on that one. Seraphimblade 21:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me. I think we should also make sure they're made aware of the information Ramsquire found, as that might be very helpful in resolution of this. Seraphimblade 05:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Important Note from Jews for Jesus

message: I have placed a request with Wikiproject Neutrality regarding this article; we now await their response. I would like to thank everybody for their contribution to this mediation - I believe we have managed to come to a resolution that would not otherwise have been achieved without a civil, organised and welcoming Mediation page such as this one. Furthermore, I would like to extend my sincerest thanks to everybody for: firstly, allowing me the pleasure of mediating this case - it has been a (stressful :) pleasure working with you all; secondly, thank you for not providing any problems: everybody acted in a civil manner, and I believe that the level of maturity we as Wikipedians showed was outstanding and is a worthy point for notability.
However, we are not out of the woods yet - the question still remains if the Neutrality Project will develop edits that are (for the most part) acceptable to all of us. Having said that, I have every confidence in the Project and believe that they will make a success of the cleanup.
With your leave,Anthonycfc [T • C] 21:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solution Implemented 

message: The neutrality project has rejected out request for assistance; more information will be provided when available. Anthonycfc [T • C] 00:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For a Wikiproject that looked pretty new, they have quick turnaround time...not that that's very good for us in this case, but meh. Homestarmy 01:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Users should simply be bold and fix it...." Ah, if only it actually worked that way eh? Homestarmy 01:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or maybe some are trying to "fix" something that's not broken. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The e-mail we got from JfJ makes things seem otherwise to me. Homestarmy 23:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Neutrality Project Rejection'''